There is a problem with the modern Republican party, I've talked about it a lot and firmly believe it. The current politics of the Republican Party do not represent the conservative values espoused by their own rhetoric. We see it most clearly in the campaigns for national office among the varied districts around the country: Conservative Christian social values issues trump economic and domestic policy issues. When the races get close or competitive, Republicans fall back on those old wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and separation of church and state.
Now, just to get this out of the way, the separation of church and state is fact, it is irrefutable by any thinking rational person and has repeated precedent over centuries of law. There is no turning away from that even with a neo-con dominated high court. The values of freedom of religion is so fundamental to this nation, it was one of the primary reason for immigration to this country in the first place. All those people who deny outright the separation of church and state or insist that it isn't what the founders intended are either deluded to the point of lunacy or they are playing so far to the right that they may as well be playing to a fascist party. Yet, in a crazy election year like this, we see it among far too many candidates.
As for those others, they are part of the rhetorical 'Guns, God and Gays' routine that Karl Rove designed as the presidential and national Republican strategy for the 2004 election. Notice, however, that the election in 2006, possibly a part reaction to that election, saw a sweeping wave of Democratic candidates elected into office. It is also a device that played strongly to the Christian elements of the Republican platform by bringing evoking their fears of a secular nation that turns away from faith and even persecutes those of faith, the supposedly warring sides of what Bill O'Reilly terms the 'culture wars'. Those advocating this kind of conflict then become the 'culture warriors'.
The hypocrisy then becomes the parallel messages of 'freedom and liberty' used by conservative candidates matched with socially conservative message of restricting rights for all minority people. It is the blending of the message of an overreaching government infringing upon the private lives of citizens while espousing the exact same infringement the conservative movement is against, only against the groups they purposefully exclude from full citizen-hood. As long as groups agree with their ideological stance, they are represented by the conservative message, those who disagree are deemed un-American and enemies of freedom.
What that message effectively does is pit those people who have strong Christian faiths, notice they are never reaching out to other people of even similar faiths such as the Jewish community, while at the same time purposely courting the 'white vote' by excluding minority people of conservative Christian faiths, i.e. African Americans and Latino people. Those groups, from a conservative faith perspective, should be sympathetic to the Christian Republican cause on many social issues, yet they largely and historically voted Democrat. What about that rationale makes sense ultimately boils down to the 'white vote' and institutionalized racism. They hate being called racist and fight against that name, but when they campaign on the principles of exclusion in part by using what Rachel Maddow identifies as the 'Southern Strategy' employed during the 1960's and inciting fears of white people, there really can't be any other name for it.
Ultimately the effect of this strategy and this type of rhetoric is the denial of full citizen-hood to many minority groups. They play on the fears of less educated and less affluent white people, particularly in South and the Western United States, fears of becoming the minority in this country, of preferential treatment to racial and ethnic minorities to the detriment of the rights of white people, and to the enforcement of 'socialist' values such as 'wealth redistribution'. It is the same rhetoric that would have denied African Americans the right to vote and enforced segregation in schools and public places. It is the same rhetoric that on a non-superficial level enforced the idea that somehow people of darker skin were less-human and less deserving of the rights enjoyed by a white majority.
But the messages of the conservative white Christian political movement are not ultimately compatible with the message of 'freedom and liberty'. What it is conducive to is the politics of exclusion, of the continued institutionalization of 'freedoms and liberties' for white people, a principle which can't be construed as anything but outright racism and homophobia. It is also a message that numerous 'liberal' or 'moderate' Republicans are against. While many of these Republicans are conservative on fiscal issues, they are at least moderate on social issues. They are also often Republicans from historically Union states. By Union, I am referring to the label of the northern states during the Civil War. Yes, it is ludicrous, but the rift between these two cultural ideals goes further back even than that. Many people from the South are proud of their Confederate roots, roots they see as upholding the principles of freedom and states' rights. They see themselves as representing an oppressed group rebelling against a tyrannical federal government, romanticizing the culture of that time, and ignoring the rampant hostility toward and racist treatment of African American people. It is a sentiment that still supports outright and institutionalized racism in parts of this country and it is a belief system many conservative political candidates court while running for office.
Given the current political climate, and particularly the recent issues that the LGBT community is having with President Obama, although it is extremely unlikely, if there was a Republican candidate who was even moderate on social issues, I would have to strongly consider whether or not to vote for them. I, of course, voted for Obama in 2008. Unlike many of the progressive young people who voted based on the idea that he would radically change the way that Washington operates, my family has been involved with politics for a long time, I knew that the fundamental machinations are almost impossible to change. I said to people at that time and continue to believe that the most important thing that has happened with President Obama was that we finally had a president who moved the rhetoric and policies of this country out of the realm of the conservative Christian movement and back to the mainstream. We finally had a president who was openly supportive of the rights of LGBT people and still is a very vocal advocate for the recognition of our civil rights. Unfortunately parts of his record, especially of late, do not match his words. And given the almost certain climate of Washington in the near future, which is going to gain more conservatives in Congress, it will be almost impossible for him and the progressive base to have any movement forward through legislation, it is going to have to be through the courts. Unless the Senate is able to sway some of the moderate Republicans after the elections are over, and especially after the military study is finished, to end the filibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill with the provision on Don't Ask, Don't Tell included, Obama's appeal of the current case overturning the decision will end any possible repeal of that policy in the near future. If a Republican wins the White House in 2012, it will almost certainly be another decade before that policy is repealed. How, then, can we support a president, however vocal he is about his support for the LGBT community, when in the hour of critical success for our rights, he decides to turn his back on the best chance for that policy to end.
I don't want to vote Republican ever. I disagree with so many principles of their agenda. It is also likely that it will be dangerous for the progress of this country to vote for the candidate who receives the nomination in 2012. It will, however, be a hard decision if a socially moderate candidate is put forward and the economic plan of the progressives in Washington are not successful. Lowering taxes is clearly not the answer, which was evident during the first six years of the Bush presidency when the Republicans controlled Congress and he instituted huge tax breaks that ultimately only stimulated an even further (upward) redistribution of wealth toward the super rich. If the future president is able to institute some of the public works projects, projects that were enormously successful in the past and are proven ways of getting much of the labor industries back to work, than it might be worth it to see a change from a president who overall has, in an attempt to make genuine bipartisan policy decisions, shown a disheartening lack of leadership. As Rachel Maddow has said, it became obvious early on that the Republicans were going to prove a huge roadblock toward every major piece of legislation introduced on behalf of the president, so why didn't he go all out and just go for the full on progressive agenda like a public option in the health care act? It may be time to find a new candidate.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Obama as Commander in Chief and DADT
According to a Newsweek article that sources a bunch of different military and constitutional scholars, Obama in fact does have options in at least putting a freeze on enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Not only is there precedent in the courts but Congress has explicitly given him greater freedom in how to enforce laws regarding the military and shaping regulations that pertain to those laws. There are a number of justifications for not enforcing the law and aside form an executive order, as the head of the military he could simply instruct the military to stop enforcing the law.
Reasons discussed went as follows:
1) He could declare that he believed it to be unconstitutional. When the law was first put in place in 1993 there was no legal precedent for recognizing the rights of gay people. That changed, though, when the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy of people in gay relationships in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy law in that state, effectively ending sodomy laws across the country. This decision then also set a standard that unless the state can prove that it had a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of LGBT people, laws infringing on those rights were unconstitutional.
2) Congress and the courts often defer to presidential authority under Article 1 of the Constitution. While the matter of his seemingly ignoring laws passed by Congress could go to the courts, the case would have to be argued on behalf of military officers and or members of Congress. But Article 1 gives the president a lot of leeway.
3) There are already laws in place that the President either does not enforce or enforces lightly, in particular when it comes to deciding on what laws to prosecute and in seeking sentences.
4) In 1984 Congress gave the president 'Stop-Loss' authority that allows him to put a halt to discharges in the face of troupe shortages. In the current climate, it is a widely regarded fact that there has been difficulty in recruiting service members. Recruitment has been so difficult, in fact, that they have been allowing convicted felons and high school dropouts to join, been lowering standards of physical fitness and been giving wavers to soldiers caught and convicted of crimes during active duty.
5) He could have decided from the beginning not to defend the law. This would have set up a situation where the decision didn't override legislative or executive power. Like Governor Schwarzenegger did in California on the case against Prop 8, he could have allowed other groups, including Republicans in Congress, to step in and try to defend the law in court, if the court allowed it. Doing this would not only have provided him political cover among his base, but also would have allowed him to not act in direct conflict with stated policy.
The President, while making firm statements in his belief that the policy is wrong and is even detrimental to our national security, has yet to say whether he believes it is unconstitutional. From the beginning he could have instructed the Justice Dept. to argue the case from a point of already believing the law is unconstitutional. To the contrary, however, my understanding is that they've been aggressive in defense of the law.
While some people may think rail against 'judicial activism', the same kind of activism that held up voter's rights in FL during the 2000 election and thereby giving the hypocritical George W. Bush the win, as I've stated before that is the job of the federal court system, or one of them at least. It is always funny to me how people, almost always people on the political right, argue about judicial activism only when their side loses. People on the political left have done so rarely and most recently in what I believe to be a truly horrific decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision that recognized corporations as legal entities with a right to free speech. By doing this they've allowed unprecedented amounts of money to flood the campaigns during this election cycle.
In terms of the President enforcing DADT or not enforcing it, it is a terrible contradiction for him to hold a position that he clearly is not willing to act upon when he does have options, at least while the courts are deciding on the issue. His Justice Dept is seeking a stay on the injunction, arguing it before the judge who created the injunction and now issuing a request for an emergency stay on the injunction to the Court of Appeals. Whether it is likely or not that Court of Appeals would go through with putting a stay on the decision seems to be a mystery to most. What is believed, however, is that if the issue goes to the Supreme Court, because of the political atmosphere on the court it is likely that they would issue a stay, at least while the case itself is going through.
What the Judge reasoned, however, when denying the request for a stay is that the government failed to prove that the injunction would in fact harm readiness and troupe cohesion as they've argued all along. They failed to prove their case, and if the Appellate Court agrees, there really may be too weak of a case. Also, I would think that by now, considering the study ordered by the President and Secretary of Defense was supposed to have begun in July and been done by Dec 1st, which is only about six weeks away, they must have at least some data already that would give a preliminary indication about the effect of DADT. If they don't or if they are reticent not to give away the surprise before the study is complete, I suppose they seem happy to have a weak case. If, however, the preliminary findings of the ongoing study lean toward it being less of a problem than argued by the political right, than they should suffer the consequences of going against even the evidence they already have.
The bottom line is that when the President says he doesn't have the authority to end the law by executive order, he is correct. When he says that, though, and lets it imply that he has no options or recourse other than to wait until Congress repeals the law, he is deliberately dodging the issue and dodging his responsibilities as a leader. He has stated his position on the policy. He has authority to take action that would at least temporarily halt enforcement of the policy he's against. He has a responsibility to the citizens of the United States and especially to those serving in the military to exercise the leadership we had hoped he would exhibit when we elected him into office.
Reasons discussed went as follows:
1) He could declare that he believed it to be unconstitutional. When the law was first put in place in 1993 there was no legal precedent for recognizing the rights of gay people. That changed, though, when the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy of people in gay relationships in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy law in that state, effectively ending sodomy laws across the country. This decision then also set a standard that unless the state can prove that it had a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of LGBT people, laws infringing on those rights were unconstitutional.
2) Congress and the courts often defer to presidential authority under Article 1 of the Constitution. While the matter of his seemingly ignoring laws passed by Congress could go to the courts, the case would have to be argued on behalf of military officers and or members of Congress. But Article 1 gives the president a lot of leeway.
3) There are already laws in place that the President either does not enforce or enforces lightly, in particular when it comes to deciding on what laws to prosecute and in seeking sentences.
4) In 1984 Congress gave the president 'Stop-Loss' authority that allows him to put a halt to discharges in the face of troupe shortages. In the current climate, it is a widely regarded fact that there has been difficulty in recruiting service members. Recruitment has been so difficult, in fact, that they have been allowing convicted felons and high school dropouts to join, been lowering standards of physical fitness and been giving wavers to soldiers caught and convicted of crimes during active duty.
5) He could have decided from the beginning not to defend the law. This would have set up a situation where the decision didn't override legislative or executive power. Like Governor Schwarzenegger did in California on the case against Prop 8, he could have allowed other groups, including Republicans in Congress, to step in and try to defend the law in court, if the court allowed it. Doing this would not only have provided him political cover among his base, but also would have allowed him to not act in direct conflict with stated policy.
The President, while making firm statements in his belief that the policy is wrong and is even detrimental to our national security, has yet to say whether he believes it is unconstitutional. From the beginning he could have instructed the Justice Dept. to argue the case from a point of already believing the law is unconstitutional. To the contrary, however, my understanding is that they've been aggressive in defense of the law.
While some people may think rail against 'judicial activism', the same kind of activism that held up voter's rights in FL during the 2000 election and thereby giving the hypocritical George W. Bush the win, as I've stated before that is the job of the federal court system, or one of them at least. It is always funny to me how people, almost always people on the political right, argue about judicial activism only when their side loses. People on the political left have done so rarely and most recently in what I believe to be a truly horrific decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision that recognized corporations as legal entities with a right to free speech. By doing this they've allowed unprecedented amounts of money to flood the campaigns during this election cycle.
In terms of the President enforcing DADT or not enforcing it, it is a terrible contradiction for him to hold a position that he clearly is not willing to act upon when he does have options, at least while the courts are deciding on the issue. His Justice Dept is seeking a stay on the injunction, arguing it before the judge who created the injunction and now issuing a request for an emergency stay on the injunction to the Court of Appeals. Whether it is likely or not that Court of Appeals would go through with putting a stay on the decision seems to be a mystery to most. What is believed, however, is that if the issue goes to the Supreme Court, because of the political atmosphere on the court it is likely that they would issue a stay, at least while the case itself is going through.
What the Judge reasoned, however, when denying the request for a stay is that the government failed to prove that the injunction would in fact harm readiness and troupe cohesion as they've argued all along. They failed to prove their case, and if the Appellate Court agrees, there really may be too weak of a case. Also, I would think that by now, considering the study ordered by the President and Secretary of Defense was supposed to have begun in July and been done by Dec 1st, which is only about six weeks away, they must have at least some data already that would give a preliminary indication about the effect of DADT. If they don't or if they are reticent not to give away the surprise before the study is complete, I suppose they seem happy to have a weak case. If, however, the preliminary findings of the ongoing study lean toward it being less of a problem than argued by the political right, than they should suffer the consequences of going against even the evidence they already have.
The bottom line is that when the President says he doesn't have the authority to end the law by executive order, he is correct. When he says that, though, and lets it imply that he has no options or recourse other than to wait until Congress repeals the law, he is deliberately dodging the issue and dodging his responsibilities as a leader. He has stated his position on the policy. He has authority to take action that would at least temporarily halt enforcement of the policy he's against. He has a responsibility to the citizens of the United States and especially to those serving in the military to exercise the leadership we had hoped he would exhibit when we elected him into office.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Should GLBT people abandon Dems?
It seems like Obama, despite the continual promises of support for GLBT rights, especially the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seems like the administration and the Democrats in general aren't able to live up to campaign promises and take decisive leadership roles on GLBT issues. In fact, between the Dems who supported McCain's filibuster and the lack of leadership by Obama administration, perhaps it's time that the HRC and major GLBT supporters of the Democratic party should be changing the focus of our fund-raising efforts to put more effort into supporting GLSEN, Lambda Legal, and organizations that support members of the military. I think it might be time for us to give up on the idea of these politicians to support us and for us to make more of an effort for us to take care of our own.
This isn't to say we should totally abandon Democratic and Independent candidates, and any others who pledge to support GLBT rights, that would be a mistake, but we should make our disappointment and displeasure heard by withdrawing financial support. If our political are more interested in keeping their jobs than in actually leading, maybe it's right for them to be voted out now while we have a Democratic president to veto Republican legislation and find candidates for the 2012 elections that are going to take strong stands.
One reason I am bringing this up is because of two recent cases of young teens, both 13 year old boys who were known to be gay, who because of extreme bullying in school, attempted suicide. One of the two shot himself and is dead, the other is on life support after hanging himself at home. This second victim had left school to be home schooled because of the peer torment and was still being bullied. It is unacceptable that just as these students are coming to an awareness of their sexual orientation at earlier ages that we aren't drastically increasing our efforts to protect them.
It has always been difficult for adult GLBT people to mentor young people. It is all too easy for supportive adults to become targets of accusations of sexual misconduct. This doesn't, however, make it any less important for us to put our efforts into supporting organizations that provide support groups, social opportunities, and safe spaces for our youths. If support from the government is being opposed by people on the conservative Right, or even the anti-gay center, than we should put our money power into supporting our young people.
Whatever steps we take in the future, we cannot allow our community to abdicate responsibility for our most vulnerable, thereby giving conservatives the ability to successfully limit our outreach programs and community support. If Obama and the Democrats can't take firm action on DADT, something the president could end with a single Executive Order, than we need to find leaders who will.
This isn't to say we should totally abandon Democratic and Independent candidates, and any others who pledge to support GLBT rights, that would be a mistake, but we should make our disappointment and displeasure heard by withdrawing financial support. If our political are more interested in keeping their jobs than in actually leading, maybe it's right for them to be voted out now while we have a Democratic president to veto Republican legislation and find candidates for the 2012 elections that are going to take strong stands.
One reason I am bringing this up is because of two recent cases of young teens, both 13 year old boys who were known to be gay, who because of extreme bullying in school, attempted suicide. One of the two shot himself and is dead, the other is on life support after hanging himself at home. This second victim had left school to be home schooled because of the peer torment and was still being bullied. It is unacceptable that just as these students are coming to an awareness of their sexual orientation at earlier ages that we aren't drastically increasing our efforts to protect them.
It has always been difficult for adult GLBT people to mentor young people. It is all too easy for supportive adults to become targets of accusations of sexual misconduct. This doesn't, however, make it any less important for us to put our efforts into supporting organizations that provide support groups, social opportunities, and safe spaces for our youths. If support from the government is being opposed by people on the conservative Right, or even the anti-gay center, than we should put our money power into supporting our young people.
Whatever steps we take in the future, we cannot allow our community to abdicate responsibility for our most vulnerable, thereby giving conservatives the ability to successfully limit our outreach programs and community support. If Obama and the Democrats can't take firm action on DADT, something the president could end with a single Executive Order, than we need to find leaders who will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
