Muslims in Bikinis

Via Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Sewer of the liberal magazine American Prospect nails what the all the hubbub on the Right over Rima Fakih winning Miss USA is all about:

I'm not really a fan of beauty contests, but the tone and substance of the fever swamp's reaction to an Arab-American winning a beauty contest is at least useful for pointing out how some people's political opinions aren't based so much in questions of policy as anti-Muslim animosity. The level of anger is just so plainly disproportionate to the matter at hand as to be self-implicating. These people aren't worried about terrorism -- they're offended by the idea of Muslims being integrated into the most mundane and banal aspects of American society.

Agreed. You can dress it up in concerns about terrorism, but in the end, this is all ugly bigotry against anyone that's Muslim. Shame.

Miss USA is Crowned; Conservatives Go Crazy

As someone from Michigan, I am glad Rima Fakih won Miss USA last night. And I don't care that she is Arab American. Again, coming from southeastern Michigan, I know that it's home to a lot of Arab Americans and it doesn't bother me...I think it adds to the character of my home state.


But it seems that there are some conservatives that don't feel that way. It seems that giving Ms. Fakih the honor of Miss USA was basically honoring terrorism. Rick Moran has the rundown of how some conservative commentators have gone off the deep-end in their condemnation of Fakih. Moran highlights one particular crazy, Debbie Schlussel, who goes off on a hate-filled rampage- throwing out accusations that can't be substantiated:

Rima Fakih, Miss Michigan USA, who will compete in Sunday Night’s pageant broadcast on NBC, is a Dearbornistan Shi’ite Muslim who is a supporter of Hezbollah and used the pageant name at a forum promoting Islamic subjugation of women. She was born in the Hezbollah stronghold of Srifa in South Lebanon, which Israel was forced to attack in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war because it was a site of Hezbollah weaponry. Her devout Muslim family comes from the Hezbollah-controlled South Lebanon. Intelligence sources confirm that at least three of Fakih’s relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists killed by the Israelis in past Israel-Lebanese wars and interventions. Some of her family members were originally in Harakat Amal [the Shi'ite Amal militia], which is now essentially a part of Hezbollah. There’s a reason that even Al-Manar TV–Hezbollah’s official TV network–is high on Fakih in the Miss USA pageant.

Last year’s Miss USA pageant was controversial because airheaded Miss California bimbo Carrie Prejean rode both sides of the fence in responding to pageant judge and gay activist Perez Hilton’s (a/k/a Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.) question about gay marriage. But will judges in this year’s pageant have the guts to ask Miss Michigan USA a far more important question: if she will condemn Hezbollah, the Islamic terrorist group which murdered over 300 US Marines and civilians in the 1983 bombings of the barracks and U.S. Embassy in Beirut? Will they ask her to condemn the group that tortured and trampled to death Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem after hijacking TWA flight 847 and tortured to death Col. Rich Higgins and CIA attache William Buckley? The group working with Al-Qaeda to provide explosives to blow up our troops in Iraq and to blow up innocent civilians in several other Qaeda/Hezbollah joint ventures? Don’t count on it. And they have to ask her to specifically condemn Hezbollah. The usual nebulous “Islamic terrorists” condemnation doesn’t count because they don’t think any of their groups, like Hezbollah, are terrorists, but “legitimate resistance.” And don’t wait for them to ask her if she recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

First off, I how does she know that Fakhi's relatives are involved in Hezbollah? What "intelligence sources" does some blogger have? How is she responsible for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beriut, something that took place three years before she was born?

I don't know about you, but where I come from (which happens to be the same state that Ms. Fakih and Ms. Schlussel come from) someone who judges someone based on their heritage is called a bigot.

There is too much of this crap taking place within conservatism. A legitimate concern over terrorism has been used to hide bigotry and hatred aimed towards Arabs and Muslims. I am thankful that people like Moran are calling people out on this and showing them for what they are: small, hateful beings.

And that's sad, because Rima Fakih's win is a testament to what makes America great. In other parts of the world, Ms. Fakih would not be able to wear a skimpy bathing suit and prance about a stage. Here is a woman who is Muslim, and able to be like any other woman. There was no religion or government that was stopping her. THAT is what is wonderful about our country. Melissa Couthier says it best:

She’s in America. She’s doing what beautiful American girls do. She’s acting Western.

In an Islamic country, she’d likely be hung, beheaded, tortured or “honor” killed for shaming her uptight, sexually repressed, backward, stone age husband or father.

So while I get that people are upset about this, I suggest taking the big picture here. We have a young Muslim woman, without a burqa, who won Miss USA.

Let the Islamofascists put that in their pipe and smoke it.

And by the way, did anyone notice that she's hot? If a gay man can say that, you know she has to be beautiful.

The Center and the "Elites"

According to Ross Douthat and Jonathan Chait, I don't exist. At least when it comes to politics.

I tend to be one of those people that probably cause Douthat and Chait to roll their eyes: I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Douthat has written on various occasions that basically those types are persons are should just join the Democrats and be done with it.

It can be frustrating for people like me, because while I'm definitely put off by the social conservatism of the Republicans, I am also uncomfortable with the economic policies of the Democrats. In some ways, I am one of those persons that longs for a viable third party.

Former Clinton advisor Mark Penn opines that if the economy doesn't get better soon, we might see a third party arise. Now I've heard that before and nothing ever does really happen, but what did ring true in Penn's piece is the feeling that there is number of people out there that feel without a political home.

Rubbish, says Chait. Most of the so-called independents are really well-heeled Republicans and Democrats:

...pollsters and public opinion experts -- a group that apparently excludes Penn -- understand that independent self-identification largely reflects a desire not to be seen as a closed-minded, automatic vote. It does not, however, reflect actual voting independence. Most self-identified independents are at least as partisan in their voting behavior as self-identified Democrats or Republicans. It's largely a class phenomenon, with wealthier and more educated voters being more likely to call themselves independent, but not more likely to go astray in the voting both. The rise of independent self-identification has little to do with voters moving toward the center or the parties moving toward the extremes. Plenty of those self-identified Democrats in the 1950s voted for Ike.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of people that I know that call themselves "independent" and yet are more partisan than they care to admit. But there are also a lot of people who do truly feel homeless. They vote for one party more than the other because they might agree with that party over the other one, but they are truly not affiliated with either major party. Others are people whose votes go all over the map. I tend to see these homeless people in my daily life, on the blogs and among friends.

Chait and Douthat both have stressed that the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" group is just made up of upscale snobs, while both parties ignore another group: "big-goverment social conservatives." I'm always a little skeptical of such a group. Maybe it does exist. It could be made up people from the working class that don't tend to haunt the blogs.

That said, I have never seen them interviewed, or create Tea Party-like groups demanding that we ban gay marriage and enact universal healthcare.

I do not understand the aversion to people like me.

Not Jumping Ship

I've been quite surprised to see the reaction to my thoughts about leaving the GOP the other day. Let me just cut to the chase: while I respect the decision Travis made in deciding to leave the GOP, I've decided that it's not time to jump the Republican ship.

The reason why? Well, because there really isn't anywhere else to go.

I didn't become a Republican on a lark. I did a lot of thinking and a lot of reading and came to the conclusion that I was philosophically a Republican. If one is on the center-right here in America, then you don't have many choices. I could call myself an Independent as is the trend these days, but the fact is, a lot of people who call themselves Independent are not really. They tend to lean one way or the other, but just have refused to be labeled.

But there is another reason to stay. It's the "green shoots" of hope that show that while the Tea Party crazies might be the ones talking now, that will not always be the case. It's the fact that there are Republicans who do care about the plight of our planet. It's a former First Lady who comes out in favor of same-sex marriage. It's a raft of candidates that are good moderate conservatives.

The fact is, there are still some good people in the party. The problem is that too often people like Travis and myself tend to only look at the loud voices that present themselves as the face of the GOP. But they really aren't the face of the Republican Party, or they are only a face of the GOP not the face. A blogger responding to a post by the Moderate Republican on the creation of a third party had this to say about political parties in America:

What people need to realize is that the party is merely a conduit. It is a means by which we seek to achieve an end. If you get an algebra question wrong on a test, is the problem with the question or with the methodology by which you sought to find the answer?

To sum it up, garbage in..garbage out. Third parties can indeed prove beneficial but merely jumping to the independence party or otherwise in hopes of something different presupposes that the independence party is filled with anything different than the other two predominant parties.

Tis why I say, if you're not involved at the BPOU/Precinct level then you will continue to get the government you deserve.

The writer hit the nail on the head. Political parties in America are only conduits. That means that if a Tea Partier wants to use the party to make it...to suit their purposes, I can do the same thing. I am as much the face of the Republican Party than they are.

So, I'm not jumping ship. I will stay and make myself known...as a Republican.

Is It Time for a New Center-Right Party?

For many years, I've been part of an effort to make the Republican Party more inclusive in various ways. I believe it is important to have a good and strong center-right party in order to counter the Democrats.

That said, I am not as certain that the GOP can reform itself anymore. From the recent ouster of Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett, to the ultra-crazy Maine GOP Platform, to John McCain whoring himself to the far right in order to win a Republican primary for the Senate, I am starting to come to a place that many of my friends have come to long ago: that the Republican Party might be too far gone to save.

Which is why I am beginning to think that it's time to look into creating a new center right party in America. But before I say what I do want, I want to make clear what I don't want:

• A "centrist" party that tries to reach both Republicans and Deomcrats. In Minnesota, we have a viable third party called the Independence Party. It's claim to fame is that Governor Jesse Ventura has been their only sucessful candidate. That said, it is not a strong third party partly because it tries to be a party without ideology. It is trying to capture that middle ground in American politics, which is laudable. However, their disdain for the rigid ideologies of the two major parties have produced a party that doesn't know what it stands for. It tends to capture both former Republicans and Democrats and the result is a mismash of the two ideologies.
• Independent Candidates. While it is the dream of some to see more candidates running without any party affiliation, I tend to think this option is not the best. The record of winning independent campaigns is not very good and independent candidates lack the "people power" that political parties can provide. Also, they have little staying power- once the successful independent candidate leaves 0ffice, traditional party politics comes back.

No, I think there is a need for a credible center-right alternative to the Republicans. One that isn't wrapped up in the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/ Religious Right/Ron Paul nuttiness.

It's time for a center right party that is truly fiscally conservative, truly believes in limited goverment and is truly socially liberal. A party that is interested in reaching the Center as much as it is in reaching the Right. One patterned more after One Nation Conservatism is the UK.

So here's a message to Bob Bennett, John McCain and other Republicans: maybe instead of trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear, maybe it's time to start anew and create a new center-right coalition.

Crossposted at Republicans United

The Consequences of Arizona

My mother has an accent.

Born and raised in Puerto Rico, my mother learned English in school, but the accent stayed with her, even when she moved off the island to Michigan in 1963.

It remains with her to this day. What's so funny about it is that as her son, I never realized my mother ever had an accent until I was well into my 20s. Other people would remark about her accent, but I never noticed it- it was normal to me.

I grew up in a household where English and Spanish was spoken. Several of my mother's relatives moved to Michigan after she did, including 2 uncles and mi abuela, my grandmother. I learned Spanish by hearing my relatives speak to one another.

I'm very proud of my Puerto Rican heritage in addition to my African American heritage. I also consider myself lucky to have been raised in a bilingual household, where I heard two languages being freely spoken.

When I think about the current mess concerning the new immigration law in Arizona, I have to wonder how comfortable my Spanish-speaking relatives would feel down there. Something tells me they would not feel welcome.

In the aftermath of this law, many conservatives have defended it saying that something had to be done. While I agree that something does need to be done to deal with immigration and border security, the law in Arizona was the wrong way to do it. The law is discriminatory towards Latinos and regardless of whether that was intentional or not, it will have the affect of driving Latinos away from the Republican Party.

Why you say? Well, because the law as is written, could allow the police to stop anyone who might look like an illegal immigrant. Since most illegal immigrants in Arizona tend to be Mexican and speak Spanish, I have the feeling that there will be a lot of stops made because someone was "DWH" or "Driving While Hispanic."

Some say the answer to this law is that legal residents should just carry their papers. So, someone who might be born here and raised here, has to keep proof of citizenship on their person at all times because their name happens to be something like "Sanchez" while the guy named "Johnson" can just move along with no id at all? How in the world is that fair?

What has bothered me is how many Republicans have not bothered to even think how this would affect Hispanic Americans and their views of the GOP. It doesn't matter if the intent was to curb illegal immigration, it looks like conservatives have it out for any who has a "funny" last name or talks with an accent.

The passage of this bill has damaged the perception of the GOP in the minds of millions of Hispanic Americans. This law has basically told the fastest growing minority in America that they are not to be trusted. They will respond by not voting Republican.

As someone who is part Hispanic, this law offends me. I am ashamed today to call myself a conservative.

By the Time I Get to Arizona

Would police in Arizona pull over my mother?

My mom was born in raised in Puerto Rico. She came to the mainland in 1963 and settled in Michigan, where she met my dad. All of my uncles on my Mom's side tend to be dark-skinned, reflective of the African heritage that is part of what makes up modern Puerto Rico. But my Mom and my late Grandmother are lighter skinned, blessed with a rust colored skin that is common among many Puerto Ricans.

But would a cop in Arizona know that? Would they realize that she is and has always been an American citizen? Would they even know Puerto Rico is part of the United States? Or would they look at her skin and her accent and assume that she might be an illegal immigrant?

As you've probably guessed, I am not in favor of the current law in Arizona signed by their Republican governor. I think it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics; putting them up for suspicion simply because of the color of their skin. Meghan McCain couldn't have said it any better:

Let me say upfront that I do not support the bill that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer. I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents. Simply put, I think it is a bad law that is missing the bigger picture of what is really going on with illegal immigration. The concept that a law-enforcement official can stop an individual when “reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien, who is unlawfully present in the United States” is essentially a license to pull someone over for being Hispanic.

I'm not someone who favors "open borders" believing anyone should just come into the United States. As Travis noted, we want to make sure that no bad guys are coming in along with all the good people. I also believe we are a nations of laws, and those who enter the country illegally have broken the law and have to pay for that.

But this law is the wrong way to try to solve this issue. I can't say that if it is intentional, but I believe the law is at least in application, racist. It is based on fear instead of reason.

We need an immigration policy that is based on security and enforcement. That said, we also need to do something about the 12 million who are in the country illegally. It is not feasible, nor is even ethical to try to round up all of these folks and send them back where they came from. So, that means trying to find ways to get them to come out of the shadows and create a process that allows them to become Americans.

I can already hear the cries of "amnesty!" coming from some conservatives. Nevermind that some of the more recent attempts to reform our immigration laws included having these immigrants pay a fine for coming into the country illegally. Anything short of putting these people on a bus headed South will be called "amnesty" by these folks and says speaks volumes about their hearts.

This law also will ruin chances of the GOP reaching out to Latinos. President Bush was not my favorite president, but he at least tried hard to make the party more inclusive to Hispanics. He tried to reform immigration in way that would be more inclusive, but was rebuffed by the hard right. That might please whites in the GOP who seem afraid of brown-skinned persons, but in the long run, as America becomes more diverse, it will be Republican Party that will be on the losing end.

If there are any Republicans left who believe in fairness and justice, we must speak out against this law and call for real reform. This is a slap in the face to a party founded on equality and civil rights.

John Avalon and the "Phony Centrist"

Perhaps the best known "centrist" out there these days is John Avalon, a former aide to Rudy Giuliani and author of the book Independent Nation: How the Vital Center is Changing American Politics.

You might think that he of all people would support Charlie Crist's declaration of Independence. Nope:

As an independent and a centrist, I should be a textbook supporter of Charlie Crist’s newly announced independent candidacy for U.S. Senate.

But I’m not—because Charlie Crist confirms the worst stereotypes of a centrist. Instead of being principled in his differences with his party, he is opportunistic.

Read the rest. Avalon gives a good reason why Crist is just not the real deal.

Charlie Crist and Moderate Republicanism

Well, it looks like Florida Governor Charlie Crist is going to run for Senate as an Independent after all.

If you would have asked me a few months ago about the prospects of Crist leaving the GOP, I would have said this is yet another sad reminder of the Republican Party's tilt to the far right. I would have cast Marco Rubio, the Crist's conservative opponent in the Florida Senate race as the evil conservative out to destroy all that is good and right with a moderate, conservative Republicanism.

But now, I'm not so sad about Crist's decision. Don't get me wrong: I am concerned about the ongoing "purging" that is taking place within the GOP. I don't like how a certain ideological rigidity has taken over. I think that there should be a moderate faction within the Republican party.

But I want a principled moderate or centrist Republicanism, not one that seems based on changing political fortunes. The problem is Crist tends to be somewhat of an opportunist, willing to shift to the prevailing winds that will assure him victory.

On April Fool's day, Ross Douthat wrote on his blog about Crist and how many liberals have mischaracterized him. At first read, it seemed like yet another post from Douthat bashing moderates. A second reading though, revealed that Crist was not the martyr I made him out to be. As Douthat states in a reply to writer E. J. Dionne:

E.J. Dionne’s latest column is a classic of a well-worn liberal genre: He heaps praise on the “nonpartisan, non-ideological” Charlie Crist, with his “sunny” attitude and his “buoyant moderation,” and bemoans the rising tide of right-wing extremism that’s going to cost Crist the chance to be the next Republican senator from Florida.

Notably absent is any defense of Crist’s actual record as governor, which has been “moderate” in the worst sense of the word: Fiscally irresponsible on taxes and spending alike, and eager to use bailout dollars to delay the hard choices that Crist’s own profligacy created. Absent, as well, is more thorough accounting of why so many Florida Republicans have turned on the once-popular governor.

Douthat links to a piece by Reihan Salam that shows that Crist doesn't come close to what one would hope a moderate Republican would act when it comes to fiscal matters: in a fiscally conservative manner. In the article, Salam points to an interview Crist gave to the Miami Herald where he lauded the stimulus package passed last year. In Crist's eyes, the state didn't have to worry about raising taxes and could even more money than what was previously planned. As Salam notes, Crist used the stimulus to fund 12 percent of the state budget. He also vetoed a plan by state Republicans to make some painful spending cuts and instead cut taxes, paving the road for a fiscal nightmare down the road.

If you want another example of how Crist has created a potential fiscal trainwreck in the Sunshine State, read Eli Lehrer's piece in Frum Forum.

An article in Salon gives an even clearer picture of a political opportunist. It shows a guy that changes his position to fit the moment:

In 2008, during the period when he was under consideration for the McCain ticket, he abruptly withdrew his previous opposition to offshore drilling, a change that brought him into line with McCain's views.

As a state senator in the mid-'90s, Crist's record on criminal justice issues was hard-line enough to earn him the nickname "Chain Gang Charlie." He also backed a bill that required convicted criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. While running for attorney general in 2002, he sought to gain a political dividend from these positions by running what the St. Petersburg Times described as a "dark, harsh ad that features violent criminals."

Yet by 2007, Crist was arguing for the restoration of voting rights to felons and stating, "I believe in my heart that everyone deserves a second chance. They deserve an opportunity to get on with productive lives."

After reading all this, I've come to the conclusion that Crist isn't some poor centrist getting bullied by mean conservatives, but a political chameleon that was done in by his own smarts.

There's a lesson here for moderate Republicans. We can't simply support someone because they follow a certain checklist of our issues (gay rights, abortion rights, environment). If they can't govern worth two cents, then they don't deserve our vote. We have to support people who can govern competently and have values that they try to adhere to, and not just latch themselves to whatever or whoever is popular.

I don't know if Rubio is worthy of my support, but I know that I won't be supporting Crist in his Independent bid. A moderate has to have some values.

Postal Savings Accounts: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Again)

In the rush to reform the financial system, there has been a lot of talk about making sure that all sorts of financial firms like credit card companies and banks offer plain "vanilla" products that are easy for the common consumer to understand. Reihan Salam thinks that maybe there should be a "public option" that could sell these simple products. The state would sell these products by using an existing goverment agency that has some history doing just these things: the United States Postal Service. Salam explains:

In many countries, including the United States in decades past, the demand for consumer-friendly financial products has been met directly by the state, e.g., through postal savings accounts invested in ultra-safe state assets. We've moved away from this model and towards explicit guarantees for for-profit firms. It's hardly surprising that these guarantees come with strings attached — more and more strings all the time.

Indeed, the Postal Service did just that during the early and mid decades of the 20th century. Here's a snippet of an article from the National Postal Museum:

In 1871 Postmaster General John A. J. Creswell first recommended a postal savings bank (such as Great Britain started in 1861) to generate funds for a postal telegraph network. Nearly four decades of debating the proposed federal savings institution peaked when the 1907 Panic shook the public's trust of private banks. President Theodore Roosevelt advocated using post offices to fulfill the needs of moderate depositors and communities without banks. Under his successor, William H. Taft, legislation for the postal savings system passed on June 25, 1910. It authorized the Post Office Department "to establish postal savings depositories for depositing savings at interest with the security of the Government for repayment thereof, and for other purposes." Politicians instilled the postal savings system with their intents to: provide a safe financial institution in communities across the country; entice hoarders to get their money out of hiding; offer immigrants the familiarity of postal savings common in many of their home countries; encourage thrift among the working, poor, and children; and pose no competition for banks.

While it wasn't very popular in the early years, during the heights of the Depression it became a shelter in the financial storm. Because of better interest rates and banking reforms (such as the FDIC), the system lost favor and was abolished in 1966.

It seems to me that re-establishing a postal banking system might be a way to provide some financial products that aren't confusing and out to fleece consumers and also provide a way for people to save. In 2008, Michael Lind wrote about why have a postal banking system again. He states:

A new postal savings system should be part of America’s post-meltdown financial architecture. When Congress created the postal savings system nearly a century ago, one of its goals was to encourage savings among the large number of low-income immigrants. A new system would help today’s immigrants as well as the native poor. Banks are not interested in people with so little money, many of whom are preyed upon by payday lenders and credit card companies.

A postal bank could also supply middle-class and affluent Americans with an extra layer of financial security. The accounts would be limited to a small amount per person. They would provide a government-guaranteed, low-risk, low-return investment, even for those who put most of their financial assets in conventional bank accounts and the stock market.

In essence, this would provide a safety net in the financial system, which sounds a lot easier than trying to force banks to provide simple banking services or forcing them to move into neighborhoods they aren't interested to move into.

Not only that, but it could also help buy down our public debt and bring the Postal Service out of its own debt.

I dunno, it looks like a good idea that can solve a lot of issues. Could it happen? I don't know about the Democrats, but since it seems that the current thinking among conservatives is that any form of government involvement is socialism, it may not get very far.

But why not give it a shot?

Meet Harold and Clay

The National Center for Lesbian Rights has more about Harold and Clay, a California same-sex couple that was manhandled by the government of Sonoma County, California. Here is a sample:

The response to the horrific story of Clay Greene and Harold Scull has been very gratifying and inspiring. Clearly, their story struck a chord in all of us. To some degree we can’t help imagining ourselves in exactly this situation. Forty-eight hours ago, few people knew their names, and now a Facebook page in their honor has more than 5,000 fans. Quite simply, this case demonstrates how our relationships as LGBT people are so fragile, especially when we reach our later years. Just one small incident, in this case a fall down some steps, sends the world crashing down.

Harold and Clay were in a committed relationship for twenty-five years, and they lived together for twenty years. Both Harold and Clay had worked in Hollywood and were passionate collectors of film memorabilia. Harold had worked for MGM studios in the 1950s and was a favorite of Louis B. Mayer in the studio’s heyday. At the same time, Clay worked in television with many popular stars of that period. In addition to his film industry career, Harold was an accomplished artist and avid collector, especially of Mexican and Central American Santos religious art and artifacts. Art, heirlooms, and memorabilia graced the walls of their leased home, in which they planned to live together until their deaths.

From a conservative viewpoint, I find this nothing short of astounding. It's a horrible example of the state placing itself over and above the rights of the individual. Conservative believe (or should) believe that a man's home is his castle and that what goes on in said home should be respected and left the hell alone by the government.

Those of us who are Republican and believe in the rights of same-sex couples to live their lives must speak out and say how unconservative this whole action is. I sometimes wonder, what could happen when my partner Daniel and I get older? Will we be treated with respect, or could something like this happen to us?

Feeding Sarah Palin

I have not written much about Sarah Palin over the last few months. Part of the reason, is that I didn't want to give her attention. I tend to believe that part of the reason she has become such a "rockstar" is because of the attention the media has given her. Bloggers on both the left and right watch her every move. If Palin writes something on her Facebook page, it's immediately news.

The thing is, Palin should have been a footnote after the 2008 elections. In another reality, she would have gone back to being a governor and basically faded into obscurity.

But we don't live in that alternate reality. I wish we did, but we don't. Instead, we see conservatives deify her, making her into some kind of "Reagan in high heels" (when she isn't) and the left loves to place her as the face of the GOP to show just how silly and dumb conservatives are. Both sides have their uses of Palin. They keep feeding Palin in order to prove that their side is correct.

In a post today, David Brooks wishes people would just stop talking about her:

First, let’s all stop paying attention to Sarah Palin for a little while. I understand why liberals want to talk about her. She allows them to feel intellectually superior to their opponents. And members of the conservative counterculture want to talk about her simply because she drives liberals insane. But she is a half-term former governor with a TV show. She is not going to be the leader of any party and doesn’t seem to be inclined in that direction.

The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a media psychodrama and nothing more. It gives people on each side an excuse to vent about personality traits they despise, but it has nothing to do with government.

I really couldn't agree more with Brooks. Palin is not as much the face of the GOP than a symbol of what is wrong with politics in America: it reduces it to mere enterainment. Palin is not popular because she is charismatic or has some great policies. She is popular because she is walking, talking reality show. And like those reality shows, we just can't turn away.

As if on cue, Andrew Sullivan responds to Brooks seeing Palin as the face of a dysfunctional party:

None of this makes any sense, but Palin, unlike some of her rivals who feel some kind of lingering need to relate their policies to fiscal and global reality, is a thoroughly post-modern creature. She creates her own reality, and that is an incredibly important talent for a party base that desperately wants to live in another reality (a kind of souped-up version of 1950s culture and late nineteenth century economy). Her book - a fictional account of an imagined life - sold well with the GOP base because they too want a fictional account of America's current standing in the world and an imagined set of viable policy positions. She so lives and breathes this magical-realist culture she doesn't need to channel it. She knows we can keep social security and Medicare and global power for ever and balance the budget without any taxes - because that is what she wants to know. And she has never let reality get in her way. Reality is one of those doors she keeps crashing through.

Yes, many tea-partiers do not think Palin is "qualified" to be president. But primaries are won by enthusiasm and star power. Palin has both. And she has money. And, most important, she has a media machine dedicated to promoting her outside of any real scrutiny or questions. She has never faced a real press conference and speaks to "pre-screened" questioners at debates and speeches. She is a test-case of how willfully divorced from reality a segment of America can remain, and how irrelevant reality is for today's niche-targeted media. All of this makes Palin the most potent force in American politics since Obama.

But there's a problem here: part of the problem is Andrew himself, who keeps writing about her every move pumping her up into this media goddess. It's not just Fox News who is doing this.

Of course, he has a reason to do this: to prove as he says at the end his post that the GOP is no longer a credible governing force. But in doing so, he basically helps suck the air out of the room- leaving other candidates with little air to share their visions and viewpoints. That allows Palin to only grow in stature and relevance.

The media, and that includes bloggers, need to stop focusing on Palin. There are a lot of real issues that need to be talked about concering the GOP. There are a lot of problems wrong with the GOP. But focusing on Palin allows us to ignore the more substantive issues.

I think Palin is more the face of American political culture instead of just the GOP. It's a culture that is more interested in enterianment than it is in trying to solve problems facing the nation.

It's Sarah Palin's show. We just allow ourselves to watch it.

In Search of a Moderate Republican

Are there really any moderate Republicans in office anymore?

Clive Crook is beginning to doubt it , and to be honest, so am I. John McCain is trying to pretend he never was a "maverick" and as Crook notes, thoughtful leaders like Mitt Romney are running away from their more moderate stances. It seems that there is a spirit running within the GOP that crushes any differences and imposes a soul-killing conformity that screams meaningless phrases like "secular socialist machine."

Crook notes that the passage of Obamacare should have prompted a more reasonable response that would have captured fustrated centrists. He writes:

Republicans are right to say that the Obama administration has over-reached. Democrats failed to convince the country that their healthcare reform was the right solution to an obvious and pressing problem, yet passed their law anyway. Many voters are angry about this, and entitled to be. Also, despite the administration’s denials, the reform will most likely add to public borrowing, which was on a dangerously high trajectory to begin with. Again, they are right to be concerned.

Disenchantment with Mr Obama and the Democrats is especially pronounced in the political centre. (Conservatives, of course, were dismayed before the evidence was even in.) You might have thought this would commend a centrist platform to the Republican party approaching November’s mid-term elections. Swing voters decide who wins, and they were up for grabs. Why are Republicans steering to the right?

Crook then says the culprit is the Tea Party. The GOP sees this still forming movement as its salvation and has focused all its energy on that movement. Populism is always more sexy than the usually dowdy centrism. Right now, GOP leaders either feel forced or want to try to go for the sexy sizzle of the Tea Party partriots, than the steady and boring centrists.

Crook also notes that the current incarnation of the GOP is many things, but one thing it is NOT is fiscally conservative, which might spell doom for us all:

There is a good chance that control of the House will switch. In narrow electoral terms, the Republicans’ militant posture is working. This dynamic has disturbing implications. A populist-right Republican party is not a party of fiscal conservatives. It is a party of tax-cutters and middle-class entitlement protectors – budget deficits be damned. A populist-right Republican party has no trouble calling for lower taxes, opposing cuts in Medicare (the programme that poses the greatest fiscal danger), and deploring public borrowing, all at the same time. This, in fact, has been its line on healthcare reform.

That reform, with its $1,000bn of extra costs over 10 years, is now law. Democrats may flinch, like Republicans, at cutting Medicare to pay for it, but they have no strong objection to raising taxes once that becomes inescapable. A Republican-controlled House would have strong objections. It might very well refuse to do it, preferring possible fiscal catastrophe to higher taxes.

It's funny that this party that seems to talk about the spectre of socialism and about "a government takeover of healthcare" are also the ones that want to protect entitlement programs. Because raising taxes is a no-no and we are too chicken to make meaningful cuts, if the GOP gets back into power, we will just go back to "borrow and spend," which of course is so much better than the Democrats "tax and spend."

Crook thinks the GOP is basically a narrow sect instead of a "broad church." I would agree. The GOP is dazzled by the Tea Party, but what happens when reality sets in? The Tea Party is not America, after all. What if the GOP doesn't do as well in November? What if they lose big time in 2012? What if the Tea Party goes and creates a new party? What if the economy goes south again and the public demands some kind of government action?

Most moderate groups like the Republican Leadership Council or Republican Mainstreet Partnership, which were calling for a bigger tent in the GOP after the 2008 elections have either grown silent or have gone along to get along in wake of the new environment, lest they be targeted. The same goes for moderate politicians. After Dede Scozzafava, very few moderates dare tout their centrist credentials.

My own guess is that there will be some breaking point where the current strategy will fail. It might be that the economy gets better and the Dems pick up more seats than expected. It might be a landslide election in 2012. Whatever it is, there will come a point where the moderates in hiding will be tired of hiding.

I'm looking forward to that day, but it will be hellish in the meantime.

Will Erick Erickson Grow Up?

Erick Erickson, the prolific blogger from RedState, is a new political commentator for CNN. Below is an interview Erickson took part in on CNN. It's quite eye-opening.



I guess what bothers me here is not his extreme views as much as his childish behavior on a blog that has such massive hits. I mean, you write a blog where you call a retiring Supreme Court justice a "goat f*****g child molester" and think that only a few people are watching this?

He says that he knows he needs to grow up and carry on a more dignified discussion, but I have my doubts. The reason he is so popular and why CNN is taking him on is because of his behavior.

I agree with E.D. Kain on this one: when there could have been a number of thoughtful and smart conservatives to choose from, CNN went with Erickson.

And you wonder why CNN's ratings are in the toilet.

The Republican Political Trolls

Mark Thompson has an interesting views of the GOP during and after the debate on health care reform. He bypasses all the talk about how their historonics have created a climate of fear or even talking about civility and instead liken the tactics of Republicans to that of an internet troll. He explains:

...what the GOP and conservative leadership did was to refuse to respond to any of the Democrats’ actual arguments or counterargument for their health care reform bill. When the reforms were proposed, they cried “socialism!” and “fascism!” and, eventually, “death panels!” So far, so good, though – by themselves these claims aren’t too much different from implying that Barry Goldwater was a card-carrying member of the KKK with a devious plot to initiate a nuclear holocaust. Where they went off the rails, though, was when they failed to address the Democrats’ calls of “Bullshit!” – calls that usually came with at least some evidence. As soon as the Dems called “Bullshit!” the cowards turned tail and ran from the argument rather than defend themselves. Rather than waving aloft provisions of the bills that at least provided a grain of truth to their hyperbole or refuted the Dems’ own defenses, they just shouted “death panels” as if that were an argument; instead of putting Ruth Ann Johnson, that poor widow from Wichita who’s going to see her Medicare benefits cut, on center stage, they just whined about how those mean liberals are being so uncivil to them; and so on.

In essence, from my perspective the course of the debate seemed to go thusly (and remember, I think the health care reform bill that the Democrats passed will cause far more problems than it solves):

Democrat: We have 55 million uninsured in this country who need our health; health care reform will go a long way to solving that problem.

Republican: Bullshit! It’s socialism! And fascism! And there’s going to be death panels!

Democrat: This bill ensures health insurance remains a private sector business. And what death panels? There’s none in this bill. And as things are, we already have death panels – they’re called insurance companies.

Republican: It’s socialism! And fascism! And there’s going to be death panels!

Democrat: Hey asshole, are you deaf? Did you not hear anything I just said?

Republican: How dare you call me a deaf asshole? This is just proof that you are not at all interested in anything that I or anyone of the decent, hardworking real Americans that I represent have to say, you liberal, latte-sipping East Coast elitist douchebag!

Democrat: Aw, screw it. I think we’ll just take our chances with our 60 votes in the Senate.

It's a worthy argument to make and I think Thompson makes a lot of sense. Now, I don't think the Dems were as serious about bringing the GOP on in the health care debate, but then the Republicans were never that serious either.

I dealt with my share of internet trolls both on this blog and elsewhere. You try to talk with them and bring some logic into the debate, but all that the people are interested in is fighting. So after a while, you tired of trying to reason with them and you leave them alone.

The GOP was interested in trying being the troll and leave it to moderate and pro-life Democrats to scuttle the bill. Of course, the moderates and pro-lifers decided to make deals and support the bill and left the Republicans looking like fools.

The fault of the GOP is not in their rhetoric as Mark states. The problem is that this was all they had and in the end it was not enough.

That's All, Folks.

The Washington Post is reporting that the health care bill has passed in the House by a vote of 219 in favor and 212 against. So, now that all the votes have been taken, and conservatives and Republicans have egg on their faces, I have a few thoughts:

• I'm come away with mixed feelings. Like many, I have long thought that the health care system needed an overhaul. I've gone without insurance, not knowing how I could afford the medicines I take for depression and racking up bills while off of insurance. During one of those times I was without insurance, I came down with a severe infection that landed me in the hospital. If it wasn't for a government-sponsored plan (in this case, Medicaid) I would have faced a huge bill that I would still be paying for today, some fourteen years later. So, I know that there needs to be reform and I acknowledge that the government has to have a role. I am glad the current bill would ban insurers from using pre-existing conditions as a way to not insure people.That said, I don't like this current bill and what it will create in America. I'm not worried about a "government takeover," but I am concerned that about how this program will pay or not pay for itself. I tend to believe that this will impose a new entitlement on Americans that we can't afford. If you thought the addition of prescription drug benefits to Medicare was costly, just wait. Peter Suderman and Douglas Holz-Akin do a good job of trying to explain that the supposed savings of this plan are just that, supposed.
• Does anyone really believe when Republicans say that they are going work to repeal this bill? I mean, who the hell are they kidding? Are you really going to tell older Americans that they will reinstate the so-called "donut hole" in currently in Medicare? That's not gonna happen, and those bloggers and politicians that are pushing for repeal are either lying or smoking something.
• I've already said this before, but I think the GOP really blew it in their handling of health care. They expected a repeat of 1994. That didn't happen. Then they hoped that socially conservative Democrats would block the bill because of fears that it would fund abortions. They didn't expect the President to make deals with those Democrats. David Frum had a good piece about a year ago about the so-called "Goldwater myth" that allowed the Dems to spend like crazy and invest in programs that were wasteful. 1994 might not be repeating itself, but 1964 surely is.
• I also don't see Congress going back to "fix" things later. We've spent a year debating this bill, does anyone think we want to go back to debate again? Megan McArdle is correct:
  

  Those like my colleague Andrew, who want Republicans to turn to the task of improving this monstrous bill--how is that going to happen? The "fixes" are all the unpopular stuff: the taxes, the spending cuts. You think that now that Democrats got to hand out the goodies, Republicans are going to be the nasty folks who volunteer to hand around the bill for a law they didn't even want to pass?
  
  Every time I hear comments on this sort of thing, I want to say, "And what other things have you been wondering during your visit to our planet?"

For better or for worse, and I think there is a little bit of both, we are stuck with this bill. I'm glad we might be able to give health care to millions of Americans that are without it, but I do have to wonder at what cost, and if we can afford that cost.

Did Gays Get Shafted in the Health Care Deal?

Two conservative gay groups, GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans are reporting that several provisions that would have helped gays and lesbians have been scrapped. They were in the House version of the bill, but dropped in the Senate version, the same one that passed the House last night. As far as I can tell, it won't none of the changes will be included in the so-called "fixes" the Senate will take up after the President signs the bill into law on Tuesday.

Stephen Miller of the Independent Gay Forum shares one of the missing GLBT friendly provisions:

The original House-passed health care bill contained a provision extending to domestic partners the same tax exclusion on the value of employer-provided health benefits that spouses of employees receive. That was a major step forward—the taxes paid by domestic partners but not spouses for "family coverage" are huge.

The Senate dropped the tax-equalizing provision entirely in its version of the health care bill, although at the same time it loosened the language restricting government funding of abortion. Score: One for the pro-choice/abortion lobby, zero for gays.

A news service article shares that the efforts of Tammy Baldwin, the only open lesbian serving in Congress, to include gay-friendly provisions came up short:

Baldwin had sought and secured four pro-gay provisions in the original House version of health care reform, including a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in health care.

But neither the Senate bill nor President Obama’s proposal late last month included those provisions. Baldwin had held out hope, as late as Thursday morning, that at least two of the provisions might be added back under whatever legislative package the House and Senate would eventually vote on.

But by Thursday afternoon, when the text of that final package was posted on the Internet, that hope was quashed.

The version of health care reform legislation being considered now by Congress - with the final critical votes scheduled to begin this weekend - does include some relief for people with HIV on Medicare who must purchase expensive AIDS-related medications.

But it does not include the anti-discrimination provision or three others. Those others included the “Early Treatment for HIV Act,” which sought to allow states to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income HIV positive individuals; the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which sought to end the tax for gay employees whose partners/spouses are covered under their work health insurance coverage; and a provision to collect data toward ending disparities in health care for LGBT people.

However, the DC Agenda notes there are some bright spots for persons living with HIV/AIDS:

Although the LGBT and HIV/AIDS provisions unique to the House legislation weren’t included in the reconciliation package, the final bill has one provision aimed to help to HIV/AIDS community that was included in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation.

The language would enable AIDS Drug Assistance Program expeditures to count toward out-of-pocket expenses under Medicare Part D. In other words, people with HIV/AIDS on Medicare who receive help purchasing HIV drugs would have a lesser burden for other prescription drug costs.

Other provisions in the final bill less explicitly directed at people with HIV/AIDS would assist people living with the condition.

The final health bill eliminates discrimination based on health status or pre-existing conditions, such as HIV/AIDS. Additionally, the bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level, allowing more low-income people with HIV to access Medicaid and its prescription drug coverage.

I'm not under any illusions that Republicans would have done better on these issues, but it does seem like yet again, the Democrats are taking advantage of the gay community and we are letting them do it.

Pity the Poor Gay Conservative

I really used to believe that if you present someone with the facts, they would be persuaded to see another person's viewpoint as valid.

Case in point: I used to believe that if I showed my liberal friends that one can be a gay Republican and be out and proud and also show that there are a number of conservatives out there that don't have an issue with gays, they would see gay and gay-friendly Republicans as their allies in the fight for gay eqaulity.

How silly of me to believe this.

What I've come to find out over time is that no matter how hard one tries, it makes no difference. Gay Republicans are still viewed as tragic figures or anomalies, no minds are changed.

I've been reminded of that after reading David Link's post today at Independent Gay Forum. Link is talking about the recent revelations of California State Senator Roy Ashburn, an anti-gay senator that turns out to be gay. He uses this post as a way to talk about the sad state of the GOP and how they oppress gays and lesbians. I don't have an argument with that, but then he makes this statement:

That is what his party not only demands of its followers, but seems to prefer – the willing (if not mandated) suspension of disbelief. No GOP candidates can ever be (openly) homosexual.

The confines of that small parenthetical contain the entire culture war over gay rights. Of course some GOP candidates and elected officials are homosexual. Of course GOP voters are, as well. But that observable and unavoidable fact can’t be honestly and straightforwardly talked about in the party. Log Cabin and now GOProud keep trying, while the party leaders and voters put their fingers in their ears and shout “Lalalalala!” as loud as they can.

While there is some truth to all of this, he seems to ignore some changes that have been made. He didn't read a Christian Science Monitor article that talks about the openly gay Republican in Virginia that is running against a Democrat, or the openly gay Republican running for Lt. Governor in Massachusetts. He forgets the growing list of conservatives who are in favor of same sex marriage. He discounts groups like Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, that work and support gay and gay friendly candidates and have made a difference in changing the minds of many a Republican.

Link then goes on to heap praise on the Democrats, showing how open-minded they are. Yea. The thing is, the reason the Democrats are where they are is because of political action. Gay Democrats got active and worked to change hearts and minds. Gay Republicans are taking a page from that book and are working to change hearts and minds in the GOP as well. It's a long road, but I see more progress than Link does.

In the end, all that a gay or gay-friendly Republican can do is keep to keep plugging away, working for social change and ignoring the David Links of the world who will never see the changes taking place.

Erick in Wonderland

If you want to know why conservatism is viewed as a joke by some people, one only has to look at bloggers like Erick Erikson of Red State. In response to a recent column by David Frum, where Frum talked about how Congress and Washington as a whole are getting little done in the way of legislation, Erikson had this to say:

Maybe, just maybe there is a different reason Congress has done little since the seventies. Maybe, just maybe it could be because conservatives largely took over in the 80’s through Republican controlled White Houses or Congresses and conservatives tend to think we don’t need sweeping legislation to solve all the ills of the American people.

Isn’t this the quintessential vanity piece of liberal drivel? Those elites back in the 50s to the 70s could get great things done because they didn’t have to interact with the people. But once they were forced to interact with those C-SPAN cameras, they couldn’t solve all the problems the American people never knew they had.

To which David Frum responds:

If it were possible for two paragraphs to sum up everything that is wrong with the American conservative movement, these are them.

The total indifference to policy and governance – the glib equation of ideological activists with “the people” – the assumption that conservatives just needed to “take over” and then all problems would spontaneously disappear …. it’s all on display.

The suggestion that conservatives don’t need to legislate – or anyway don’t need to legislate anything much – is ignorant of history, ignorant of policy, ignorant of government.

To their critics, the deregulation of oil and gas in the 1970s was “sweeping.” Ditto the deregulation of air, trucking and rail. Ditto the Reagan tax cuts. Ditto welfare reform.

The problems ahead for conservatives will require even bigger action still.

Do you want to balance the budget? You can’t do it without curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, and that will take major reforms in both programs.

How about a shift from unskilled to more skilled immigration? Not a small project.

Concerned to protect the environment while enhancing U.S. energy security? That too will require legislation that some would call sweeping.

My beef with Erickson and his ilk is that they have no interest in governing, in trying to solve national problems with conservative ideas. No, instead, they are interested in frontin' , in striking a pose and yelling about the evils of big government, all the while doing nothing to actually shrink government. As Jonathan Rauch has said, this is all about George Wallace-style cultural resentment against the "elites" and nothing more. It might win a few elections here and there, but when things go bad, people want their government to do something, not just spout angry rhetoric.

Do I want some kind of Euro-style big government? No. I want a smaller goverment, but I also want it to be efficient. If I want it to take on entitlement reform or really deal with the deficit, then I want it to be competent and just.

Which reminds me: two of those sweeping laws that the "elites" passed in the 1960s were the Voting and Civil Rights Acts. The Voting Rights Act allowed my relatives in the American South to vote without being harrassed or subject to poll taxes and the like. The Civil Rights Act allows me to purchase a home or get a job without being discriminated against. Are these laws that Erickson would rather not have Congress do, because they are "big government?"

Instead of making "limited government" no more than a battle cry, we should be engaged in seeking ways for government to be efficient and limited in its influence.

But such an approach would require thinking, something very few conservatives seem interested in doing these days.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Centrists, Principles and "Men of the Earth"

One thing that I've noticed in the blogsphere is how many people don't like "deal-makers."

Deal-makers are a vanishing breed. Some were centrists, but there could also be people who firmly on one ideological perspective or another. The late Ted Kennedy was a fierce liberal, but he was willing more often than not to work with conservatives to get the job done.

But in reading both in passing and more indepth, you get the sense that those politicians who make deals with the other side are people to be reviled. Ross Douthat, is a young conservative that has come up with some great policies that I believe could benefit the Republican Party in the long run. Nevertheless, he tends to look derisively at centrist Republicans seeing them as persons without principle. This is what he wrote in a piece last year after Arlen Specter's defection:

The larger species to which he belonged — Republicanus Rockefellus, the endangered Northeastern moderate — likewise has little to offer a party in distress. Indeed, if you listen carefully to high-profile Yankee moderates like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee, who fanned out across op-ed pages and TV shows last week to bemoan their marginalization, it seems as though they don’t even understand their own political situation, let alone the Republican Party’s.

The Northeastern moderates tend to style themselves as fiscal conservatives, spinning a narrative in which they’re the victims of a doctrinaire social conservatism and its litmus tests. But many of them are just instinctive liberals who happen to have ancestral ties to the Grand Old Party. Chafee fit that bill; so did former Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, who amassed a distinctly left-wing record after he bolted the Republican Party in 2001 to become an “independent.” For that matter, so does the retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a New England native and Republican appointee who often gets described as a moderate, but boasts the jurisprudence of a reliable liberal.

Others, like Collins and Snowe and (until last week) Specter, are simply horse-traders and deal-cutters, whose willingness to cross party lines last month to vote for $800 billion dollars in deficit spending tells you most of what you need to know about their supposed fiscal conservatism. They’re politically savvy but intellectually vacuous. Their highest allegiance isn’t to limited government. It’s to meeting the party in power halfway, while making sure that the dollars keep flowing to their constituents back home.

As I wrote back then, I agreed that the stimulus bill was a rather bad piece of legislation. That said the three GOP Senators who backed it, tried to make deals to make it less bad. Douthat assails the three for not being true fiscal conservatives, but seemingly ignores the other more "loyal partisans" who basically did the same thing for years when the GOP was in power.

Douthat along with writers like Daniel Larison, see these deal-making centrists as lacking any principle instead of self interest. Now, in the case of Arlen Specter, there is some truth to that. Specter is nothing more than a rank opportunist that tries to save his own skin when the going gets rough. But I think it is a little too harsh to say that all centrists or those who want to make deals are some how defective and lack any sense of principle.

Politicians aren't defective, but the public is.

The problem here is that we the people, liberals and conservatives, tend to think we are the only ones around. We live around people who are like us politically and ideologically and tend to look at the other side as either delusional or evil. So when we elect our representatives to the statehouse or to Washington, we expect them to be partisans and not politicians.

While I respect bloggers like Douthat and conservative bloggers, they are part of the problem. They forget that in a democracy, politicians have to deal with competing interests. What politicians are called to do is to mediate between those cacaphony of interests and desires and produce legislation that benefits the most people. It means that politicos have to learn to tolerate and compromise. This something a blogger sitting in their apartment don't ever have to face.

Would I love some conservative political ideas to become policy? Sure. But I also know that I live with liberals who are as much Americans as I am. Their voices have to be heard and I leave it up to my elected officials to work something out that I can live with and so can my liberal husband.

It's interesting elections are starting to be seen as mandates handed down from God. Both Democrats and Republicans see political victories as some kind of divine sign that they can do anything they want-after all, didn't that election justify their viewpoint? It's symptom of a public that is walled off from other ideas and ideologies.

In 2008, Bill Bishop wrote the book, The Big Sort. In it, he explained that over the last 30 years, American society has sorted itself along ideological lines. We now live in like minded communities and that has had an impact on Washington. One those impacts is how it has taken out the dealmakers who made legislation possible. He uses the example of the Nuer Tribe in Africa to talk about the role American politicians used to play:

Nuer tribes were constantly crossing paths, and so they could easily fall into conflict over lost animals and scarce forage. Professor Evans-Prichard wrote in the 1940s about the intricate ways the Nuer encouraged cooperation and resolved conflicts.

The Nuer put special faith in a group of arbiters known as "men of the earth." Men of the earth had no formal powers. They couldn't arrest people or make arbitrary decisions. But the Nuer granted these people a kind of local authority to settle disputes. If a fight broke out, a man of the earth could stop the conflict by running between the combatants and hoeing a line in the dirt. If a tribal member was killed in a fight, a man of the earth arbitrated compensation to be paid by the winner to the dead man's family.

The "man of the earth" was a deal-maker, a negotiator, a compromiser. He was the person given the job of representing all the conflicting interests of the tribes.

A man of the earth was a politician.

He then goes on to explain what has happened in America since the 1970s:

Over the last 30 years, most communities have grown either more Democratic or more Republican. Through an incremental process of migration and self-selection, people have clustered in like-minded neighborhoods, clubs, and churches.

Migration had consequences. Legislative districts grew more lopsided, and they elected more-partisan representatives. Politicians no longer mediated competing interests in their districts. They represented increasingly one-sided constituencies that grew more extreme in their ideological isolation.

The meaning of politics changed. Voters didn't want men of the earth. They wanted partisans.

And he's right. We the people don't want deal makers, "men of the earth." We want partisans. This is probably the main reasons that moderates of both parties have been squeezed out of politics. As the deal makers leave the scene and are replaced by partisans, the political process grinds to a halt.

Bishop notes that the Nuer tended to see that they had the ground between them in common:

The earth was what the Nuer had in common. If locusts swarmed or a drought persisted, every tribe suffered. When the grass was thick, they all prospered. They were called "men of the earth," anthropologist Max Gluckman wrote, because "the earth, undivided as the basis of society, (symbolized) not individual prosperity, fertility, and good fortune, but the general prosperity, fertility, and good fortune on which individual life depends."

What do Americans have in common today? Not much. Oh, we share a lot with our neighbors, with the people at our church. Too much, in fact. But we don't know fellow citizens just a few counties over. It takes a "social experiment" in some parts to imagine how it would be to live as a member of a different political party.

A politicians do have an ideological background that should be around to inform their decision-making. But at the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans have to do what is good for all of the nation, not just those who agree with them.

At some point, we have to start seeing the deal makers not as traitors, but as trying to be do what they do best: trying to take our various voices and make them one.