Congratulations, President Obama. This was a noteworthy victory, given the shrill voices of your opponents over the entire four years of the first term. I cannot remember another President who endured such an obstreperous loyal opposition.( Even President Clinton's enemies gave him the conventional 100 day honeymoon before unsheathing their knives.) That you retained your sense of propriety and ran what was (mostly) a high road campaign was justly rewarded by the electorate. May this please be the end to Mitt's 15 minutes of fame. The serial flip-flopper must have flopped his last flip by now. His politics, and that of his party, were roundly repudiated last night, although the House remains a trouble spot. I was horrified to hear the Speaker boasting on NPR this morning that the American voters still support the House Republicans. They are the reason that Congress has such a low approval rating. But we love our own representative, even as we deplore the institution as a whole. I hope that the President extends an olive branch to Boehner, but I also hope he takes a page from Bush43"s playbook and campaigns vigorously for a Democratic Party victory in the 2014 mid-terms. Yesterday provided Mr. Obama with some significant political capital. Please use it.

On the GOP and Science

A new book about the President's mother quotes her as saying “Don’t conclude before you understand. After you understand, don’t judge.” This is a noble sentiment, and of course one that informs the life of a careful researcher in the physical or social sciences? But can it be of use to those of us who are a bit more partisan? I have spent a life time watching the two parties joust for control of Washington. I think I understand what sets them apart. And I am afraid that I must judge one as being worse for America than is the other.

I long ago concluded that the Republican Party is wrong-headed about everything on its agenda. Nothing it or its standard-bearers advocate strikes a responsive chord with me. And I know where this attitude of mine began. Raised in a New England GOP household, I was fooled into believing that Richard Nixon actually did have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I soon learned the folly of my naivete. Nixon perfected the art of saying anything to get elected, and the GOP surfed that cynicism to victory again and again over the coming decades. For further proof, think of RMN's despicable "southern strategy", replete with race-baiting and appeals to the crackers and good old -boys of the formerly solid Democratic south. (more on this some other time)

But at least Nixon wasn't anti-science, as is the current lot of Bible-thumping GOP wannabees. Isn't it astonishing that his environmental policy record would put even the last two Democratic Party presidents to shame. In fact, the current GOP, base and insiders alike, would never nominate him for high office. His legacy includes Watergate, G. Gordon Liddy, dirty tricks, Donald Segretti, bombing Cambodia, and Spiro Agnew. But it also includes the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, and many other signature enviromental moments. We yearn for such a steward now.

So ethnographers can adopt the President's mother's mantra: href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03iht-edcohen03.html">“Don’t conclude before you understand. After you understand, don’t judge.” I choose to understand, but I simply must judge. The GOP's rabid anti-science views on climate change are just plain wrong. Track the record of the adults in that party and you will see that until they contract Potomac fever they tend to believe the science.

A long lay-off

I taught six sections this past semester along with serving as the Master Learner in an environmental science-politics learning community. something had to give, and as I was reluctant to give up reading fiction and politics I dropped my blog. but I am back, baby!

Gun Violence...and the beat goes on

When I was 11 years old, the President of the United States was assassinated. When I was 16, Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King fell to an assassin's bullet, and within months, the dead President's brother was also cut down. You might say that I became inured to gun violence well before adulthood. But I was not alone.

In the mid-70's, when I was in my mid-20's, President Ford survived two assassination attempts. In 1980, former Beatle John Lennon was gunned down outside his apartment building in New York. In 1981, President Reagan was wounded, as was presidential press secretary James Brady , a D.C. police officer, and a Secret Service officer. Such a high profile shooting briefly changed the gun narrative in America, and serious discussion concerning some kind of limits of guns seemed possible. Except that it didn't.

Recognizing a shift in public sentiment, the the National Council to Control Handguns morphed into the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) in 1983. It was founded as an education outreach organization with the mission to reduce gun violence, with President Reagan's former press secretary and wife as its "First Family". His terrible wounds, and subsequent disability make Mr. Brady a powerful symbol for restraint, even as the Gun Lobby demonizes anyone who supports him. They had some success, but as the 1999 Columbine horror demonstrated, their legislative successes were replete with loopholes. This has a paralyzing effect on American politics.

The Gun Lobby, the darlings of K Street, and their enablers within the GOP and the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, control the issue. The sight of presidential candidate John Kerry in full hunting clothes during the late stages of the 2004 campaign testifies powerfully to how one must kowtow to the forces of 2nd Amendment extremism. And it isn't just Democrtic candidates that must worship at the gun extremist altar. GOP candidate Mitt Romney felt it necessary to lie about his life-long NRA membership during the 2008 primaries.

The Gun Lobby gets what it wants. In 2008, Texas decided to permit teachers the right to carry guns in school. Last year, the gun reform they won was our right to carry weapons in National Parks. It seems that the only reform possible is the expansion of gun owner rights. But do we feel any safer?

I was in Arizona the day of the Tuscon shootings, although many miles away in the Sedona area. It is a beautiful state, to be sure, but with a political culture very foreign to this writer. During my travels I noticed two people wearing handguns strapped to their thighs, and I'm not sure if they were cowboy re-enactors or just colorful local figures. It got me to thinking about the famed urban-rural split: while most Americans live in city or suburb, much of our identity is forged in our rural past. Despite the fact that most Americans have lived in non-rural settings since 1900, the mythology remains. And it is that mythology that the gun lobby successfully exploits. In the wake of the recent elections, the NRA proudly chortled "Election Day 2010 was a great day for the Second Amendment and NRA members, and positions us well for our future defense, and advancement, of the Second Amendment! The most important fact about Tuesday's elections for gun owners is how many more pro-gun lawmakers we will have in the next legislative session and how many fewer anti-gun lawmakers there will be." Most Americans do not belong to the NRA, but it controls the debate. It controls Congress. It controls the Supreme Court. And the beat goes on.........

The Coarse Nature of American Politics

In the aftermath of the assassination attempt on a conservative Arizona Democratic Congresswoman, there has been much hand-wringing and despair within the political chattering classes. As mainstream media figures promise to dial back the vitriol, it will be interesting to see if it has any effect on our political process. I'm betting that it will have little to no effect.

For example, the day after the horror, Sarah Palin's website still included the image of a bullseye placed on the map of the Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district. I doubt that there is a direct link between such an incendiary metaphor and the dreadful assault she and others endured, but it does seem insensitive for the 2008 Republican Vice-Presidential candidate to fail to revise the webpage in the wake of the tragedy.

I am looking forward to following the various threads for debate which will surely issue from the sad event: handgun control, the insanity defense, the death penalty, and many more that will ignite partisan debate. It will be interesting to see if the vitriol truly does become lessened.

The best rant of 2010

I meant to include this link in my earlier post. Keith Olberman unloads on the President for his angry remarks about Progressive Democrats.

Mr. Obama attacks his base

What a terrible time for Progressive Democrats, as we watch America's twin Republican Parties seek to protect the interests of the top 2% of Americans. I refer, of course, to the GOP itself, and the Obama wing of the Democratic party. A president who can tolerate all sorts of right wing abuse heaped upon him, his campaign ideals, and even his family, reacts in rage to the criticism sent his way by the very people who elected him. He makes a terrible deal with the GOP, agreeing to save the rich their tax breaks in return for a modest extension of jobless benefits, merely postponing the issue to the depths of his re-election campaign.

This is not the first time I and other Progressives have felt the sting of his words. He must think that he can win re-election in 2012 with a coalition of Moderate Democrats, and Independents. Given that his White House seems to be the epitome of political naivete I wouldn't be surprised if he believes that Moderate Republicans will vote for him too, as he tracks ever right-ward. But I have news for you, Mr. President: there are NO moderate Republicans left in this nation. Even if they existed, they would want you to fail. Doesn't he listen to what the Senate Minority leader had to say in the aftermath of the voter rebuke that was the Mid-Term Election? Mitch McConnell had this to say to his pals at the Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank that gave us the Bush Administration: "Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office...But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it."


Come on, Barry: how about saving some of your invective and scorn for your real enemies? If you don't, you risk a reprise of the inglorious end of the Carter Administration. If someone like Senator Sanders of Vermont decided to challenge you in the primaries you will see disaffected Progressives abandon you in droves. Given the largely-unrealized promise of your campaign rhetoric, that would be a great tragedy for the nation.

I want to hear more Progressives speak out in support of Senator Sanders of Vermont.

picture source: The AtlanticWire; McConnell quote: CNN.com
video source: CSPAN