Web Letters | The Nation

Jonathan Blitzer: El País's Journey to the Mainstream

Bien hecho

Thank you for publishing Jonathan Blitzer’s excellent and timely article on Spain’s newspaper El País. I lived in Spain for eleven years, retain close ties to the country, and intend to retire there. El País was my newspaper of choice when I lived there. I have watched its coverage of important issues deteriorate over the years since leaving Spain in 1994. Mr. Blitzer’s story is extremely informative and enlightening. Great job, good writing, good journalism, good history.

The OccupyUSA Blog for Thursday (Feb. 2), With Frequent Updates

Super Bowl strike

I have just read the the NFLPA has expressed an opinion against the “right to work” law in Indiana. What if the the NFL players come out in front of the stadium and just stand in solidarity for a few minutes... or maybe all day?

Why Climate Change Will Make You Love Big Government

Strong governments, really?

Regardless the merits of global warming scientific competence, the idea that strong central governments are wise, efficient and effective managers of anything is just a bit odd. Is the author so in need of control and alignment with his way of thinking that a strong government should come down on any and all who disagree? Voting for a democratic dictatorship (one man, one vote, one time) seems to be more of a Taliban conception (that didn't work very well for the Afghans), and I don't think it would work well here in America. Strong government is the culprit of American malaise and mediocrity, not a pathway to greatness.

A Spoonful of Sugar: On the Affordable Care Act

Inconvenient facts

Apparently, Bernard Avishai prefers to cast aspersions on critics of President Obama’s healthcare program, rather than actually addressing legitimate dissent. The president’s plan has two major components: expanding Medicaid coverage for the working poor, and a system of exchanges for other uninsured folks to purchase insurance from private companies. It is estimated that Medicaid coverage will expand by 12 million to 15 million beneficiaries. In my opinion, this in itself is such a huge gain for working-class people that Obama’s program merits support. However, the other portion is problematic because insurance does not equal healthcare.

If we look at the Massachusetts model, we can see the implications for Obama’s plan. As Marx might say, De te fabula narratur. Since Romneycare went into effect, there has been a marked increase in the sale of high-deductible plans. Not coincidentally, in surveys as many as 20 percent of Massachusetts residents say they forgo healthcare due to the expense. Furthermore, Romneycare has seen no significant decrease in bankruptcies due to medical expenses. Unfortunately, we can expect the same type of results once Obama’s plan goes into effect at the national level.

Avishai references Arnold Relman, but does not mention that Relman has written extensively on health reform, and predicts that Obama’s plan will fail in the medium term for some of the above reasons. One additional note: Obama’s former budget director (now with Citigroup), Peter Orszag, has predicted that employer-paid health insurance will go the way of the private pension, and be replaced by employers’ handing their workers lump-sum payment to purchase insurance on the private market. The health insurance exchanges may have the unintended consequence of fostering this shifting of risk from corporate America to working America. And contrary to Avishai’s argument, pointing out these inconvenient facts does not make one a tool of reaction.

A Spoonful of Sugar: On the Affordable Care Act

On Republican obstructionism

Bernard Avishai’s explanation of the nature of Congress since Obama’s election is about the best I’ve seen, but here’s how I sum up all the legislation passed and signed by Obama:

Every law Obama has signed required the vote of at least two members of Congress who opposed Obama’s election to be president, and once Obama took office, the Republican caucus treated Obama as an illegitimately elected president by requiring members to oppose everything Obama proposed.

All legislation passed in the first six months of 2009 required the votes of three to five senators who opposed Obama’s election. Of those in the Republican caucus, they were threatened with Republican caucus sanctions. Even in the second half of 2009, when all elected Democrats or their replacements were finally seated, all laws passed required the votes of two senators who opposed Obama’s election to president: Sen Lieberman and Sen Specter.

Never has a Republican president been faced with a Democratic Congressional caucus that as a matter of policy treated the president as illegitimately elected. Even President G.W. Bush, who got less votes than his opponent, got more Democratic votes for his legislation in his first two years than Obama’s legislation did Republican votes.

Crime and Punishment: On William Stuntz

Prison statistics

Michael O’Donnell writes about the US incarceration rate: “The imprisonment rate in the United States, at 506 per 100,000 in 2007, is much higher than it has historically been, and is closer to Russia’s rate (513) than Western Europe’s (Germany’s is seventy-four and France’s seventy-two).”

The imprisonment rate referred to here is, I believe, the number of prisoners sentenced to at least one year in prison. The total number of people actually in prison or jail is much higher, about 2.3 million or, according to Wikipedia, 743 per 100,000 (see the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the latest DOJ numbers). It is by far the highest in the world and exceeds that of Russia, the leading competitor, by 30 percent.

I am sure that the author didn’t intend to play down our truly monstrous incarceration rate, but it is important to use the right numbers for comparison.

Given that the US system stands out as so ugly compared to the rest of the developed world, one would think that journalists and scholars would want to look to differences between the criminal systems of different countries to find an explanation. Yet neither the late Stuntz nor O’Donnell seems to go in that direction. One would find, for example, that plea bargains are not permissible in criminal proceedings in Germany, France or other low-incarceration countries, confirming Stuntz’s argument. On the other hand, jury trials are rare or nonexistent in many less draconian countries, so it seems at least questionable that, as Stuntz has argued, they could be the answer.

Dump 'Citizens United'!

Not the right way

Please address the issue of getting money out of politics the best way. Is a comprehensive bill in Congress the best way? Is a short constitutional amendment an incomplete and wrong way to go? See “Five reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get money out of politics,” by Larry Kachimba.

Ron Paul, Take Two

She doesn’t get it

Katha Pollitt’s attitude toward progressive support for Ron Paul completely misses the point. Right now we’re in the primary process, not the general election. There is no one challenging Obama for the nomination, so all the action is on the Republican side at the moment. What many progressives are doing is changing their registration to Republican this year so that they can vote against empire, assassinations and the drug war and really have an effect on the debate within the party and the country that partisan folks like Pollitt never could. We see the contest as between Paul and a bunch of other status quo Republicans. It doesn’t mean that every one of us would vote for Paul against Obama, that option is still a long way off. But by siding against such progress Pollitt really gives the upper hand to Romney, Santorum and all the rest.

Pollitt makes Ron Paul progressives out to be sexist, unthinking fools. But she’s the one totally blinded by the Democratic Party’s facade of progressive principles. She lashes out at those who could actually influence the Democratic Party to go back to those roots should they be challenged by a man like Paul.

The Dangerous Defense Bill Heading Toward Obama's Desk

Save the Constitution

Barack Obama stood up and swore the oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States; he didn’t do a good job, he just went with the flow. He didn’t veto the threat to the Fourth Amendment securing people and property from unreasonable search and seizure. Not to mention the Fifth, insuring due process of law and prevention of double jeopardy. The Sixth was also contravened: the insurance of a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. One of the supporters of the bill is Senator John McCain—although he knows what it is like to lose your freedom, as he was in a North Vietnamese prison camp. So I am disappointed in McCain.

Osama bin Laden, Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein are dead; most of the Arab dictators, pro-Western or not, have been overthrown. We have been successful with the Constitution in the war on terror. If they remove those amendments, then we are certainly less free and probably less safe.

The GOP's Blatant Racism

Fighting lies and prejudice

The battle to unseat President Obama commenced shortly after his inauguration, and the tactic of appeal to basic prejudice was resorted to early in the game. To sum it up: Obama was a Muslim, Kenyan-born socialist with Nazi tendencies, married to an uppity black woman who did not disguise her hatred for whites. The constant drumbeat of these blatant falsehoods worked; they helped spawn the Tea Party.

The GOP candidates are actually bereft of real ideas for job and economic growth: as US corporations are sitting on trillions in unspent profits, cuts in either taxes or regulations will not spur growth.

The candidates know the president’s race is an electoral vulnerability as the result of the inherent prejudice of their constituency. They have obfuscated the truth in several areas to manipulate the opinions of their minions.

Gingrich, the alleged intellect among the group, who gets high praise from the press coverage of his debate performances, is the master of racist double-speak. First it was black kids, who then morphed into all poor kids, who should be given the opportunity to relieve janitors (portrayed as overpaid) of their livelihoods so they could earn money and develop a work ethic. This concept, loudly applauded by the mob, is so evil on so many levels, it would require an article by itself to do justice to its racist stupidity.

All the candidates deride Obama as the “food stamp” and “unemployment insurance” president. Again, this appeals to the underlying belief that the poor and minorities are lazy and would work if the government did not coddle them at the expense of everyone else.

The payroll tax cut is also derided as an increase in the deficit and  ineffectual in job creation as measured by the fact that there is still high joblessness.

So now hear this, GOP candidates and their constituents: food stamps, unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut have done far more to keep our economy alive than the job creators whose incomes continue to soar and corporations, who sit on immense cash reserves.

The fact that there exists consumer demand at all is a credit to the payroll tax cut; and the current holiday sales figures testify to that fact. The proceeds of food stamps and unemployment insurance flow directly into the economy.

These programs have kept millions from economic ruin and starvation; most of those suffering and who have been helped by the president are white; the Republicans can cut these programs only at everyone's peril.

The president will be able to make the truthful case that he has helped alleviate economic suffering for many and kept the economy alive for us all. The Repubican candidates debate in the insular world of racist appeal to their prejudiced base.