Oratorical Animal

Senator Edward Kennedy 1932-2009

I did not know that I would take it this hard. It's difficult to express myself. Edward Kennedy was an American giant, but his passing also reminds me of the passing of time. It once seemed impossible to imagine a world without him and now we must live in that world. For those of you too young to remember when Ted Kennedy dominated our politics, here's one way to think about him.

If you have flown, you owe Ted Kennedy. His legislation deregulated the airlines in the 1970s. Before that, only the rich and powerful flew. After that, nearly everyone could find a way to get on a plane.

If you eat, wear, ride, or, in general, consume anything delivered by a truck, you owe Ted Kennedy. His legislation deregulated the trucking industry and made possible our modern transporation network and those low, low prices.

If you have ever had a minimum wage job, you owe Ted Kennedy. His legislation (a couple of times) raised the minimum wage. Were it not for him, you'd probably have earned 3 bucks an hour.

If you have ever graduated from high school, you owe Ted Kennedy. His legislation played a major role in federal funding of education and he led the way on No Child Left Behind.

If you like the idea that Americans with disabilities get a fair shake, you owe Ted Kennedy. He sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If you like the fact that we treat African Americans, women, Latinos, well, everyone as human beings and fellow citizens, you owe Ted Kennedy. He played a major role in the first civil rights and voting rights acts and his legislation has extended them every time since.

There are some mixed blessings here, of course. But even then, he tried to make things better. If interstate trucking created Walmart, he could then lift the minimum wage. The work never stopped.

I could go on and on. But my specialty is oratory and there are more than a few reasons to remember his rhetoric as well.

He proved repeatedly that public deliberation could be political, partisan, and fun. Nearly everyone remembers his Truth and Tolerance address at Liberty Baptist or his 1980 convention address. But there's a special place in my heart for his convention speech of 1988. As a surrogate for a lesser man, Kennedy delivered a slashing attack on Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush, highlighted by the refrain, "Where was George?" Kennedy would truthfully recount some Reagan Administration blunder and then delightedly roar, "The Vice President says he wasn't there--or can't recall--or never heard...So, I think it is fair to ask, Where was George?"

The crowd roared. Politics can be fun. Partisanship can be useful. Attacks can be fair. This is a two party system and, done right, political oratory matters.

More important, perhaps, Kennedy began with what he believed and then used rhetoric to persuade us. He was always willing to compromise on the details, but never on the principle. He never whined that the "votes weren't there." He always took responsibility. He never needed to ask someone what he thought about an issue, nor did he need a poll to tell him where he stood or what he should do.

He knew his beliefs. He argued from principle. A fair political history of the 70s and 80s can be constructed by comparing the speeches of Edward Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. They said what they believed. We knew where they stood.

Most important, perhaps, his voice was their voice. Them. Those others--those who aren't popular or don't matter or shrink from view or fade from television screens or live in corners or eat less than they need or can't get that cough taken care of or grieve terrible losses or are somehow "different." He served them.

So thank you, Senator. God bless.

Arguments From History

Over the past year or so, I've been devoting a good deal of time to "arguments from history." For those "in the know," I don't necessarily mean collective memory, although I've wandered into that ground. Rather, I'm interested in the analogical uses of history, those moments when political orators and/or writers seek to use historical comparisons to substantiate or warrant a policy argument. More often than not, I find people abusing history in a variety of ways. The New York Times has been particularly awful of late.

Here's the first example. Mr. Baker introduces his frame in the first few lines; Obama suffers from a summer of discontent, as it were, and his failure to get his appointments confirmed is a major reason. Baker details the problem and its effects. Clearly, the article asserts, the administration has not done job 1--get its appointments confirmed and its team organized.

Except that it has. Better than halfway through the article, placed dismissively as Obama Administration response, the reader finally learns that Obama's rates of appointments and confirmations are well ahead of past three Administrations, dating back twenty years. Given the increase in vetting and conflict of interest requirements over the past few decades, that's an admirable accomplishment.

In other words, a study of the history of presidential appointments should have spiked this article. Baker's thesis is wrong. Obama has done better than past presidents. If anything, Baker should have taken in this information, stepped back, and wondered why it takes all presidents this long. That may have resulted in an interesting and historically literate article--one that explores, for example, why the US Senate feels the need to confirm all these people, particularly in light of the fact that it has an otherwise full plate, shall we say. 

This is an even worse example. Sadly, it is Mr. Baker again--which I had not realized until I began writing this entry. Clearly, however, he has a problem with history. He begins by noting supporters of President Obama wished to etch his likeness onto Mount Rushmore before he even began. Um, who? Any evidence for the breadth of that assertion? It is fair to note the comparisons to Lincoln and FDR, but those came as much from people like Mr. Baker as they did from supporters.

That's merely annoying. The problem rests with the analogy Mr. Baker prefers: Lyndon Johnson. He admits that "such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed, if only because each presidency is distinct in its own way." Yep. That's why you shouldn't make them.

He also acknowledges that there's a pretty big difference between the 500,000 troops committed to Vietnam and provided by a draft and the 68,000 troops to be committed to Afghanistan and provided by voluntary recruitment. Beyond that, I'd note that al Qaeda, supported by the Taliban, attacked us on 9/11. The Vietnamese communists did not, despite President Johnson's lies concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Look, historical analogies, like any analogies, are only useful insofar as there are enough relevant similarities between the cases to make the comparison useful. This is a silly comparison--Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The reasons for the war are much different, the levels of American commitment are much different, the US military itself is much different, and, to be clear, are there two presidents more different in personality and outlook than Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama?

Mr. Baker needs a remedial courses in history and rhetoric. Before he writes again.

Expediency and Principle, Party and Nation

I've been thinking a good deal about Barack Obama, rhetoric, and the health care debate, for reasons personal and professional. In the midst of that, I've been prepping for the fall semester and ran across this nugget from Edmund Burke, the famed 18th century British statesman and orator. Burke defined a political party as a body of people "united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed." Interest and principle, now and forever, one and inseparable.

Richard Weaver famously condemned Burke for relying too often on arguments from circumstance, interest, or expediency (it's the practical thing to do--here are the benefits), but I tend to put my trust in Stephen Browne who insists that Burke understood and melded arguments from principle (values, identity) and interest. See esp. Browne's lovely essay on Burke's effort to conciliate the American colonies, a masterful meditation on political judgment as, to coin a barbaric neologism, moral expediency. President Obama needs to read that essay.

I'm beginning to suspect that the president has lost control of the health care debate because he has failed to dance with that what brung him. In his speeches, press conferences, and town hall meetings, he emphasizes the practical benefits for the American people--expediency arguments. More people will be covered. Fewer people (heck, no one) will go without insurance. You'll pay less. You'll get more effective treatments. It'll reduce health care costs. Our major competitors do this, so we need to make American business competitive. These are good and true arguments; I believe in fact, claim, and analysis. It is important to understand the interests at stake here.

But they are also expediency arguments. He is busily showing us that health care reform is in our interest and he is asking Democrats and some Republicans to unite behind a plan based on their common interests. This is the discourse of a British Prime Minister. Barack Obama is an American president.

The presidency asks something more of its occupants; it asks them to serve both as prime minister and as head of state, to define and advance our interests and our values, what we should do and who we are. Obama won the White House because he could do both. Hillary Clinton clearly understood circumstance, expediency, and interest, but couldn't find an American community with both hands, a map, and a flashlight. John McCain could speak eloquently of public life, of a cause greater than self, but openly admitted he didn't understand economic policy and needed to study up on it. All the study in the world wouldn't have helped, John. Barack Obama could do both.

He persuaded us to believe in him because he amplified the American people, made us feel bigger than we are, better than we'd been, one more generation in the unlikely story that is America, the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land. Yes we can.

Yes we can to computerized medical records that will allow doctors to compare prescription choices across PPOs and HMOs while also introducing comparative pricing in best health care practices? Woo-hoo. Sign me up.

I want computerized medical records. But I'm not going to get them unless the nation's Prime Nerd remembers he got the job by promising to begin the next great chapter in America's story. Yes. We. Can.

There He Goes Again

I dislike beating a dead Democrat, but Kent Conrad is out there again, trapped in the paradox created by his corruption. This morning, he appeared on CNN and explained why his pet proposal, health insurance cooperatives, would not work.

When asked if they would control costs, he said no. He claimed only two benefits--they would provide competition to insurers and they would not be government-run. Both are wrong. Coops would be too small, as that link indicates, to provide competition and Conrad's bill subsidizes them to the tune of at least $6 billion--as with GM and the banks, the government will have at least some say in them. Those that provide the dough run the show. The public option--again, see the link--would drive down health care costs, thus reducing the budget deficit and Medicare/Medacaid expenses, Conrad's alleged goal. But, for some odd reason, he's against that. Hmmmmm. What could it be?

Plus, as Ezra Klein points out, Conrad is trying to negotiate away the public option without getting anything in return. His negotiating partner, Senator Grassley, has already announced that he'll vote against the bill if a majority of Republicans vote against it, an extremely likely possibility. Conrad's literally making concessions for no return. I wish I could sell a car to him. Well, not really. Because...

He's lying again. He doesn't want a public option, so he says the votes aren't there or it needs to be negotiated or coops would work as well. His benefactors don't want a public option or cost controls, so he doesn't. He could do us the courtesy of honesty. Just say you oppose a public option, Senator. Stop floating all of this crap about "those who have to count votes." You ARE the vote. You don't count it; you CAST it.

In a broader sense, I don't understand the Democratic Party on this issue (or most others). Let me explain it this way. The Republicans are Lucy. They're mean and they do not want Democrats to succeed. They've announced that, through Rush Limbaugh and others. They'll claim they're willing to hold the football, but they'll pull it out every time Harry Reid/Kent Conrad/Barack Obama/Charlie Brown tries to kick it. Every time. From the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 when they did it to Ted Kennedy (by not funding the initiative as they had promised) unto the present. Charlie, they WANT YOU TO FAIL.

As Matt Yglesias said, it's time to put together a strong bill, ask Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe how much they want in lobster subsidies, and send it to the floor. But, one suspects, that would displease Kent Conrad's "sponsors."

Hypocrisy Watch, Democratic Party Edition

I lived in North Dakota for five years. Since there are only about a dozen registered voters or so, you get to know your Senators and Congressman (there's one--Earl Pomeroy) pretty well. I worked for the North Dakota Dem-NPL (Non-Partisan League, a third party dating back to the 20s). I raised money for them. I helped to run relentlessly annoying but necessary fundraisers in small bars for them.

I did so because they told me that they were honest, decent people who wanted to help out the little guy, in the great populist tradition of the state. For much of its history, North Dakota was a colony of the big Minneapolis grain companies and still has a chip on its shoulder about that. They created their own bank and their own grain elevators, just to make sure the company man didn't hold them down. Senator Kent Conrad told me he believed in that legacy.

He lied. He's become a major player in the health care reform debate and it's become apparent that he's owned lock, stock and barrel by the health insurance companies. As I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, he's pushed to the front of the PAC bar and he's downing those drinks like a frat boy on spring break.

This past weekend, he said, "The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been." As Jonathan Zasloff notes, Conrad acts as if he has nothing to do with that. The votes aren't there because he won't vote for it. It didn't just happen. Votes didn't somehow disappear with no fingerprints. The fingerprints are yours, Senator.

Conrad is determined to push through a "reform" bill with no public option, no real cost controls, and no way to pay for it. In other words, this "conservative" Democrat wants a major new entitlement program with no cost controls and virtually no funding. The items he wants to eliminate would provide both (in the case of the public option, competition in markets like ND that are controlled by one insurer--Blue Cross Blue Shield, in that case--would drive down costs), but, in the name of "deficit reduction," he's taking them out. It doesn't hurt that his benefactors hate precisely those features of the bill. Nice.

His plan is stupid. He won't even explain what his substitute for the public option--coops--would consist of or how it would work. In truth, he probably doesn't care. They're a device to get rid of the public option.

I know's he not stupid. I've chatted with him. He's corrupt. Trapped in the Washington bubble, sleeping with lobbyists for better than twenty years, he's lost whatever progressive sense he once had. What's worse, he won't own up to it. Regardless of how you feel about a public option or the health plans in general, this stinks. This is not the way a decent man behaves. The "votes aren't there." Mistakes "were made." Thanks, Senator. Hope you have a good time looking in the mirror.

Hypocrisy Watch, Catholic Edition

Let me see if I have this straight. Senator John Kerry, a practicing Catholic who supports choice as a public matter but personally opposes abortion, runs for president and then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now, um, Pope) instructs American bishops to deny Kerry communion for his public policy decision. President Barack Obama accepts an invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement and is the object of considerable protest and vitriol from Catholic groups, despite the fact that he's not that pro-choice, not a Catholic, and not likely to condone abortion in his personal life. The South Bend Catholic Bishop skips the ceremony because of the polluting presence of the President of the United States.

Rick Pitino, coach of the Louisville Cardinals as well as a loud and proud Catholic, has sex with a woman (not his wife) in a restaurant and pays for her abortion. Let's go to the USA Today (not online as far as I can tell): "Cecilia H. Price, a spokewoman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, said in a statement Sunday, '(The) church's teachings and pastoral outreach are clear, but we do not think it appropriate to comment on individuals or individual circumstances."

Clearly, Kerry and Obama should have gone deeper into the NCAA tournament.

Happy To Be In The Neighborhood

So, this is the weekend. On Friday, we worked all day in our "new" office building (Character. It has Character.). In truth, I like the new place a lot--everybody is close by in this single building and I have nice view of the Red Herring. Hung the last picture on the wall and all was good. We got a lot done, ran home to feed the livestock, and then packed up for...

the Kathy Mattea show at the Research Park. We grabbed some Jimmy Johns and chips, a coupla beers, portable, comfy chairs, and got there about 6:30. Lovely outdoor stage. A nice slope (In Champaign-Urbana?) created clear sight lines and we had perfect weather. Roughly 1500 sweet, nice, polite midwesterners and their children and their dogs and their picnic baskets, applauding Ryan Groff's amazing voice and then nearly two hours of Kathy Mattea, featuring songs from her Coal CD as well as her mainstream work. All free. Because, y'know, we live in the C-U.

Followed by Saturday morning at the Farmer's Market--wonderful food, a sweet beagle up for adoption (Sigh), and a certain Chancellor making the rds., shaking the hands. Yard work made us feel very accomplished, followed by fresh grilled chicken (from the Moore Family Farm), fresh sweetcorn from the Market (and it has hit its peak!), fresh broccoli from Finnemurph Farms :), and two very small and extraordinarily tasty strawberries from same farm. Of course, there was the matter of the small back to school shopping trip squezzed into the afternoon. New clothes and Barnes and Noble required.

I like living here.

Smart presidents are useful

There's been a bit of a kerfluffle lately about President Obama. He wants information. He seems to understand that information. Paul Krugman, for instance, put up this lovely item in which a reporter not only criticized the president for being too smart, but also got the economics wrong. In fact, as Krugman points out, Obama was asking for important information, not trivia. These sorts of stories cause me to have two responses.

First, despite the distinguished journalists and journalism teachers in my beloved's family, I still wonder if aspiring journalists should simply take a broad liberal arts curriculum. The above doof might then have recognized and understood what the president wanted and why it was useful.

Second, when journalists are intimidated by a president's brains, this is the narrative arc. They cannot say, "Smart is good" because then "everyone" will call them elitist. Smart is not good in the United States. So, the president is "overly concerned" with detail. He gets "bogged down" with minutia. Since Nixon went bad, the three smartest presidents have been Carter, Clinton, and Obama (All Democrats. Coincidence? Hmmmm.). All three faced this storyline--too much detail, no big picture, too consumed with trivia, too worried about those pesky "facts."

Bigfoot journalists HATE it when they know a president is smarter than them and when that president knows he is smarter than them. This story began last year with some mutterings about eggheads and Adlai Stevenson. It is accelerating now because, I think, the president has taught himself and been taught to understand the intricacies of the economy and health care even as many journalists have claimed that both issues are simply too complicated for "people" to understand. When the president's every public appearance demonstrates that these issues aren't too hard, the journalists look like fools.

It might be better for all of us if some of these people did less talking and more learning.   

Truth and Tolerance

As I prepared for the fall semester and listened to the increasingly unhinged health care debate, I came across Edward Kennedy's "Tolerance and Truth in America" address. Kennedy, so the story goes, received a direct mail solicitation from the then-Moral Majority asking him to join them in the fight against ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy. Amused, Kennedy staffers released the invitation. Cal Thomas, then director of communications for the MM, invited Kennedy to Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University) to speak and so there he was on October 3, 1983.

For about a decade, I taught the speech regularly; there's hardly a better example of an address to a hostile audience and students always enjoyed the humor of the situation and the text. Plus, Kennedy structures a speech as well as anyone and that was always helpful for students. Bill Clinton's campaign speech to the American Legion replaced it after 1992 and I haven't spent much time with Liberty Baptist since.

That's too bad because it's a good read. It hearkens back to his brother's speech at the Houston Ministerial Association and sets the ground for Clinton's effort. Yet EMK's emphasis on civil debate is unique to his effort. He would know about that; the terms conservatives used to attack him, given his colorful personal history, were well beyond the limits set for most politicians.

Yet Kennedy was seemingly unfazed. As we listen to screeds about "death panels" and see pictures of President Obama in SS gear, it might be nice to remember these words in particular:

I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.

Good stuff. I wish he could participate as fully as he would undoubtedly like in the current debate.

The President...

is starting to get his groove back.

By the by, note the framing of the problem. 14,000 people losing their health care each day. Health insurance premiums rising at 3x the increase in wages. This is an appeal aimed directly at those who currently have health care. As is the norm in American history, reform for all flows from persuading the middle.

Rahm, David, get him out there. Big rallies. Big stages. Time to let the big dog run.