Extended Phenotype

Again, thanks to Atrios for the pointer.  Rep. John Dingell, of Michigan, wrote a letter to CEA Chairman Mankiw this week, not only challenging the absurd classification of fast-food workers as “manufacturing jobs” but doing so with such humor that I rolled on the floor laughing – a rare thing when reviewing the Administration’s hijinks these days.   Here are some fun quotes, but I recommend reading the whole thing:

I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high growth manufacturing careers like spatula operation, napkin restocking, and lunch tray removal.  

Dingell goes on to ask key questions about this new trend in job creation, however:

Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at Burger College?

Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good?

It’s nice to see that we have elected officials who can fight back at the Administration, and do it in a positive way.  This made my whole day. 

Thanks to Atrios for linking this one:  The Rocky Mountain Progressive Network has decided that since supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment are believers in the sanctity of marriage, they ought to be willing to sign a pledge that they practice fidelity themselves.  After all, Focus on the Family cites a 2002 study by the University of Oklahoma showing that infidelity as a major threat to the institution of marriage.  The pledge was given to each Colorado state and federal lawmaker who publicly supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.  You can see the pledge and track which lawmakers sign and return it.  This ought to be fun to watch…

It was a matter of time, of course.  Today, Bush publicly announced his call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  The announcement itself is really not very interesting, and I’m not really very motivated to pick apart Bush’s language or comments. Others, including Kevin Drum are commenting on other aspects of this issue, and the transcript is available for those who are interested.  I find it somewhat interesting that the only statistics on the “overwhelming consensus” for “protecting” traditional notions of marriage were the voting numbers on the Defense of Marriage Act (House: 342-67, Sen: 85-14).  Naturally, these numbers are chosen because they’re much less equivocal than public polling numbers.  And naturally, public polling numbers don’t demonstrate anywhere near this degree of “overwhelming consensus.”    

American Footprint posted a terrific piece on the New Deal and its relationship to centrist Democratic politics.  His argument is that the legacy of the New Deal isn’t really specific programs but the notion (carried on by the DLC and Clinton) that government should be involved in “bold, persistent experimentation” to solve problems.  This is a must read for Democrats this year because the traditional agendas are – in part – what leads to the notion of a polarized, divided America.  

While it’s reasonable to say that there is still a “culture war” happening in this country, that doesn’t automatically mean that the two major parties must be different along the exact lines of the culture war.  Indeed, there’s a strong argument to be made that shifting the agenda just slightly could retain existing committed Dems while creating broader appeal to those moderate Republicans.  These are folks who voted Republican during the last decade because they believe in a strong national security stance, are against waste in government operations, but aren’t necessarily attracted by the current Republican alliance with socially conservative and religious agendas.  This isn’t news – the Democratic Leadership Council was founded with this strategy in mind, and Clinton was the first of the DLC Democrats to gain the White House.  But the DLC mission has not, in my experience, successfully replaced the older Johnsonian “Great Society” image that the Democrats have in the minds of many Americans.

American Footprint does us a great service by urging everyone to reconsider FDR’s legacy at a more fundamental level – not at the level of specific policies and programs, but at a philosophical and strategic level.  

I’m seeing an interesting trend in arguments being made against the actions of San Francisco mayor Newsom.  Opponents of same-sex marriage are picking up on Bush’s State of the Union attack on “activist judges” who use their “arbitrary will” to determine the law “without regard for the will of the people or their elected representatives.”  Since Newsom heated up the controversy last week, I’m seeing more and more conservative commentators and religious leaders (including Joe Fuiten here in Seattle) use the “activist” label to condemn judges who may not rule in their favor.  Even within the blogging community, folks like Fried Man believe that somehow legislation or citizen’s initiatives are more “democratic.” 

And there’s even a coalition dedicated to pushing a “Judicial Accountability Amendment” to hobble the powers of judicial review that have been the prerogative of the courts (and the Supreme Court in particular) since envisioned by the Founding Fathers and enshrined as precedent by Marbury v. Madison
(1803).  

It’s worth deconstructing this rhetoric a bit, and comparing it against the words and intent of the Founding Fathers concerning the role of the judiciary.  Is it somehow less “democratic” when the Supreme Court interprets a law, or rules that a law is unconstitutional?  Should we restrict judges to simply ruling on factual cases, and remove their ability to strike down laws? 

I sent the following to the Nader Exploratory Committee today.  I hope everyone makes their wishes known as well.  

_________________________

Mr. Nader,

I write to you, after hearing that you will address America concerning your Presidential candidacy this Sunday, to make a plea:

Please do not run for President in this election.

I respect you greatly.  In many other circumstances, I would have to think carefully about where to place my vote.  But not this time.  Electoral data from the 2000 election demonstrates quite clearly that you split the progressive and Democratic vote with Al Gore, and as a result, allowed George Bush to win the White House.

In 2004, this country is essentially holding a referendum on how this country will move forward.  The person sitting in the Oval Office for the next four years will have an enormous impact on the direction our country takes for the remainder of my lifetime, and our children’s lifetime.    

Somewhere between one and three Supreme Court justices are likely reaching the age where retirement becomes a concern.  The next Administration will likely get to set the direction of the Court for the next twenty years.  And if we examine the Rehnquist Court’s record, with a consistent 5-4 majority, that prospect should frighten all of us – Democrat, Green, or Independent. 

We’ve taken the unprecendented step of going from budget surpluses to record deficits, and record national debt.  With all due respect to the soliders and fallen civilians in Iraq, when the current war is done and the subject of history instead of the nightly news, the trillions
of dollars that have been borrowed and spent by the Bush Administration will still haunt our grandchildren.  That debt will ultimately destroy our ability to provide a social “safety net” to our citizens and continue foreign aid to countries which are trying to become strong, well-governed states.  Including Iraq. 

I ask you to consider the issue of running for President in 2004 not because I don’t think you could handle the issues I raise.  You could. 

I ask you not to run for President because I believe you cannot win, and winning back the White House is the most important thing Democrats, Greens, Progressives, and Independents can do this year.  It’s more important than breaking the “two party” stranglehold on American politics.  It’s more important than electing the “best” possible candidate.  Put simply, it’s the most important thing any
of us will do this year. 

Again, I want you to know that I respect you deeply for your life-long advocacy and public service.  I understand that this might be one of your last opportunities to run for the presidency.  I know it will be a difficult decision not to run.  I understand the sacrifice we’re all asking you to make.

But I ask you anyway:  please do not run for President in this election

. 

You will not win.  And in the process, you run the risk of delivering the country into the hands of George Bush for another
four years. 

Another four years in which Bush will consolidate the Rehnquist agenda on the Supreme Court; another four years during which we’ll approach the world community with arrogance rather than cooperation and honor; another four years of catastrophic fiscal policy for which our grandchildren will still be paying, long after you and I are part of history. 

Please think about it.  Please do the right thing on Sunday morning.