Unfiltered takes on politics, ideas and culture from Nation editors and contributors.
In commemoration of President's Day, I dug up a December column by noted presidential biographer Richard Reeves entitled, "Is George Bush the Worst President--Ever?"
Turns out 415 historians were recently asked by George Mason University to answer that question. And 50 replied that yes, Bush was, while over 80 percent said that W was failing at his job.
Generally speaking, Reeves says James Buchanan, our 15th president, usually earns the worst ever distinction, as "a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South."
Taking a more modern view, The Nation wrote following Ronald Reagan's death:
Until the current occupant side-stepped into the White House, Reagan was the worst American leader since Herbert Hoover.
This debate, however, will likely not be settled for quite some time. As Reeves notes, there are other figures in the White House who deserve equal blame:
Many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed seen worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney.
And that was before he shot a man in the face.
There's this Pew report out about happiness. (Don't you think that the very idea of quantifying happiness threatens it?) The report explains how happiness correlates with religiosity, marriage and wealth. My definition of happiness, as of midnight Sunday, in arctic New York City: On the beach in Rio, one of thousands, listening to Mick in that extraordinary, free Stones concert.
"California voters are shedding their identification with the two major political parties so rapidly that if current trends continue, independent voters could outnumber Democrats and Republicans in the Golden State by 2025."
That's a pretty bold statement coming from David Lesher and Mark Baldassare writing in this past Sunday's L.A. Times.
Whether or not they're over-stating a trend, these two guys are definitely onto something here. The drift away from partisan party-identified politics can go a long way to explain what some think the inscrutable quirkiness of Kahllyfornia voters (as a certain Governor would say).
The independent trend noted in the Times piece has been underway for more than a decade. Today almost 20% -- about 3 million registered California voters--have categorized themselves as "independent" or "decline to state." And these are, by far, the fastest growing sectors of the state electorate. Almost 80% of new registration falls into these categories. Nor does this burgeoning group fit neatly into a liberal or conservative box. Lesher and Baldassare write:
Polls show that about 60% of California independents favor tougher environmental regulations over economic growth, support a ban on offshore oil drilling and believe that global warming is a serious problem. Independent voters are also among the strongest supporters of such social innovations as medical marijuana use, assisted suicide for the terminally ill, the morning-after pill and hybrid automobiles. They back gay and lesbian marriage by a 20-point margin and a woman's right to abortion by 3 to 1.
At the same time, independents are largely responsible for keeping Proposition 13's anti-tax feelings alive. Most say they believe that government "wastes a lot of taxpayer money" and that Proposition 13 was a "good thing," according to the institute's surveys. Philosophically, independents split from Democrats by favoring smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes. Still, an institute poll in January found independents supporting more money for education and health programs as well as proposed ballot measures to generate funds for healthcare and preschool.
Kinda complex, eh? One thing we know for certain from this info – as well as from recent election cycles – Republicans can't win statewide in California if they run too far to the right and alienate this vast swing constituency. But what is the lesson here for progressives? Is running as the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" the way to fire up these voters? Or are they looking for something new that transcends the current paradigm?
Former South Carolina Senator Ernest Frederick "Fritz" Hollings came to the Senate in 1966 and retired in 2004, at the age of 82. Still sharp and spirited, he knows better than most what ails our politics today.
There is a cancer on the body politic: money.
Those words come from a lucid and must-read op-ed published today in the Washington Post.
The Senate used to be in session from Monday morning until Friday afternoon, working on the people's business. Today the average Senator spends nearly one-third of their time raising money.
The late senator Richard Russell of Georgia said a senator was given a six-year term -- two years to be a statesman, two to be a politician and two to demagogue. Now we take all six years to raise money.
Hollings's solution to this monstrous problem couldn't be more straight forward:
What is needed is a simple one-line amendment to the Constitution. It would authorize Congress to regulate or control spending in federal elections.
Because, as he notes:
The money crowd has the money, and representatives and senators need the money. But no one wants to touch the reason for the ethical misconduct. Excise the cancer of money, and most of the misconduct will disappear.
After I blogged yesterday about the shameful fact that the richest country in the world has a minimum wage that 1) hasn't budged since 1997 and 2) leaves hardworking people and families living in poverty, I came across this fact: 11,600 minimum-wage workers could be paid for an entire year from the Yahoo CEO's 2004 compensation.
Just think about that for a while. These numbers come from "By the Numbers"--a list put together by Representative Martin Olav Sabo, a Democrat from Minnesota. Sabo's Income Equity Act of 2005 would limit the tax-deductible salary of a corporation's CEO to twenty-five times the annual salary of its lowest-paid worker. Currently, that limit is set at $1 million, regardless of the salaries of the workers. There's a lot more to be done to achieve true economic justice and fairness in this country, but I say this is a proposal that Dems should fight for.
The list of House members who have signed on as cosponsors of U.S. Representative John Conyers' resolution calling for the establishment of select committee that would examine whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney should face impeachment continues to grow. Four more members of the House have added their names to the resolution, bringing to 27 the total number of representatives, including Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who are calling for the creation of "a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
The new cosponsors, all Democrats, are Wisconsin's Gwen Moore, New York's Nydia Velasquez, and John Olver and John Tierney of Massachusetts Wisconsin's Gwen Moore. Olver made his decision to sign on after meeting with Massachusetts members of the national group Progressive Democrats of America, which has been spearheading the drive to attract cosponsors.
Another cosponsor, California Democrat Barbara Lee, put the effort to hold the president and vice president to account in perspective Friday with a powerful critique of the administration's attempts to justify warrantless spying on Americans and other assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law.
"What separates us from terrorists is not simply that our principles are deeply offended by the idea of torture or the murdering of innocents, but that we are a nation of laws. Our principles are enshrined in our Constitution and a system of duly enacted laws, and in a government where all are accountable and no one is above the law," explained Lee, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"Our Constitution gives us a system of checks and balances and divided powers because our founders were bitterly familiar with dealing with an unaccountable executive and were determined that our nation should not have a king, nor any office like it," Lee added. "The president and his advisers have tried to make this a question of whether we will defend our nation. This is misleading. Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to vigorously defending our nation. The real question is whether we will just as fiercely defend those principles that define our nation and separate us from terrorists, namely our commitment to constitutional government and our respect for the rule of law."
The shame of the nation is revealed in this week's NewsFlash from the Economic Policy Institute. "Without a wage hike," EPI reports, "this year will usher in the greatest inequality between minimum-wage and average-wage workers since the end of World War II."
The minimum wage hasn't increased since 1997, and its real value has fallen drastically--with workers earning only 32 percent of the average hourly wage in 2005.
The United States is the richest nation. It is also the most unequal society in the industrialized world. How we change that immoral condition, and ensure shared prosperity for all citizens, may be our most important task in the years ahead.
The best zinger of the week on Dick Cheney's now infamous hunting accident came not from Jon Stewart or any of the late night comics but courtesy of Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel:
If he'd been in the military, he would have learned gun safety.
That wasn't all. In an interview with thirty national security journalists on Thursday, Hagel provided a much needed dose of sanity on Iran:
I think one thing we ought to be doing is engaging the Iranians. Why aren't we talking to them? That's the essence of good foreign policy.
For more on Hagel, read Joe Lelyveld's impressive profile in last week's New York Times Magazine.
I have my doubts about how far Hagel will go in challenging the Republican establishment, but as John McCain makes nice with right-wingers, Hagel is emerging as the GOP maverick to watch.
Just relax and take it if a rapist attacks you in Iran. If you fight back, you may find yourself sentenced to death, like 18-year-old Nazanin. Oh, but wait, I forgot, if you do get raped and don't have four male witnesses to the actual physical act, you can be imprisoned, flogged or stoned for having sex outside of marriage. Here's the shocking story, from Iran Focus via Feministing:
Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.
Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls' boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.
She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.
As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.
The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.
I'm trying to get an update on the case, and will report back if I find out more, but meanwhile, take action.
Write the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Louise Arbour and ask for the UN to raise the case of Nazanin with Iran.
Sign the petition to Kofi Annan and Arbour.
And check out Amnesty International's page on underage executions in Iran-- Nazarin is far from alone. (I know this is just their bureaucratic language, but it bothered me that AI refers to Nazarin as a "child offender," when, in fact, she not only committed no crime in protecting herself and her niece but behaved with great courage.)
In the first of what will be a number of critical votes on renewal of the Patriot Act, only three members of the U.S. Senate supported Russ Feingold's effort to prevent enactment of a version of the law favored by the Bush administration.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who cast the sole vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, has promised to fight at every turn to prevent renewal of the Patriot Act in a form that does not respect civil libertries.
On Thursday, he sought to clarify the rights of individuals and institutions that might be subject to inquiries undder the act. But only two senators, West Viginia Democrat Robert Byrd and Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords sided with him.
Some of my colleagues have been arguing, however, that we should go along with this deal because the conference report, as amended by the Sununu bill, improves the Patriot Act that we passed four and a half years ago.
Noting that Republican and Democratic senators who demanded changes in the Patriot Act late last year are now backing a version of the act that does not include the changes they sought, Feingold said, "I oppose the sham legislative process that the Senate is facing here. And I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify. Notwithstanding the improvements achieved in the conference report, we still have not adequately addressed some of the most significant problems with the Patriot Act. So I must oppose proceeding to this bill, which will allow the deal to go forward. I cannot understand how anyone who opposed the conference report back in December can justify supporting it now. This deal was a beast two months ago and it hasn't gotten any better-looking since then."
But the beast had all the Republican and Democratic supporters it needed Thursday.
And the Constitution had just three friends in the Senate.