More on Executive Power

On Thursday, the New York Times (number one source of conversations starters for yours truly) reported on two separate rulings that interpret federal regulations to permit health benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees. The Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law, is at the center of the controversy and has previously been interpreted and executed as a law barring the federal government from providing such services. Richard Socarides, formerly a Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton, made this interesting comment:

“[The President] has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination.” 

Now, I may be shooting myself in the foot by choosing a controversial topic such as homosexual rights as an example, but I think that Mr. Socarides’ statement deserves examination. For the moment, suspend knowledge that Mr. Socarides is talking about rights for homosexuals. In fact, he is not talking about the rulings described in the article at all, which have lawfully arrived at the same conclusion that Mr. Socarides would like to see. Instead, observe the relationship between the President and the rule of law. Mr. Socarides is saying that the President of the United States has authority to overrule law where the President sees fit to do so as regards the regulation of the federal bureaucracy.

Reviewing the Constitution of the United States, we find the situation to be slightly different.

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the power… To make Rules for the Government.

Article 2, Section 3: 

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

The President may not like the law or its interpretation, but that office does not have the discretion to interpret. The repeal or change of unfair laws must take the form of constitutional and legal processes and not through executive authority that aggrandizes the government’s power and sets precedents for unconstitutional activity.

A Limbavian Flap

Hibernation is over and this Dino is back! Now, it is time for more exhilarating commentary.

Monsieur Remi asks if anyone still listens to Rush Limbaugh. Seems like they sure do these days.

I will admit right here and right now that I am opposed to talking any more about Rush Limbaugh. He is a distraction, and everyone has said as much. Right now children are wandering about uneducated, the world’s economy is imploding, and Americans and other humans are getting killed in various wars.  But media talking heads, politicians, and average Americans love bright shiny distractions. So in the spirit of talking about affairs that have no demonstrable importance, I will indulge in the ultimate purpose of Dino: to tell you the things that I am thinking.

Barack Obama and his political machinery have made it very clear their intentions: no one likes Rush Limbaugh, so if you equate him with the average Republican then no one will like any Republican, average or no. Rush Limbaugh, whose income is derived from the number of people that listen to him, always profits from controversy. And he has hardly failed to take advantage of Rahm Emanuel’s generous offer to make him “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party.” 

The advantages may be financial for Mr. Limbaugh. Or maybe he genuinely wants to be the ‘intellectual’ force of conservatism. He certainly enjoys people paying attention to him. So on one or more of these levels, Mr. Limbaugh has profited. Mr. Obama and Mr. Limbaugh are in collusion – although certainly not as amicable partners.

Amy Holmes has conveniently inverted Mr. Emanuel’s comments and the situation they have created in a way that highlights what is really going on:

Imagine, for a moment, if George Bush and his chief of staff had made coordinated and concerted attacks on Michael Moore, and suggested that the colorful left-wing fulminator — not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid — was the “true intellectual force” behind the Democratic party. Imagine the howls of protest. And, undoubtedly, the media would have focused on the propriety of a commander-in-chief and his advisers wasting time and political breath on an entertainer. And yet we have President Obama and his hammer, Rahm Emanuel, doing just that in a time of war and economic crisis, and the story is about … Republicans!

Conservative commentator David Frum recently rebutted this Limbavian flap in a Newsweek article entitled “Why Rush is Wrong.” He argues for changes that he believes will bring the GOP back to power, and Mr. Limbaugh’s place in that equation.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

Partly, Mr. Frum is motivated by the fact that Mr. Limbaugh and others have criticized him for his advocacy of a flexible conservatism. Mr. Limbaugh’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on 28 February included commentary on such allegedly fractious elements of the GOP, in favor of an unchanging set of conservative idealogies:

Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don’t check principles at the door. This is a battle that we’re going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can’t possibly like us; they’re our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they’re our enemy. They think we need to be defeated.

First of all, we can notice two tendencies here. One is the overt reactionary nature of these comments (and if you read the rest of the speech you will notice a tendency to ramble off-topic, and the speaker’s need to congratulate himself on what is, at various points, his first national and international address). Second, and related, is the ultra-montane attitude that goes out of its way to be disliked by ‘the media.’ I cannot imagine that Mr. Limbaugh does not realize that he is part of the media. He is using a simple but very effective rhetorical trick: set up a straw man, then burn it down. The straw man here is the liberal media bias, about which he would be happy to tell you. But the bottom line is that he does not want to be liked by the mainstream media, because he can simultaneously cast himself as a rebel and self-righteous advocate for conservatism.

Then, Michael Steele, RNC chairman, called Mr. Limbaugh an entertainer, and his show incendiary and ugly. After lambasting Mr. Steele, Mr. Limbaugh received an apology from Mr. Steele. There are fewer more public ways to broadcast the internal chaos the GOP must be experiencing than through a radio host who has 13+ million listeners per week and is always on the lookout for more outrageous ways to attract more.

This incident is not only a lens to highlight the problems that the Right is having, but it also brings out very disturbing, yet normal, behaviors in the Left. It is precisely at the juncture of the conflict between Messrs. Steele and Limbaugh that Mr. Emanuel framed Mr. Limbaugh as the intellectual force of the Republican Party. The timing smacks of opportunism and the White House has much to gain from a Republican Party handcuffed to Rush Limbaugh.

So where is the Change that the nation voted for in November? The change in dialectic, the change in Washington politics that Mr. Obama purported to bring? The bi-partisanship – that word that we love to say but scarce know how to implement – where is it?

In the end, this issue demonstrates the nature of power and justice. Bi-partisanship is not reaching across the aisle with an open hand and a smile, and cooperatively solving problems. It is winning elections, having a sufficient majority in the Congress, holding the White House, and then telling the other side what the agenda is because the opposition does not have the practical bargaining chips to do anything else. This Limbavian flap is a realpolitik method, employed by Mr. Obama, of accomplishing ‘bi-partisan’ relations.

An Election Note

Celebations are raging, quite literally, all over the world in the wake of the election of the new American President. Voters in the States are feeling a rushing high that they have enabled Change. Democracy, indeed, is designed to make one feel that his participation creates history.

And for all the symbolism of the 2008 election, and for all the historical import attributed to it, it might be helpful to remember: Nothing has happened yet. We have symbols, we have gestures. Will we fill them in with meaning?

Quote of the Day

In January, Bush will be history, leaving liberals all alone in a frightening world. Little else will change. Radical Islam will still authorise murder without limit, Iran will still want the bomb and the autocracies of China and Russia will still be growing in wealth and confidence. All those who argued that the ‘root cause’ of the Bush administration lay behind the terror will find that the terror still flourishes when the root cause has retired.

Nick Cohen, “Why Bush has been a liberal’s best friend“

This is actually one of my biggest reasons for supporting Obama as a conservative: to essentially call the world’s bluff on everything being the fault of George W. Bush.

Were McCain to win, the talking heads would simply denounce him as Bush II and we’d have at least another 4 years of Europeans hiding their head in the sand instead of acknowledging that maybe some problems are not the fault of George W. Bush.

Only with a symbolic and decisive break from the past–in this case an Obama election–will the world be willing to stop blaming us. And if even the election of the consummate anti-Bush is not enough to get Europeans to act like allies, perhaps it will finally sink in to the editorial board of the New York Times that maybe Europeans simply cannot or will not cooperate with us, and coupled with the fact that their relative power on the world stage declines even faster than our own maybe it’s time we look for some new allies.

Like, say, India.

The Crucial Republican Vote

Do people still listen to Rush Limbaugh?  I hope not.

The political process grinds on.  I’m glad the candidates can be so peachy about the inevitable unity of their party come November while they do everything possible to rip it to pieces before then.

Some party.

Get Your Ticket

We are approaching that point in the primary process where Obama-Clinton and Clinton-Obama tickets will be considered and dissected by pundits, supporters, and haters of all stripes. This is good. I’m tired of hearing about extra-political nonsense like Jeremiah Wright’s rants and nightmares of Bosnian snipers.

Andrew Sullivan makes the first meaningful contribution to the debate that I’ve read, campaigning for Obama-Clinton. While I credit my own potentially pro-Obama position with Sullivan’s larger argument concerning America’s image and its symbolism, I’m unconvinced that he is the clear candidate, as Sullivan seems to suggest.

He notes that Obama has had difficulty registering with white working class women, Hispanics, and Reagan democrats.  Unfortunately for him, these are much more representative of the party’s base and focus than the well-educated, enthusiastic youth movement that propels him forwards.  The idea that the opinions of major states like Ohio and Pennsylvania can be swept aside just because of some delegate count is strategically absurd.  I live in Chicago.  I don’t think there is any more Obama’d area in the country, but nothing feels won or finished.

In short: the winner has yet to be declared.

More importantly, though, the idea of teaming up opponents, even cut throat enemies, has terrific precedence in improving a party candidate’s electability and in function and policy of its cabinet.  Sullivan cites Team of Rivals as the example to follow, and he couldn’t be more correct.  The decision to appointed divided views on the same cabinet might have seemed counterintuitive at a time when the nation was physically divided, but it was a stroke of genius by Lincoln.

The question is, at what point is it a political gimmick, and at what point is it a strategic decision?  JFK and Johnson may have won the election, but Johnson was a complete outsider in the Kennedy court.  If Clinton is vice president, will she be allowed to voice her opinions and contribute to an Obama administration, or will she be sidelined to enjoy her obscure post?  (The big question there is, where does Bill’s ego fit in?)  If Obama is a vice president, will Clinton and her team bring him in and help him earn the kind of experience he is most often criticized for not having?  Will he be allowed to enter the dialogue and be ready to make a run in 2012 or 2016, depending?

I fear that we will see them come together at some point, but there will be nothing of the unifying action Obama claims to represent.  I fear it because I think, desperate to revitalize themselves more in symbol than in substance, the democrats will push for electability, and leave any thoughts of serving their country instead of their party on the convention floor.

Political Games

Mr. Timothy Noah of Slate.com recently channeled Kevin Bacon and

invited the public to connect, “six degrees”-style, one or more of the remaining three major presidential candidates to der Führer und Reichskanzler himself, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

The result was a veritable seminar in 20th-century American politicians, philanthropists, European royalty, and Nazis. As well as excellent pointers on efficient methodologies in degree-separation model building – including the renowned fortress-hub tactic!

Mr. Noah is joking, of course, but hopefully there will be no rigmarole like that about Mr. Obama’s middle name.

In other news: Chelsea Clinton was recently playing quite different games in Philadelphia and Portland. Like commenter John Curious from San Francisco, I am left wondering

…did somebody try to grab Ed Rendell’s ass, too?

Oh for the halcyon days when the pub was a scene of political discussion and action.

New Election, New Generation, please

I think that Andrew Sullivan has put forth the best reason for support Obama, which he explored at length in a cover story the The Atlantic a few months ago. The babyboomers have been destructive and they have to go. Is the next generation (what are we calling it?) going to fare any better? There’s no guarantee, but it’s hard to imagine it failing any worse.

Famous last words?

Regardless, Hillary and McCain do represent a mentality that has driven this country into the ground culturally and politically. It’s a me-me-me focus that is out of touch with everyone who isn’t just like me-me-me. Instead of thinking forward, it’s mired in a fantasy present that the activism of the 60s didn’t deliver and the poll-based-politics of today continue to imagine. It seems to me like a parent who, failing during the crucial years and watching his or her children spin off the deep in their teen years has decided to forcibly re-enter the scene in their 20s and tell them to open up so the airplane can deliver its cargo of applesauce.

We don’t need to be fed anymore, and that’s the bottom line. It’s time we start cooking.

…that being said, I have a feeling somebody that survived North Vietnamese torture camps can probably cook a hearty meal on a low budget.

Not Another Flag-Burning Hippie Gun-Toting Warmonger Who Hates Freedom But Loves Voting

“Oh no,” everyone says collectively, “you moved out of Pennsylvania just when your vote counted most.” This statement–ranking above sighs, gasps, and the loud shrill scream of a damsel in distress–is the most common thing I hear about my political life these days.

Funny story about that, actually.  Illinois or Pennsylvania, my vote don’t count shit ’cause I’m an independent.  Despite the pundit platitudes placing my, and like-minded thinkers, vote on a proverbial pedestal, you don’t see any candidates concerned with my opinion… yet.

Call me old fashioned (do it!), but I’m going to stick with the founding fathers on this one. This is also an instance where I’m going to rely on their words and not their deeds, as their failure to follow their own advice set the course for this political circus, but for the court of public opinion I would like to resubmit Federalist no. 10.

Frankly, the idea of political parties terrifies me. It keeps me up at night. More than any threat from communists and terrorists and whatever “ists” are lying in wait, I’m scared of people who vigorously cheer their party, ride their ridiculous animal, and pretend that they’re making a difference in the lives of everyone by supporting the prescribed views of just some.

“It is in vain to say,” writes Madison, over 200 years ago, “that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm [my note: a GROSS understatement]. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.”

So how about that primary back ‘home’?  Doesn’t the press champion Obama for his apparent unifying abilities? Who is he unifying? The ridiculously disparate and unequal branches of the democratic party? Well, that’s great, but after the departure of Grand Moff Divider, I’m more interested in seeing Americans unified than democrats or republicans. What does a primary do, other than highlight our differences, and ask Americans in the middle–apparently the key ’swing’ votes, we’re told–to sit back, watch, and, you know, if you’re not too busy on the second Tuesday in November, come on out and let us know what you think about the parties’ choices.

Madison was afraid that factions would form to support cut-and-dry stances, that is, similar religions, similar economic positions, ethnicities, etc. He was right to fear that. How much scarier, then, would he find today’s political parties, abstract entities that manages to wed opposite interests, economics, religions, and races into a monster of verbiage and bureaucratic impedimenta that would have no substance outside of civilians’ idolatrous worship of its name?

What a sweeping mandate citizens could deliver if only we would vote for individuals and not their letters; what kind of accountability would a politician be forced to humble to when their vote rested on their laurels and concrete accomplishments instead of reputations and well-placed photographs; what great authority, responsibility, and leadership could civil government display if its citizens displayed the same.