Same-Sex Marriage Referenda

I started thinking a bit more about the votes in Maine and Washington on Tuesday, and in California last year.  The founding fathers never envisioned or wanted the rights of a class of people put up to a popular vote.

There will always be classes of people who are less popular than others.  Do we really want the rights of those groups to be decided by a majority vote?  I submit that we do not.  It’s tyranny of the majority.  The founding fathers were quite concerned about this possibility.  It looks like their concerns were well founded.

We have equal protection under the law in this country for a reason.  These referenda are simply about a majority keeping a minority from enjoying the same rights and protections that the majority has.

We’ve seen the same thing over and over in our history.  We’re seeing it again now.  Some groups were denied their civil rights and had to fight the status quo to gain them.  Gays are fighting an identical battle right now.  The majority should not have the right to keep a specific group down.  We’re supposed to be better than that in this country.  But we’ve forgotten the 1960s, it seems, only 40 or so years later.

I just came across an Andrew Sullivan post about popular sovereignty and what a crock it is as applied to rights.  Either everyone is created equally and we live up to that standard, or they’re not, and Orwell was right in thinking that some animals are more equal than others.

Just last week I finished teaching the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and when I read the Rod Dreher post you linked to, I immediately thought of Stephen Douglas’s arguments for “popular  sovereignty” — the notion that states, especially former territories entering the Union,  could vote slavery “up” or “down” as they saw fit.

Lincoln saw what a fatuous argument “popular sovereignty” was — that it really is the destruction of self-government to allow fundamental rights to be determined by the whims of a majority. The Declaration precedes the Constitution. “All men are created equal” is the necessary preface to “We the People.”

Equal rights and the consent of the governed are the principles that make self-government intelligible in the first place. Without them, of course, there are no real limits to what majorities can enact, including doing away with democratic rule. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that lurking in Douglas’s doctrine of popular sovereignty were the same arguments used to justify the divine right of kings. Once “all men are created equal” is dispensed with, once it is no longer held to apply to a certain group of people, what might limit the arbitrary rule of a few, or one, over other groups without their consent?

I understand, of course, the “legitimacy” victories in the democratic process confer on any movement. But for me, the legitimacy of the love and relationships of gay couples already is there. It’s a right, grounded in our basic equality. And no majority should be able to take that away. So there’s a real ambivalence here.

Here’s one of my favorite Lincoln quotes, from an 1855 letter to Joshua Speed:

“I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Insert “gay” for “negroes” in the above and my point is made. His logic resonates still.

No historical analogies are perfect, of course. But this is a great irony, no? The Party of Lincoln is now aping the discredited arguments of Stephen Douglas (and for that matter, John C. Calhoun).

One other thought.  I am disgusted by the DNC and President Obama.  Their indifference to our rights is appalling.  Well, Mr. President, we’re ever so sorry to bother you with our humanity and our need for equal rights.  My boycott of giving Obama and/or the DNC any of my money is intact, so long as DADT and DOMA are still the laws of the land, and as long as they don’t begin to stand up for our civil rights as much as we stood up for their elections last fall.  I’m not asking them to win our rights for us, just to deliver on the promises they made.  And, by the way, I’d like the gay rights groups — like HRC — to hold the president to his promises and to stop being taken in by cocktail and dinner parties.

Updated: Yesterday’s Elections

It was Election Day yesterday.  People went to the polls to elect governors in New Jersey and Virginia, and members of Congress in New York and California.  Voters in Maine also decided a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.

I mostly want to talk about the referendum in Maine, but first a word or two about the votes in New Jersey and Virginia.  I disagree with the notion that these votes were somehow a report card on President Obama’s performance.  That, of course, isn’t to say that no lessons should be drawn from this election, just that the media are making mountains out of mole hills (or at least small hills), as they are wont to do. 

Let’s take Virginia:  Virginia voters have, for the past five gubernatorial elections, elected the opposite of the party controlling the White House.  If a Democrat won the White House, the Virginia Governor’s Mansion always went to a Republican, and vice-versa.  And that isn’t even mentioning the absolutely dismal campaign that Creigh Deeds ran.  In New Jersey, voters rejected the status quo and the corruption under Jon Corzine.

Now to Maine.  Same-sex marriage was repealed in Maine by a vote of 53 to 47 percent.  That margin is nearly the same as the margin on Proposition 8 in California last year.  A same-sex marriage law had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.  The law had been suspended pending the outcome of the election.  This means, of course, that supporters of same-sex marriage have never won at the ballot box.

I think it shows that voters are still too easily swayed by what amounts to propaganda about same-sex marriage and that people are still caught up in traditional definitions of what makes a marriage.  People still can’t seem to separate religious and civil marriage, which are two distinct and separate things.  Until people see that distinction — which is blurry to many — we’re going to have these defeats at the ballot box.  I’m heartened, though, that same-sex marriage continues to win in court.  I think that the real victory will come in the legal system, just as the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

Just as I was disgusted by the proponents of Yes on 8 (the no same-sex marriage crowd), I am similarly disgusted by the absolute disregard for people’s families that is being shown by the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.  Take a look at some comments from Matt Barber.  They’re not pretty, but they show exactly what the anti-gay referenda are really about — homophobia, pure and simple (Hat Tip:  Pam’s House Blend – emphasis in Pam’s post).

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:”There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ’same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1′ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

I don’t know how else his comments can be construed.  They’re simply homophobic and show what the anti-gay referenda are really about.  It seems to me that they’re about hate.  They hate gays and any perceived (even if it’s not true) invasion of the little boxes into which they want to put people.  As Pam notes in her post:

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule — but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear — suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.  The hog is going to die.  Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon — and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

Pam’s right.  People are going to look back in a few decades and wonder what all the fuss was about.  They’re going to look askance at their grandparents and wonder why they were so bigoted.  It’s going to be the same thing as what happened with inter-racial marriage a few decades ago.  Most of us wonder what the fuss was about.

So this is a major disappointment.  But we’ll get over it, learn from it, and keep advancing the cause of equal rights for LGBT people in America.  I still think the major victory is going to come in the courts, maybe even the Olson/Boies case now pending in federal court.  But whichever way it happens, it will happen.  It’s as inevitable now as it was when Gavin Newsom stupidly opened his fat mouth in 2004 and declared it so.

UPDATE: I just read David Mixner’s excellent post on yesterday’s election results in Maine.  He called the campaign against gay rights “gay apartheid.”  I agree.  I also agree that it is reprehensible for President Obama to sit on the sidelines.  I’ve been worried all year that maybe we have lost a major opportunity to repeal DOMA and DADT.  We’ve gotten some legislation, but DADT and DOMA are the big, consequential pieces of legislation that have to be repealed.  What is going to make Obama work on our behalf now?  I’m tired of half measures and getting patted on the head and told to go away.  I’m tired of politicians who do that.  I’m beginning to be sorry I worked for and voted for Obama last fall.  I’m beginning to be sorry I thought that he was different.

Obama’s Apparent Sexism

Am I the only woman in the world who thinks that President Obama should be able to play basketball with whomever he wishes to play?  We have a New York Times story breaking the news about President Obama’s White House frat house feel:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

[snip]

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

I find myself agreeing with Kathleen Parker in today’s Washington Post.  This is all one big yawn.  I mean, can you see Senator Barbara Mikulski playing basketball with the president as Obama drives to the basket?  Well, it would be comedic.  Basketball is, after all, a contact sport.

 We in the United States have enough problems (two wars, health care reform, gay rights, global warming, to name just a few) without being so over-sensitive to non-issues.  Obama has, as Valerie Jarrett pointed out, appointed women to many high-level posts inside the White House.  To me, this is what matters.  I get that this is about access to the president.  But I think that Obama should be able to play ball with whoever he wants to play ball with.  And the rest of America needs to grow up.

More Thoughts on Issues of the Day

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress

Thoughts on Issues of the Day

Since I’m way, way short of time these days for in-depth blogging – I’m in my extremely busy period at work – here are some thoughts on the issues of the day, in no order of importance:

• President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to speak in front of the International Olympic Committee was an unforced error.  Whether Chicago won the Games or not (and the Games were always going to Rio – South America is long overdue to host the Games), he had no business going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Games.  I don’t care if Chicago is his hometown.  The President of the United States doesn’t deign to do what amounts to business development.  His time is too valuable for that, especially with health care coming to a critical point, his diplomacy initiatives with Iran, and the Afghanistan war review.  I know he can communicate fine when he’s out of town and that presidents travel quite a bit, but this was one trip he didn’t need to make.
• Roman Polanksi is a man who, when he was in his 40s, had sex with a 13 year old girl.  Where is that not wrong?  Where is that not a crime?  It doesn’t matter if he had a plea deal in place and the judge was a publicity hound who was going to renege.  Polanski committed a crime.  And, by the way, the Hollywood elite look to be pretty out of touch (and wrong) for their defense of him.  Does the fact that Polanski makes good films outweigh the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl after plying her with alcohol and drugs?  Apparently it does in Hollywood.
• I’m afraid that we’re biting off much more than we can chew when it comes to Afghanistan.  Withdrawal – which the White House says is off the table – should be considered.  Has no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue read any history?  The Afghan people have never had a functioning government.  Never.  Are we so sure we can be the ones to finally break a cycle that’s been going on for centuries?  There are ways to contain the Taliban and al Qaeda without committing thousands more American troops to the fight. 
• Speaking of Afghanistan – General McChrystal should be fired for making public statements about the advice he gave to Obama.  Politicizing decisions that are made by the elected, civilian controllers of the military is not a general’s place.  There is a reason that there is civilian control over the military.  General MacArthur forgot that, too, and had to be reminded by President Truman.  General McChrystal should suffer the same fate that MacArthur suffered.
• President Obama seems to be facing a lot of the same questions he faced during the campaign – that he doesn’t have the backbone to be Commander in Chief during a time when a long war is being fought.  I think there’s some mettle there, in Obama, but it still remains to be seen.  Is there something he’s waiting for?

I’ll blog as I can, but as I mentioned above, this is my busy time at work.  But even if I’m not posting as much as I’d like, I am still around reading comments and other things.  So please feel free to comment.  I’ll respond as I can.

Sunday’s Doonesbury

Doesn’t this just say it all about the “debate” going on today?

Doonesbury, September 27, 2009

Obama’s Speech and Joe Wilson’s Disrespect

Finally, I think I’m starting to understand the president’s plan for health care.  President Obama’s speech last night went a long way to reassure me about his plans.  It sounds like I can get behind his plan.  The fight isn’t over, though; Obama still has to get this plan through Congress.

President Obama mustered all the force of his famous eloquence – including a stirring tug at the bonds of friendship between Republican senators and their late Democratic colleague Edward Kennedy – to push the reset button on health care Wednesday night.

Casting himself in the political center and shedding his earlier technocratic style for a powerful appeal to “the American character,” Obama outlined in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress how everyone, insured and uninsured alike, small businesses and large, could gain from his proposals.

He sought to bridge the deep rift among Democrats over a public insurance option that threatens to send him and his party to a devastating defeat.

“We did not come to fear the future,” Obama said. “We came here to shape it.”

Seizing authorship for the first time of what the White House now calls “the Obama plan,” Obama made flexibility, not ultimatums, the order of the day and “stability and security” for all the mantra.

It’s still hugely expensive at $900 billion over 10 years, but it is necessary to have health care reform.  Costs are rising too fast and too many people are uninsured to sit around doing nothing.  I think everyone can agree on that, even if they can’t agree right now on how to get there.  But that will come, especially if the debate is vigorous and respectful.

That brings me to Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his “you lie!” shout while the president was speaking.  Wilson disrespected himself, his office, Congress as a whole, President Obama, and the office of the president of the United States.  I feel disrespected as a result.  There is no place for heckling the president during an address to a joint session of Congress.  What was Wilson thinking?

From Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column:

As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation’s rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.

It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: “You lie!”

Murmurs of “ooh” filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi’s chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. “Not true!” came another shout.

The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer as town hall meetings across the country dissolved into protests about “death panels” and granny-killing. Guns were brought to Obama appearances. A pastor in Arizona said he was praying for Obama to die.

But even by that standard, there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled.

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told “my progressive friends” that the “public option” they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.

[snip]

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” someone on the GOP side shouted out “shame!” The president went on: “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” “Read the bill!” someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. “It’s true,” someone shouted back.

The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to “come to me with a serious set of proposals.” About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think “it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.

Above all, though, was Wilson’s effrontery. From the reaction in the chamber — one Democrat could be heard calling for him to be thrown out — Wilson knew he had stepped in it. He shrugged, then consulted his BlackBerry. He puffed out his cheeks to exhale and licked his lips.

Toward the end of Obama’s speech, the text of which was handed out before the congressman’s outburst, was a fitting rebuke of the sort of behavior Wilson had just exhibited. When “we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter,” Obama said, “we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”

As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again. The speech ended, and, as his colleagues applauded, Wilson beat a hasty retreat.

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. “No president has ever had that happen,” Emanuel said. “My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number.”

Wilson did as Emanuel advised. After all that shouting, it’s a wonder he wasn’t too hoarse to place the call.

It doesn’t much matter to me that Wilson apologized.  His behavior was loutish and had no place being directed to a president addressing a joint session of Congress.  But then, he was in good company from the rest of the Republicans.  The one bright side, as Joel Achenbach points out:

Politics is a game of momentum; the Republicans very likely surrendered it by trying to emulate the angriest of their constituents.

It’s fine to be angry, and it’s fine to disagree.  But that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to heckle the president.  I’ve called over and over for real ideas from the Republicans.  Instead of that, we get more and more anger and vitriol.  And the country suffers for that.  I said it yesterday: It’s time to take a deep breath, remember that we’re Americans, and try — just try — to set aside some of the anger and do what’s best for the nation.  I know that’s a lot to ask for from politicians.  But the times demand it.

Obama’s Speech to Students

The whole flap over Obama’s speech to school kids is completely ridiculous.  Are people so full of negativity and vitriol that they can’t recognize an attempt to engage kids in a civics lesson?  This was not an Orwellian moment, with the kids gathered around a television, looking at the Leader’s face, being indoctrinated.  People really are wound a little too tight these days and need to take a breath.  (As many on the left needed to do when Bush was in the Oval Office.)

What did Obama say yesterday that was so awful?  Nothing that I could detect.  He talked about doing well in school.  He talked about responsibility, something he’s been talking about for a long time.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. 

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. 

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

 I know.  Horrible, controversial stuff.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it. 

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. 

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

Working hard.  A terrible concept to talk to our kids about.  So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

The president challenged school kids to be something in life, to contribute to society.  I know I’m getting a little sarcastic.  The point is that Obama gave a perfectly fine talk about life.  About school.  About watching what you put in the Internet.  That life looks a lot like work.  And for this, Obama is labeled a socialist, kids are kept home, and his talk is boycotted by several schools and school districts.  (Read Kathleen Parker’s column for more on how ridiculous the nattering on the right was.)

And why shouldn’t kids write about Obama’s talk?  Writing about something is quite powerful.  It makes what one has learned sink in. 

The bottom line is that presidents talk to kids all the time.  Many presidents have done that over time.  (President Bush, as I recall, was reading to school children in Florida when he was told about airplanes hitting the Twin Towers in New York.)  I hope Obama talks to kids more.  We need our children engaged in our country and its future.

White House Blasts Enzi

Robert Gibbs laid into Senator Mike Enzi, who is a member of the “Gang of Six” negotiating health care reform.  Gibbs said that Enzi was repeating “generic Republican talking points.”  It’s about time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs laid into Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi Monday for repeating …  

… ”generic Republican talking points” in the GOP’s weekly radio address.
 
“It appears at least in Sen. Enzi’s case, he doesn’t believe there’s a pathway to get bipartisan support and the president disagrees,” Gibbs said. “Sen. Enzi’s clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship.”

That’s all fine, and it really is about time that President Obama call it like it is.  But why not take on Chuck Grassley, who is raising money against health care reform while allegedly negotiating a solution to health care reform?

Chuck Grassley is facing a potentially difficult primary challenge in 2010. As such, he’s been working hard to cover his right flank. That would all be fine except for one thing: As ranking member of the Finance Committee, Grassley is responsible for developing a workable compromise on health-care reform. But as this fundraising letter (pdf) shows, Grassley is running against health-care reform back in Iowa.

The Republicans are not negotiating in good faith.  Why does Obama keep touting the benefits of bipartisanship?  He’s the only guy in Washington trying to be bipartisan, it seems.  Everyone else is polarized just like usual.

Of course, the negotiations in the Senate appear to be breaking down, so this is moot in practice.  But it matters a great deal to how President Obama deals with Congress and how strong he appears to be.  Right now he looks weak.

I still think something will pass this fall.  But what?  Will it be anything like what the president wants? 

President Obama’s political future relies on this.  I’m ambivalent on health care reform.  I don’t know how I feel about it yet.  Maybe it’s because I don’t know how it would work.  And maybe that’s part of the problem with how Obama is perceived at the moment.  But Obama said that this is his defining issue.  That’s a lot of political capital at stake.  How successful he is during the rest of his presidency depends on this.  I want the president to succeed. 

By the way, it would be nice if the Republicans would negotiate in good faith.  Something is going to pass.  I hope it contains the best ideas of both parties.  But the Republicans need to act in good faith.  And the White House needs to call it out when they don’t.

Bringing Weapons to Protests

A man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle joins protesters outside an event in Phoenix where President Obama was discussing health-care reform. (By Jack Kurtz -- Associated Press)

I’m extremely concerned.  How long is it going to be before something bad happens at one of these health care protests?  People are bringing loaded weapons — rifles, pistols — to these events, some of which are presidential events.  That’s a bit scary, for my money.

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs’s comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

I’m not an “anti-gun campaigner” (although I do think that it’s time for real gun control in this country), but these are presidential events at which guns are present.  President Obama is our first black president.  In some places of the country, that’s a recipe for a tragedy.

Man with gun (not visible in this photo) at presidential event with Tree of Liberty sign. (via Talking Points Memo)

EJ Dionne’s column today was excellent.

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: “It is time to water the tree of liberty”? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that the tree “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Is that advocating violence?  Violence against the president?

More Dionne:

Pardon me, but I don’t think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.

In fact, the Bush folks didn’t like any dissent at all. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush. The detained woman wasn’t even armed. Maybe if she had been carrying, the gun lobby would have defended her.

[snip]

What needs to be addressed is not the legal question but the message that the gun-toters are sending.

This is not about the politics of populism. It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

Think about that for a second.  An angry minority — and no one is saying that they don’t have a right to their opinions — intimidating people with the threat of violence.  Because that’s what it is, really, bringing weapons that appear to be loaded to events — a threat of violence.

More Dionne:

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.

On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president’s public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

This is exactly right.  Democracies are societies based in consensus, based in law.  The threat of violence undermines that.  And the racial aspect, which I mention above and Dionne raises, makes it that much more disturbing.

More:

All this is taking place as the country debates the president’s health-care proposal. There is much that is disturbing in that discussion. Shouting down speakers is never a good thing, and many lies are being told about the contents of the health-care bills. The lies should be confronted, but freedom involves a lot of commotion and an open contest of ideas, even when some of the parties say things that aren’t true and act in less than civil ways.

This is a health care debate.  It’s not the second Civil War and it shouldn’t be.  No one is talking about taking rights away from anyone or enslaving anyone.  Bringing guns to public events like this undermines our society in profound ways.

Yet if we can’t draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?

Where is the NRA in this, anyway?  They’re supposed to be about the safe, lawful use of firearms in America.  Just the accident potential from brining loaded firearms into public events is huge.  And just think if someone actually tries to do something to harm the president or others at the event.  What then? 

Leave the guns at home.