Two Perspectives

These two guest columns ran in today's Wisconsin State Journal.  I read this one first:

Now that the recall is over, can we look forward to some relief from the vitriol that has characterized Wisconsin politics?

Both Gov. Scott Walker and Mayor Tom Barrett have expressed a desire to heal rifts. Let me offer some thoughts on how we might do this. The key? Stop undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process just because you lost.

And lest anyone think I'm picking on the Democrats, I'll respond by saying what parents have said to squabbling siblings for thousands of years: "Knock it off. Both of you. I don't care who started it!"

Let me elaborate.

Democrats: You lost the recall because your guy got fewer votes than the other guy. It doesn't matter how much you loathed Walker, or how hard you worked, or that you considered this the most important election since, well, the last election that was the most important ever.

You lost. Nobody expects you to be happy about it. But you get another chance in a few months.

Stop blaming the American Legislative Exchange Council, or Super PACS, or the Koch Brothers, or Citizens United. Stop insisting that the only reason you lost was you were outspent 3-to-1, or 5-to-1, or 10-to-1, or that democracy has ended because billionaires can buy elections.

Arguing that you lost because people were too stupid to see the brilliance of your position is not a good way to get more people to conclude that your position is brilliant.

And by the way, stop comparing Walker to Hitler. It's insulting in so many ways, and it's not clever, and it's not funny. Oh, and that mailer listing the voting activity of our neighbors? Really creepy. Don't do it again.

To Republicans: Stop gloating, and enough with the jokes about how delicious the tears of Democrats are. You'll get your turn in the barrel eventually.

And while we're at it, you need to stop the absurd claims that the only reason Democrats can win elections is vote fraud. I saw a dozen blog posts about buses full of union folks coming from Michigan or Illinois to cast fraudulent votes. Reince Priebus said Republicans have to win an extra 1 or 2 percentage points just to overcome vote fraud.

Not only is this preposterous, it is also enormously damaging to the legitimacy of the process (and it's particularly absurd because, well, you won; where are those claims now?). I know lots of you know someone who knows someone who once saw 10,000 people cast fraudulent votes, most of whom were dead besides. But yelling the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Stop saying the only way you can lose is because of fraud. It's a phantom.

To both Democrats and Republicans: Stop insisting the other side is stupid, evil, corrupt or wants people dying in the streets. People disagree about politics. Always have. If you doubt this, read The Federalist, or the Magna Carta, or Aristotle. Not every political dispute can be resolved your way just because you think you're right.

Moreover, "Shut Up!" is not a very attractive rhetorical tactic.

And if you have a better way of resolving political disputes than by elections, which I doubt, let's hear it — as long as it's not "do what I want."

In short, everyone needs to calm down and stop thinking of elections in life or death terms. You win and lose elections because you get more (or fewer) votes than the other side. Screaming that there is no way you could lose except that you were outspent, or outfrauded, or outlied is silly because it's wrong and totally unhelpful. Harmful, in fact.

Show that you can win with class, and lose with grace. And do it before you know the results, OK? It's not like this is the last election we'll ever hold.

So cut it out. I'll give you both timeouts. I will.

Kenneth R. Mayer is a professor in the UW-Madison Department of Political Science.

Next up was this one:

There has been no shortage of attempts to spin what the results of Tuesday's recall election mean. One unquestionable takeaway is that in this election, money mattered. A lot.

Gov. Scott Walker's billionaire backers, along with outside spending from corporate-funded special interest groups such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Republican Governors Association and shadowy groups such as the "Coalition for American Values" outspent Democratic challenger Tom Barrett and groups supporting him 8-to-1, according to Mother Jones.

Don't think that makes a difference? Then consider just one example of what that kind of spending advantage means.

In a 30-minute evening television news program, the place from which most people get their information, you'd barely notice the one or two Barrett ads sandwiched between five, six, seven or eight Walker ads.

How did Gov. Walker rack up such an astounding cash advantage?

In addition to having a lot of really wealthy "friends," Walker exploited campaign finance laws to play by different rules than his opponent as he mounted his unprecedented $30 million cross-country cash grab.

In a regular election cycle, both a sitting governor and the opponent are limited to accepting an aggregate maximum in donations of $10,000 per individual. However, Walker was not, and in some cases is still not, limited to this contribution amount.

The result? Walker raked in twice as much from $10,000 plus mega-donors alone than his election opponent Tom Barrett raised in total for his campaign.

Based on One Wisconsin Now's analysis of Walker's campaign finance reports, he raised over $7.3 million in campaign contributions from just 167 individuals exceeding the $10,000 per election cycle limit.

And we haven't even touched on the role the foundation controlled by Gov. Walker's campaign chair played in trying to drive public opinion, such as using columnists whose paychecks depend on foundation grants to dutifully pass along talking points spoon-fed to them by the campaign — but that's a column all its own.

Debate away about the meaning of the election results.

But cutting funding by $1.6 billion for K-12 public schools while giving corporations and the wealthy $2.3 billion in tax cuts is no more popular today than it was last November when recall petitions began circulating.

Can you really argue Tuesday's election results were an endorsement of policies that make it more difficult for women and armed service veterans to fight workplace discrimination? Or think that Gov. Walker won a mandate for more tax increases on seniors and working families and even higher tuition for University of Wisconsin students?

The inescapable, bottom line fact is Walker and his wealthy, right-wing allies bought a win.

Mike Browne is Deputy Director of One Wisconsin Now, which advocates for progressive causes. 
www.onewisconsinnow.org 

What do you think?

Something I Just Read

Looking at current affairs, he expounded on the need for party realignment in order to come to grips with such pressing issues as the tariff and monetary standards, and he claimed that "the difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practice difference."  In using government to address social and economic problems, socialists rushed in where democrats trod warily, but with the growth of huge corporations, he asked, "(M)ust not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control?"  He went further in his lectures at Johns Hopkins in 1888: "Government does not stop with the protection of life, liberty, and property, as some have suggested; it goes on to serve every convenience of society ...    The state is not a body corporate,---it is a body politic; and rules of good business are not always rules of good politics ... Businesslike the administration of government should be---but it is not business.  It is organic life."

Anybody want to guess whose biography I'm reading?

Thirty Days

It's been slightly more than thirty days since my last letter to the editor, which means that they can print one again.  So I sent them this:

It has been quite interesting lately reading various people's thoughts on what the Bible says regarding marriage, same sex and otherwise, and what Jesus did or didn't say about it, but I do have one question: public policy-wise, does it even matter?

As with every other issue, anyone can find something in 'the Bible' that at least apparently supports his or her position. Maybe this is why the founding fathers drafted a Constitution rather than just telling everybody to 'read your Bible.'  And why they make no references to 'God' or Jesus (or the Bible) in that Constitution.

We live in a constitutional democracy folks, and the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions both state that all citizens are to be treated as equals by their governments.  We don't have different sets of rights for different subsets of the citizenry.  So can we please keep that in mind as we discuss same-sex marriage and how to live up to our lofty ideals?

Power, Faith, and Fantasy

I intend to write more on this book, I finished it Tuesday night; for now I will just say that there is a hidden, central character in this book.  And that character is ... Middle Eastern oil. 

Surprise! 

The central theme, as implied by the title, is that America has always had a prevailing fantasy about the Middle East, largely drawn from works of fiction, such as 1,001 Arabian Nights.  Americans then came to believe, based on 'faith', that with a little guidance the Middle East could be modernized and remade in America's image (with a little exoticism thrown in).  They continually were stymied, however, by the 'facts on the ground' and American economic and military power had to be added to make any 'progress' regarding modernizing the region. 

And right from the start there were successes.   But for some reason the Middle Easterners resisted conversion to Christianity or having western culture thrust upon them.  Sometimes violently so.  Which led to conflict, naturally.

Nevertheless, for about 130 years America was widely seen in the Middle East as being the champion of Arab rights, at least when compared to England and France.

Then came the internal combustion engine.  Suddenly (OK, a little bit gradually) American ideals had to be balanced with 'strategic interests.'  Meaning, largely, if there is oil beneath your sand we want you on our side.  No matter your governing philosophy or with (or against) whom you are aligned.  A tricky balancing act began.  Then, along came the State of Israel ...

More to come.  

America and the Middle East

For about a month now I've been reading Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.  The first half or so of the book is quite illuminating regarding the first almost 150 years of America and its dealings with the 'Barbary States,' and with the old Ottoman Empire.  Maybe I'll write about some of that, too, but right now I want to share part of what I read last night.

From page 527:  The 1967 war, the reverberations of which continue to convulse the region, was a primary juncture in the making of the modern Middle East.  Arab nationalism, a largely secular ideology, suffered a set-back from which it would never recover and which accelerated the rise of its rival, Islamic extremism.  Zionism was conversely reinforced by Israel's victory and, through the Jewish people's reunion with their spiritual homeland in Jerusalem and the West Bank, galvanized by a new religious zealotry.  The war was also pivotal for America's relations with the region.  For the millions of evangelical Americans who had always valued Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, the Six-Day War was an act of divine intervention designed to hasten the coming of the messianic age.  But the victory also persuaded American policymakers, many of whom had previously advised against maintaining close relations with the Jewish state, to view Israel as America's small but muscular cohort in the Cold War.

Is he overstating the importance of that war?  Yes and no?  His first conclusion is that it was a death blow to Arab nationalism.  How?  Egypt and Syria got their asses handed to them so radical Islam was born?  Sentiment in other Middle Eastern countries that would have found expression in nationalist movements was turned instead to radical Islam?  The people would rather punish the Jews and/or seek to eradicate the State of Israel than seize the reins of political power in their own countries?  I don't know, eventually all of those countries broke away from colonial rule and some of them have declared the obliteration of Israel to be their number one goal.  Is this really a 'radical Islam' issue or more of an ethnic enmity issue.  "We hate them because they exist!  And besides, they hate us!" 

I think he's onto something with his final conclusion though.  Once Israel kicked some ass and the U.S. could have them as an ally rather than a client state it was "welcome aboard"!     

I'm just up to the part, tonight, where he's about to tear into Carter (I think) over Iran.  I'll be back ...

Going To The Dogs?

There's a popular picture on facebook, I've seen it a few times, of a dog, a Pit Bull maybe, and a caption something like, 'there are no bad dogs, just  bad dog owners.'  People tend to agree with the sentiment and 'like' it. 

What if it was, 'there are no bad boys, just bad parents'?  That one not so much, right? 

Why, exactly?  Because boys can make conscious, willful decisions, right?  And dogs can't?

OK, true.  But still.  Parenting is a crucial element of character-building, right?  And if a boy gets extremely poor parenting, how much more likely is it that he will become well-acquainted with the criminal justice system?

So what am I saying?  Well, two things.  What we do with those boys as they become a problem is critically important, not just for them (cuz it's 'their own fault, right? so too bad), but for society. 

And it is in society's best interest to try to reduce (toward zero) the population of these boys.  First, by reducing/eliminating unwanted pregnancies.  Then by intervening early in these boys' lives, which is a giant can of worms on libertarian grounds so the first part is critical. 

In my opinion we could even waste money at the front end (though let's not) as long as we accomplish our objective of keeping the number of 'bad boys' to near zero.  Compared to if we do nothing at the front end and refuse to commit any resources to the issue until there's a criminal justice problem. 

So, we incorporate into the public school curriculum (state participation to be encouraged with funding), 'adult ed' classes.  Starting about sixth grade.  Keep them age-appropriate, of course.  Though by sixth grade they need to know for sure where babies come from, and how you can get pregnant even if you aren't trying to.  And stuff.  And sixth grade is a good time to be hearing a strong abstinence message.  But we have to be realistic about all possibilities too, so birth control information needs to be available.

Of course there's a lot more to cover in adult ed class than where babies come from.  Various scenarios should be 'gamed,' so kids can start to learn 'first hand' what usually happens to the guy who doesn't finish high school, or guys that smoke and drink at an early age, or guys that figure they shouldn't have to work, or guys that become daddies at a young age, (and girls too, of course).

I would love to see after school programs fully funded so all kids have safe and constructive places to go after school.  In fact, the logical extension of the idea that society should feel ultimately responsible for child development would be to offer 'after school' programs 24/7.  But this would become very expensive, no matter how much we think we'll save not waiting until we're using the d.o.j. to finally deal with it.  So the emphasis on 'adult ed' and reducing/eliminating unwanted pregnancies is paramount.

Once we do find the need to incarcerate, at a greatly reduced rate if we're smart enough, we start on them again, for the first time maybe in some cases.  Adult ed, academic classes, substance abuse counseling, whatever is needed.  Only this time they're locked in.  And we have the key.  And the sentences work for us.  "You can do the whole ten, or you could probably be out in three if you do everything we ask ... "

Will we ever do this?  Doubtful.  Why not?  I think mostly because, even if we could get wide-spread agreement that it would be cost-effective, most Americans would think it's just way too big a role for government to take.

Right?

American History

I finished another lecture series recently, this one on The History of the United States.  84 half hour lectures.  You might think it would be hard to watch/listen to 42 hours of professors lecturing on history but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing.  I've also read three different histories of the United States, from Columbus to the present (Paul Johnson, Howard Zinn and Tindall & Shi).  What can I say?  It's a story I never get tired of.

This series uses three professors.  Allen Guelzo takes us from the age of ocean-going explorers up to the 'great compromise' in the run-up to the Civil War.  Gary Gallagher takes us through the war and the post-war 'reconstruction' period and southern 'redemption.'  Patrick Allitt takes us the rest of the way, beginning with Industrialization and finishing with Clinton's America and the Millennium. 

In the final lecture, Reflections, Allitt lists four basic 'truths' that make the story of America unique.  First is American Exceptionalism; Allitt believes that this 'belief', which goes all the way back to the beginning, plays a role in everything that followed.

Second, "A combination of cultural and environmental circumstances enabled America to become the richest nation in the history of the world." 

Third, "America's political institutions nurtured and protected vital freedoms."

And finally, "America has welcomed and assimilated more varied immigrant groups than any other nation."

I intend to explore some of these themes in the weeks to come.  Tonight I begin with a question.  In his 'reflections' Professor Allitt states that America has consistently fallen short of its ideals but also has consistently performed 'better' than any other country.  Does he have that about right?