What are the limits of free speech?

Just yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case against the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. At issue is the question of whether church members (most of whom are relatives of Pastor Fred Phelps) would be allowed to demonstrate at military funerals. In their protests, WBC expresses a very extreme anti gay message--so extreme as to be shocking to virtually any American.

Members carry signs with hateful messages such as "God hate fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Their thinking is that since the soldiers and marines being buried died defending the United States-which in their mind supports homosexuality because of the enactment of gay rights laws--God willed their deaths.

Wow. its hard to imagine a more twisted was of thinking. It may even top the Rev. Terry Jones in Florida who recently came within an inch of staging a mass Koran burning.

But a vital part of our constitutional foundation is the right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. Rev. Phelps, whose daughter is the attorney arguing the case, believes his conduct is constitutionally protected. But is it?

At what point does "free" speech cross the line and become a psychological attack on someone by way of proximity?

The court's ruling isn't expected until next Spring. It will be greatly anticipated.

Why is There a Debate About Debates?

One of the saddest realities of politics is hubris, a trait that often shows itself nonverbally--as opposed to its more uplifting cousin, humility--the commitment to which is all too common in a candidate’s campaign ads.

These two opposites are especially pronounced in this year's governor's race. Republican nominee Rick Snyder's advocacy of his business background and his promise to create jobs rings a bit hollow when he refuses to articulate his plan in a debate with his opponent, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernaro. Why? The smugness created by his double digit lead in the polls and his fear of making a gaffe. Does this sound like a good approach to you?

I say no way. If Snyder wants to lead this state, he has to be prepared for uncomfortable situations. He has to be skilled at addressing hostile audiences. Not to mention the right of the electorate to face the media, and each other, side by side in an honest debate.

So how about it Rick? You only have ONE chance.

It's Still the Economy, Stupid

Right at this moment, Bill Rinney has taken up occupancy on the roof of the Washnenaw County building in Ann Arbor to protest continued high unemployment, both here in Michigan and across the nation.

Extreme measures like this are only prompted by extreme circumstances. Despite the power of the hot button social issues to motivate voters along both fronts in the "culture war," economic distress never loses its ability to trump all other issues. In THIS world, without economic security, nothing else matters.

Small, incremental improvements have occured of late. The Obama administration points out that private sector employment patterns have resulted in a net increase in the numbver of jobs for the past six months--due in part to the positive effects of the stimulus bill. Recently Michigan lost its infamous distinction of having the worst unemployment rate in the country. Nevada's been kind enough to take it off our hands.

The recession began long before Barack Obama took office, but the memory of the American voter is short. Times are still desperate, and the accompanying emotions errodes people's patience.

But the question still demands a clear head--WHO can best create policies and programs to create jobs and restore confidence?

Just What is Freedom?

For all of my adult life, I've been an avid follower of politics, and the longer I do the more frustrated I get at the tendency of certain groups to hijack and distort the meanings of key words, phrases and even whole paragraphs from our nation's founding documents.

At its core, freedom should be defined by the five basic rights guaranteed by the first amendment: freedom of worship, freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press, assembly and petition to the government. All of these are deeply rooted in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which stresses the rights of the individual and the primacy of one's conscience over the old dogmatic approaches of Europe which were rooted in religion. Contrary to popular belief, our nation was NOT founded on Christian or "Judeo-Christian" principles. Most of the founding fathers were either deists of nominal Christians.

As our country evolved, we matured in our understanding of freedom. At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, voting was limited to white property owning males. This accounted for a mere three percent of the population at the time. In 1865 the thirteenth amendment ended slavery, although it would be another 100 years before the freedom to vote could be not be denied on account of race. In 1920 women were grated suffrage, creating the first crack in the glass ceiling that lead to freedoms they enjoy today.

History contains many other examples. In recent times, however, cable n"news" journalists, conservative radio hosts and many groups belonging to the religious right have taken a very peculiar view towards freedom. Clothed in vague language, they claim that they are defending "time honored American traditions" and furthering the cause of freedom by opposing gay marriage, hate crime laws protecting minorities and basically any laws that take government out of the boardroom but have no qualms about inserting it in the bedroom.

And all the while they seldom miss an opportunity to utter the word "freedom" in their speeches and on their websites.

These groups are no longer composed of just Bible Belt fundamentalists. In recent years, a disturbing and highly intolerant right wing has emerged within the American Catholic Church. Some can rightly be called hate groups.

These groups arrogantly promote the rights of THEIR constituency at the expense of minorities. Just what is freedom?

Let's Talk About Sex (the gender gap, that is)

In the short time since Michigan's gubernatorial primaries, there has not been a great amount of time to "slice and dice" the electorate with regard to detailed polling data.

I certainly hope some of this research finds its way into the media soon, since there is a particular topic of voter behavior I'm especially interested in: the often talked about gender gap.

The gender gap was first discovered by demographers around 1980. In virtually every presidential election since then (and in a great many state races, with some variance from region to region) female voters have shown a consistent tendency to lean more Democratic and liberal in their voting than their male counterparts; after taking other relevant factors (race, income, etc.) into account. Traditionally, Michigan has been no exception.

Several theories have been advanced as the to the underlying cause of the gender gap. One suggest that as the economic vitality of America's suburbs became more ensconced, female voters could afford the luxury of turning their attention to concerns that directly impacted their identities as women: abortion rights, pay equity etc., all issues associated with Democrats. For a time after 9/11, some studies appeared to show movement back to Republicans, as concerns over homeland security became for paramount. "From soccer moms to security moms," became a popular phrase. This shift, however, appears to have been only temporary.

At this point, Michigan's tattered economy and high level of anxiety regarding the future seems to have worked in the Rick Snyder and the Republicans' favor.

But, beware! Aside from it being early in the campaign season, hidden surprises can fly up from under the radar at any time and upset the apple cart. Let's not forget about the Tea Party, the gender gap, and any other potential surprises.

Why Don't Young People Vote?

According to figures from the Michigan Secretary of State, statewide turnout in the August 3 primary election was 22.9% or approximately 1.7 million of registered voters. While Terry Lynn Land commented on her website that she expects substantially greater numbers in the November general election, the primary figures sound an all too familiar chord: Michigan voter participation is terrible.

Although the SOS doesn't break down the numbers demographically, it's no secret that young people ages 18 - 25 represent the the most apathetic group of voters. This is especially ironic considering that the young people of the sixties and early seventies were the strongest proponents of the twenty sixth amendment (1972), which mandated that states' minimum voting age be no higher than eighteen.

So why the dismal turnout? Political scientist Eric Plutzer at Pennsylvania State University theorizes that our more transient society has introduced changes into our social fabric that work against regular voting.

"Most young citizens aged eighteen to thirty fall into the unregistered group." Using data from several dozen nationwide voting surveys, Plutzer has tried to figure out why some young adults mature into habitual voters, others become periodic voters, and some never develop the voting habit at all.

"Young Americans may relocate for college, their first job, or their first mature love interest," Plutzer notes. "When young people move into an apartment, they make sure they have electricity, phone and internet service, and cable. Registering to vote isn't at the top of their to-do list.

So what is the answer? perhaps a radical change in how our elections are administered; such as holding them on a Sunday, or perhaps over several days in oder to be more accomodating to today's hectic lifestyles. Another possibility is to harness new technologies (including voting via the internet, with proper security precautions) which may enable the eighteenth century idea of democracy to be executed in out twnty first century world.

The Sound of Indecision

Today I took an extended Sunday drive with my wife up to where a lot of metro Detroiters go when they want to get a taste of the country and remain with a half day's journey home--Michigan's thumb.

We drove up M-29 from Selfridge Air National Guard base through Algonac, Marine City, St.Clair and Marysville before passing through Port Huron and onto Lexington and Port Sanilac before turing around to head home.

It was a beautiful drive, and along the way I had the chance to chat with a few people about how they felt about the governor's race and their feeling about the state of the state in general.

While visiting the annual summer art fair in Lexington, I met two kinds of people: those who identified as Republicans or Democrats (whose preferences would presumably be obvious) and a much greater number who’s seemed ambivalent, indecisive or even apathetic.

This part struck me as strange. You'd think in a state suffering from perpetual recession including an eye-popping level of unemployment the locals would be burning a path to the polls.

Not so. In last Tuesday's primary, only about twenty three percent of registered Michigan voters got their butts to their local precinct. Experience suggests the turnout will be higher in the November general election, but still--just what's going on?

I'll be exploring that question in my next several posts.

Vote Early and Vote Often

These memorable words are attributed to the late Mayor Richard Daley and are often misconstrued as an encouragement to commit election fraud. While the legendary mayor's ethics in many areas were often questionable, in this instance he intent was to encourage his audience to vote in every election, not more than once on a given election day.

Properly understood, Daley's message is valid today more than ever. Tomorrow Michigan voters will be given the opportunity to express their views on several crucial issues, the candidates to represent both parties in the congressional and state legislative races this fall, numerous judgeships plus the occasional ballot proposals, many of which impact local mileages.

The Secretary of State's office estimates that only 20 % of registered voters will cast a ballot. Twenty percent! In a state immersed in such misfortune as the Great Lake State, this figure is especially appalling. In a time when virtually every Michigan household is affected in some way by our state's economic woes, exercising our voice is one of the few remaining weapons left in our collective arsenal.

So by all means, vote early AND often. Let's hold our leaders accountable.
For them, the will of the voters can be a very inconvenient truth.

Where do we go from here?

It's always tempting to say prior to any seminal event (an election, a much anticipated court ruling, or a corporate merger) that the nation, state or community is "at a crossroads." Any time significant change is forthcoming is viewed as an opportunity to mark its significance.

The term has perhaps been overused, which is unfortunate since this dilutes its meaning. This year in Michigan, however, may be a worthy exception.

Although the picture isn't as clear cut as some pundits claim, the state’s ideological pendulum appears ready to swing. In the governor's race, public interest seems much more focused on the Republican primary, with five reliably conservative candidates with roughly similar (and extreme) ideas as to how to balance the state's budget and revive Michigan's economy-while not disregarding the hot button social issues-race for their party's nomination. Consider Rick Snyder's "run Michigan like a business" mantra.

While there is competition on the Democratic side between Andy Dillon and Virg Bernaro, the debate there seems rather timid and tame by comparison.

And only recently has there been a mention in the Democratic race over abortion rights, traditionally a party litmus test.

Right now, in polling that pits either Democratic candiate against any of the Republican, the Republican wins in almost every scenario.

What does all this mean? Is Michigan ready for a turn to the right? How thoroughly do voters consider all the ramifications of their vote?

They may want to think carefully before deciding which fork to take in the road.

Dear Mr. President

During a recent visit to Washington DC with my family, I took every opportunity to visit the bookstores located in most of the city's wonderful museums. Naturally, The offerings at each was reflective of the theme of that particular museum. But being a person of eclectic tastes, I took an interest in (and purchased a book at) almost all of them.

My favorite, however, was the store at the National Archives. While there, I selected a title called "Dear Mr.President: From the Files of the National Archives." The Archives, which occupies a prime location between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, is best know as the place where the Charters of Freedom are on public display: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In addition to these treasures, a recently opened exhibit call The Public Vaults exhibits and offers commentary on numerous other documents: the Instruments of Surrender signed by Japan at the close of world War II, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc. The larger portion of the building reserved for researchers contains literally millions of pages of manuscripts, memos, multimedia documents, etc. documenting the working of the federal government throughout the nation's history.

Letters featured in the book are written by citizens and non citizens, both famous and obscure and speak volumes about the writer, the era of its authorship, as well as the chief executive to whom it was sent.

Of the millions of letters addressed to the President, some 85 were selected for the book, spanning from 1861 until Clinton administration. To add realism, each letter is presented as an actual reproduction of the original-showing its letterhead, typeface and, in some cases, penmanship.

Examples include a correspondence from Annie Oakley to William McKinley in 1898 offering the service of "fifty lady sharpshooters" to help in the Spanish American War. Another is from Rabbi Steven Wise of the American Jewish Congress to Franklin Roosevelt in December of 1942 expressing deep concerns over stories that had begun to circulate reporting the mass extermination of Jews in Europe under Hitler. The word "holocaust" had not yet been appropriated to the event.

On a lighter note, a letter to Lyndon Johnson dated October 31, 1968 from Tom and Dick Smothers offers their apologies for their occasionally over the top anti war parodies. My personal favorite is from Queen Elizabeth II to Dwight Eisenhower and dated January 24, 1960. It gives her personal recipe for scones she had promised to send to him during his recent visit to Balmoral.

"Dear Mr. President" along with a host of other interesting titles can be ordered online from the National Archives at the National Archives website, www.archives.gov

As Oakland Goes, So Goes the State?

In recent decades, much has been made of Macomb County being a "bellwether" of state and national political trends. But in my observation this title seems to be misplaced. Macomb County seems to be a former Democratic area that merely switched to the GOP.

Oakland County is far more deserving of the title. Once thought as a bastion of Republicanism, the face of the electorate in Michigan's second largest county has most definitely changed in recent decades. Since the early nineties, Oakland County has evolved into having a more diverse, bipartisan electorate. More significantly, the county has voted with the winner in three of the last four presidential elections (recognizing Al Gore in 2000, the winner of the popular vote). In the Gubernatorial races, Oakland voted for Jennifer Granholm in both 2002 and 2006.

If this trend continues its level of accuracy, 2010 may not be too kind to the Democrats. According to the latest data from Rasmussen, a hypothetical November match up between Democrat Andy Dillon and Republican Mike Cox shows Cox at two points ahead in Oakland County; a very slender lead, but in keeping with the overall trend of recent weeks. When Dillon is stacked against Rep. Peter Hokestra, the Republicans wins, by five points. Clearly the Democrats have a great deal of catching up to do, in both Oakland and the state at large.

As an interesting aside, a general election contest between Dillon and Cox would be an unusual type of high school reunion for the two gentlemen. Both are members of the Detroit Catholic Central class of 1980.

Sen. McGovern Speaks in Bloomfield Hills

On Tuesday, June 8 Temple Beth El in Bloomfield Hills played host to a very distinguished guest when former US Senator George McGovern (D-SD) spoke to an audience of over one thousand admirers.  His talk, although billed as “an evening with Sen. George McGovern and Abraham Lincoln,” covered several topics, only one of which was the nation’s sixteenth president.

In 2009, McGovern released his most recent book, “Abraham Lincoln.”  The book is part of a series of short 150 page tomes on each president in our nation’s history, edited by famed historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.  In the book, McGovern challenges a popular stereotype of Lincoln, the idea that his inspiring, eloquent speeches and his shrewd political skills came easily to him.  In fact, Lincoln successes came despite two enormous personal difficulties: his lack of a formal education and his frequent bouts with depression, then commonly referred to as “melancholy.”    With the help of his step mother while growing up, Lincoln learned the mechanics of reading and went on to develop a love for it as well as a passion for writing, much to the disapproval of his father.  

The challenges presented by his periods of depression were especially taxing.  At one point, Lincoln is said to have told a friend that he did not dare carry a knife; for fear that he may use it to commit suicide.

McGovern related this story to his own life.  In 1994 his daughter Terry, who had long suffered from a combination of depression and alcoholism, fell into a snow bank on the campus of the University of Wisconsin and eventually succumbed to hypothermia.  Soon after, McGovern wrote her biography and used the royalties to establish the Terry McGovern Center, a treatment facility for those suffering from alcoholism and mental health issues.  In the years since, he has contributed all earnings from subsequent books to the Center.

McGovern also spoke of his lifelong crusade to reduce world hunger.  In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed him director of the newly created Food For Peace initiative, a program based on the belief that combating hunger in developing countries would reduce conflict for scarce resources and promote American interests abroad.  Historians today view it as one of the most noteworthy achievements of the Kennedy administration.

McGovern also spoke briefly about his career in elective politics, particularly his unsuccessful White House bid in 1972.  He conceded that mistakes were made, especially with regard to his selection of a running mate.  The ensuing controversy proved to be a fatal distraction for the campaign.

After speaking, McGovern took questions submitted in advance by members of the audience. When asked what politician today most resembles Lincoln, he responded, “Barak Obama, in terms of his deep intellectual abilities and his sharp political skills.”

The last question, presented by Beth El’s senior rabbi, Daniel Syme asked McGovern how he would like to be remembered one hundred years from now.  His simple, yet eloquent answer: “as someone who always said what he believed to be right and true.”

After his presentation, McGovern stayed to sign copies of his latest book.

Return from Vacation

Just this past weekend I returned from a week long vacation with my wife and son in Washington DC.  As a tourist, I found the experience enjoyable but maddening--Washington's Byzantine street system, its inadequate road signage and its scarce parking were responsible for more than a little frustration.

As a citizen, however, I felt conflicted on a different level.  Majestic government government buildings, reminiscent of ancient Greece and Rome, symbolize American greatness and power.  One would expect no less in a city that represents the hopes and aspirations of 300 million people that's the world's only remaining superpower.  But the country represented by these structures is a democracy, a fact that often seems lost on the innumerable police and security guards.

In our post 9/11 world, security concerns must, of course, be paramount.  But all the while I occasionally sensed a sense of smugness amongst the security personnel. For example, while being taken on a tour of the Capitol by a staff member for the office of Rep. Sander Levin, (who was most gracious) our guide was curtly informed by a Capitol Police officer that "only members and staff" were allowed to walk onto the balcony of the building's west front, the area where recent presidential inaugurations have taken place.

In fact, I heard and read the word "member" so many times while on Capitol Hill I had a hard time remembering if I was in the heart of our nation's democracy or within the confines of a private club.

If any of you have been to Washington in recent years, I'd like to hear your perspectives.  With some pressure, maybe "Of the People, by the People and for the People" will be taken a bit more seriously. 

Thoughts on the Fall Elections

Watching both the local and national news, it's easy to get the impression that the Democrats are going to take a real beating in the upcoming midterm election.  Helped in no small part to the occasionally shrill Tea Party movement, the perceived level of dissatisfaction would seem to predict another 1994, when the Republicans retook control of the House.

Predictions of the pollsters, however, aren't so clear.  According to Gallup, midterm election results are driven by two factors: the approval rating of the sitting president and, although to a slightly lesser degree, the overall approval rating of Congress.  In recent midterms, a president trending at a 50% or better experiences relatively small losses.  For example, in 1990 George H.W. Bush enjoyed an approval of 58 % and lost only eight House seat.  By contrast, a rating below the 50% threshold usually spells trouble.  In 2006, an increasingly unpopular George W. Bush, with a rate of only 38% experienced a 30 seat loss.

President Obama's current approval stands right that 50% mark. Accurately predicting the events of the next five months is, of course, impossible but an economy showing steady, if painfully slow, improvement and relatively quiet international stage may enable the Democrats to emerge with most of their gains from 2008 intact.

An Almost Breakthrough for Gay Americans

Just last night I was reading an online article (published last year) on the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.  Up until then, merely being gay was considered a crime.  Police would routinely harass those thought to be homosexual and frequently raid suspected gay clubs on fabricated grounds, often using drug laws as a front.

The famous riot occurred, initiating a gradual cultural shift in the way gay people are viewed.  Fed up with being constantly demonized, they demanded equal (not "special" as conservatives often like to claim) rights in housing, education and employment enjoyed by heterosexual Americans.  The subsequent decades saw slow but steady progress in all these areas.  Combined with growing scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined, gay citizens have achieved equality in nearly all sectors of American life       

However, I say nearly all.  Over this past weekend word leaked out from the White House that President Obama plans to nominate Solicitor General Elana Kagan to fill the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by retiring justice John Paul Stevens. Speculation soon began to circulate about Kagan's sexuality.  Several sources indicate that Kagan is gay and is in a committed relationship with her partner. Kagan herself has been silent on the matter,  nor is her orientation being acknowledged by the White House.

Which goes to the problem.  If Ms. Kagan is happy and fulfilled in her personal life, why is she still forced to hide this fact?  Why are there whispers and speculation?  If Kagan "came out of the closet"
and became the first openly gay Supreme Court appointee would this hurt her chances of confirmation?

Glass ceilings give way only after enduring numerous cracks.  Are we finally on the verge of a long overdue cave in?

Fieger's Decision Not to Run Helps Democrats' Chances

In a recent appearance on "Flashpoint," an interview show on WDIV-Channel 4, outspoken Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger announced his decision not to run for governor. During the interview, Fieger said he was interested in running, "but because I'm outspoken, it would be very easy for professional politicians to make me the issue."

Talk about an understatement.  Most Michiganders can vividly recall Fieger's ill fated run for the job in 1998, when he was the Democratic nominee against a well positioned John Engler. Engler took 62% of the vote in that election, a real landslide. By then Fieger had burnished not one, but actually two reputations--that of an effective civil and criminal defense attorney, AND that of a verbal flame thrower.  During the campaign, he claimed his opponent John  Engler was a "product of barnyard miscegenation" and during a radio interview refereed to a group of judges with the Michigan Court of Appeals as a "group of jackasses" by overturning a 15 million dollar judgement he had won in a medical malpractice case.

With that type of baggage, and the propensity to blurt out more off the cuff zingers, can Fieger really be considered a viable candidate for the state's highest office?  Ideology aside, voters might admire flamboyance in celebrity attorneys or movie stars, but always seem to expect a certain reserve amongst officeholders--which is perhaps a holdover from an era when politics was a much more civil activity than today.

Although the Democrats might be in for real rough sledding this year, their shot at victory is certainly better by nominating someone other than the famed attorney from Southfield.

50th Anniversary of the Pill

The latest issue of Time has a very interesting cover story by Executive Editor Nancy Gibbs on the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill.  The piece gives a concise, but still comprehensive historical overview of the development of the Pill and the early controversy surrounding it, most notably its initial condemnation by most major religious denominations.

Even today, these critics like to point to what they perceive as negative social trends that occurred during the 1960s and suggest cause and effect.  Increased sexual promiscuity, a sudden spike in divorce rates and assorted other social ills are all attributed to the the availability of oral contraceptives, merely because they appeared at roughly the same time.

Recent research, however, suggests a strong correlation between women's access to family planning and their attainment of higher levels of education.  Gibbs cites Harvard economist Claudia Goldin who offers an example:

"From 1970 to 1980, Goldin notes, women went from comprising 10% of first year law students to 36% and from 4% of business school students to 28%.  'I've taken a lot of grief by people who insist the Pill had nothing to do with this, it's all the women's movement,' she says. But her research showed the connection between the point at which different states allowed access to the Pill and the progress women made in those states."

Most women who use the Pill, however, are not concerned with its politics.  They simply view it as a tool to control their own fertility, one of the most intimate and private choices anyone can make.  In 1965, the Supreme Court, in Griswold vs. Connecticut struck down a law in that state prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples.  In doing so they ruled that the Constitution does indeed contain an inherent right to privacy, something all of us so rightly cherish today.   

Where do our freedoms begin and end?

Michigan's ban on smoking in most public places takes effect on Saturday.  While the non smoking segment of the population (which is now the majority) will welcome the change, a number of smokers object to the new law on philosophical grounds--they see it as part of a continuing erosion of their individual rights.

A bar owner in Hamtramck is hosting a party dubbed the "Last Great American Smokedown" on the eve of the change "as a memorial to Americans' rapidly declining freedom to choose how to live their lives."

But does this move really represent yet another increment in the ever growing power of Big Government?
Let's look at this same principle when applied to a different subject.

Just this week the Legislature passed, and Gov.Granholm has pledged to sign, a ban on sending text messages while driving.  While some might argue it does not go far enough ( it does not forbid use of hand held cell phones), I'm yet to hear anyone object to the new law as an infringement on their freedoms.  Why?  Because a multitude of studies, not to mention most people's casual observation, offer proof positive of the profound dangers of distracted driving--both to driver, her or his passengers AND other nearby motorists.  Clearly, safety for all is the overriding factor. 

Why should smoking be looked any differently?  The only reason I can think of is cultural.  Smoking, while engaged in by fewer people today, still represents a tradition that to some suggest a level of maturity and sophistication--concepts that far predate the first Surgeon General's report in 1964.

But we know far better now. Continued deference to the smoker puts the non smoker involuntarily in harm's way.  As a lifelong nonsmoker, when I'm asked just where I think smokers' rights should end, my answer is "where my lungs begin."

Just Where Did the Tea Party Come From?

Something disturbing happened very shortly after Barack Obama took office.  Almost as if on cue, the movement we now refer to as the Tea Party suddenly appeared.  I say suddenly because most if not all of their positions address issues that have been simmering long before January 20, 2009:  deficit spending along with the ballooning national debt, plus the perception (real or imagined) that the federal government is overly intrusive; for example, the exaggerated opposition to health care reform, replete with false stories about death panels and rationing of care.

Is all of this just good old fashioned American political debate or is there something else at work--an undercurrent of bigotry perhaps?  Can this be linked to the election of our first African American President?


In a recent piece, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts cites a very telling study from the University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality.  The results are most noteworthy.

As Pitts reports, "Respondents were read loaded statements such as this: 'It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.' Among those skeptical of the tea party, only 33 percent agreed with that statement. Among whites in general, 56 percent did. But among the tea party's most rabid followers, the number spikes to 73 percent."

Is this reflective of the type of nation we're becoming?  I certinly hope not.

Democrats Mobilize for Fall Midterms

Today I spoke with Alec Gerlach, Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic National Committee and for Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic party. Ignoring widely held expectations expectations of Democratic losses this fall, Gerlach was very upbeat.

"Job creation nationwide totaled 162,000 in March. In addition, the passage of health care reform represents a major policy victory for President Obama's agenda. Building on these accomplishments, goals for the coming year include Wall Street reform and completing work on the fiscal 2011 budget."

Gerlach explained that as voters see this solid record of achievement, the Republican alternative of obstructionism will prove far less attractive.

"Achieving a high level of voter turnout this fall will be more critical than ever. For a variety of reasons, high voter turnout tend to favor Democrats."

This is no less true in Michigan, where benefits of the economic stimulus bill are begining to be felt. Despite still having the nation's highest unemployment rate, job growth in the state totaled 11,000 from December to January.

Introduction

Welcome to my blog. My plan for this blog is to update readers on developments on South Oakland political scene and to interpret national political developments to determine their local impact.

I plan also to offer my personal insights, to which I ask for your repectful responses.

Stay tuned!

Paul