Keep Them Out of Your Daughters' and Granddaughters Vaginas

Like you, I have followed the latest gambits by the Republican Party to keep women barefoot and pregnant, while destroying the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.  The linguistics of their efforts stink of GOP strategic linguist Frank Luntz.  The failure of the Democrats to respond with equal ferocity stinks of the now common Democratic strategy of minimal resistance and cowardice.

What's going on here?  By shifting to contraception as the target issue, the Republicans have managed to move the focus from their discredited attacks on Planned Parenthood, which has included the discrediting of the Susan G Komen Foundation, to an area of completely settled law, and couch their attacks as defense of the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment.

Let me suggest an alternative interpretation.  If all non-religious entities that offer insurance are required to provide contraception to their employees, giving religious entities a pass is, in effect, establishing religion in the nation in direct contravention of the first amendment.  President Obama finessed the controversy, but not the underlying problem, with his modification of the original policy.

Now the Republicans are trying expand that finessed policy to terminate all mandated coverage by pushing to permit any entity to gain exemption if it claims moral opposition to any aspect of mandated coverage.  This is part of the war on health care reform.

At the same time, GOP controlled states are instituting more mandates.  Virginia is the current leader in this fight.  The requirement of subjecting those considering abortions to undergo trans-vaginal probes is a vicious invasion not only of women's' rights, but of human rights.  Whatever happened to fighting against the invasion of freedom Republicans claim is their goal?

How far do the Republicans intend to push?  The overt attacks on the American Care Act mandates is the first mandate they want overruled.  Do they want the Medicare mandate removed?  How about the Social Security mandate?  Social Security and Medicare were opposed by Republicans when they were first enacted, and termination of those programs has been a priority for decades.  Why not overturn the mandate to pay income taxes while they're at it?

It looks to me like while the GOP whines about protecting the Constitution, it really want to return to the ineffective Articles of Confederation that the Constitution replaced.

It is not too surprising that the battleground on which the Republicans have chosen to wage their war on human rights is the female reproductive system, after all, women are "the weaker sex."  Our job is to defend the rights of our wives, daughters and granddaughters and keep right wing extremism out of their vaginas.

The Truth of Albert Briggs - Part 2

Before I go on, let me add a little perspective.  While my experiences were with the Democratic Party, exactly the same environment existed on the Republican side.

Now then, where was I?  Oh, yes, I wrote the check for Barack Obama.  I didn't have access to Senator Obama during the campaign.  I've never met him.  But I did get invited to even more functions that provided access to political figures.  I was also able to attend the convention in Colorado in August, which was, by the way, great fun.  Unlike the 2000 convention, I was now a "guest" of the Democratic National Committee and that meant that Elaine and I got invited to much better receptions and we had premium seats to big convention events, such as Senator Obama's acceptance speech.  Because I had spread money across a number of candidates and organizations, I was invited to their receptions too.  During the campaign I did my best to encourage my friends and acquaintances to give whatever they could afford.  I know some gave and I felt good about that.

So I was a Fat Cat and basked in that status.  Only I wasn't.  I was just an Itty-Bitty-Kitty.  The Fat Cats collected and bundled maxed out contributions from whole bunches of IBK's like me, so they were turning over millions of dollars to campaigns.  The George W Bush campaign called them "Pioneers." They have existed for a long time, named or unnamed.  These bundlers tend to target donors.  Some go for folks like me who are philosophically committed, but most go for affinity groups like oil donors, banking donors, labor donors, retail industry donors, etc.  Bundlers have agendas driven by their donors, many of whom are lobbyists or employ lobbyists.  Do you think my piddling $90k matters compared to bundlers and their lobbyists who have brought in millions?  It does not.

Money has always been the key driver of political life here.  When the revered "founding fathers," wrote "We the people of the United States..." What they meant was "We the rich, white, male people of the United States."  The whole system was created to sustain that advantage.  There have been changes, but I think we can agree that the rich, white male is still in pretty good shape in the modern political life of our country.  One of the big issues of the 2012 election cycle is the distribution of wealth.  Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements focus on the fairness of wealth distribution and the role it plays in our civic life.  They come at it from opposite directions, but they end up in the same place: It's not fair that big money sets the agenda and the people are powerless to change it.  The 2010 Citizens United decision has highlighted the increased flood of money into the system that further minimizes the power of the public.

All of a sudden both parties are citing fairness as a motivation for their proposals.  Why? It comes back to Albert Briggs. "The only truth in politics is reelection."  They get it and they will do and say whatever has to done and said to convince voters that what they believe is "fair."  When they get reelected or elected, but mostly reelected, they will do whatever they can to advance the various agendas of the bundlers whose dollars give them the resources to get reelected.

Does that mean we shouldn't vote?  Quite the contrary.  The one time that every individual voter has all the power is when she/he walks into that voting booth.  In order to use that power wisely, we have to read everything we can.  We have to look at each candidate's positions and determine, or try to determine, who's interests will be advanced or disadvantaged by those positions.  While I support attempts to get money out of politics, I am too realistic, some might say cynical, to believe that it will ever happen if only because those who have to make it happen are the very people who benefit from it.  Still, I am a firm believer in the United States of America.  I can't give tens of thousands of dollars anymore, but I will contribute to those candidates for who I will, or would, cast my vote because their positions more or less coincide with mine.  Will they disappoint me if successful? Yes, in some areas, but there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

So as the 2012 cycle proceeds, remember Albert Briggs. I certainly will.  

The Truth of Albert Briggs- Part 1

My freshman year in high school, I was already pretty committed to studying history.  But that year sealed the deal.  Not because ancient history was particularly captivating but because the attendant attention to current affairs was.  We were required to read "The News of the Week in Review" column in "The New York Times" every Sunday, and Monday's class focused on its content.  The key to these weekly discussions was the presence of the unusual Mr. Albert Briggs.

I didn't like Albert Briggs.  He was an avowed conservative, and I, like most of my classmates, a blossoming liberal.  I couldn't stand it when he would respond to one of my proudly declarative comments with, "Nooow Mr. Berkley..." followed by a gently withering observation.  I'm guessing that your ninth grade history class reading did not include "The Blue Book of the John Birch Society." Mine did.  To this day, I refuse to buy or use any Welch's food products.  The debates in that history class were intense.  No declaration went unchallenged.  Occasionally Mr. Briggs  made a comment that I thought was truly off limits.  Most importantly, and the inspiration for this entry, he said, "There is only one truth in politics, re-election."  I was mortified!  How coldly cynical.  How clearly incorrect.  This was the age of JFK.  The political world was a good and largely ethical place.

Mr. Briggs' comment was only a background noise in my consciousness until the 1990's, when I began to get more deeply involved with national politics.  I was the Chairman of the Upholstery Fabrics Committee of, first, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, and then the National Textile Association.  I began to meet with members of Congress and the executive branch on a semi-regular basis to advocate for issues of interest to my group, which was composed of my competitors and others in the field.  I noticed that the offices of members of Congress and various executive branch officers were filled with people just like me and some paid to do advocacy for their causes (lobbyists, in the current vernacular, or even in the past vernacular).  We were all pressing our issues.  Setting aside the validity and/or importance of those issues, they all boiled down to money.  We wanted to preserve our companies and the jobs attached to them (our profits and future viability at the root of it all). Others had similar reasons for their advocacy.  I saw how the professional lobbyists exploited their long relationships with staffers to gain access and learned how sizable campaign contributions were the lubricant used to grease the wheels for that access.  The more exposure I had, the more I understood that the coin of the realm was, in fact, the coin of the realm.

As the 2000 election cycle approached, I began to contribute lots of cash to those candidates and organizations with whose positions I agreed.  The more I gave, the more I was invited to this dinner or that meeting with political figures.  I guess the highlight of that period was "Christmas Dinner at Terry McAuliffe's Home featuring President Bill Clinton" in December of 1999.  I flew to DC, checked in to a hotel room, and headed out.  "Dinner" consisted of 11 meatballs, 1 dish of onion dip with soggy Doritos some veggies with a spinach dip and some empty serving platters that somehow never got used.  Clearly this affair wasn't planned by anyone Jewish or Italian.  Bill Clinton was engaging and charismatic, as advertised.  We got a picture with him and some other pols, he worked the room for a little while and was gone, leaving us to fight over the last damn meatball.  Of the attendees, I was one of a small handful who were not lobbyists or fat cat donors, at least not yet.

Elaine and I went to the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.  We were under the auspices of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC, call "the D-trip).  We stayed at a hotel that housed members of the House of Representatives.  We had a good time, but that there was a pecking order for access became very clear.  Our parties weren't the really nice ones.  Our seats at the Staples Arena weren't the prime ones.

I continued to contribute over the next four years, but I wasn't a John Kerry supporter.  I was a Howard Dean supporter.  During the campaign of 2004, the increasing role of big money became clear thanks to the Swift Boaters who simply fabricated stories about Kerry, were given enough money to get them on the air a lot, a media corps with the skill of a cabbage, and a Democratic Party that was taken completely by surprise.  After that election I decided it was time to step up to the Democratic National Committee.  I became a "member" of the DNC's National Advisory Board, i.e., I committed to giving the legal maximum to the DNC for four years.  I was now a fat cat.  I went to dinners four times a year at a truly magnificent townhouse in Georgetown.  I met movers and shakers including political leaders and had lots of face time with them.  I got to know Howard Dean, who turns out to be a bright, charming, funny and dedicated guy.  He even came to a dinner at our home with some friends who were potential donors.  It was he who gave me the most concise explanation of the difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Howard said, "The Republicans are the party of 'me', and the Democrats are the party of 'we'."

My candidate in 2008 was Bill Richardson.  After it became clear to me that Richardson wasn't going to win, although I had already maxed out to his campaign, I had to choose between Hillary Clinton, for whom I had, and have, the deepest respect and admiration, and Barack Obama, about who I knew nothing.  I flew to Washington with my boy child, what's his name, right, Dan, and we went to hear the candidates speak.  Hillary was called away because some whacko had taken her campaign office in New Hampshire hostage.  So I didn't hear her.  We did hear Barack Obama.  He was very impressive if a little too centrist for my political sensibilities.  I decided that rather than fighting a Swift Boat type of reliving of the events of the Clinton Presidency in the 1990's, I would support Obama.  I wrote the necessary check.

To be continued...