Think it Through

Joseph Heller’s novel, Catch 22, in 1961, described a world in which government creates a living hell for people because of its arrogance and ineptness. Heller did not go to Guantanamo, but he imagined it almost 50 years ago.

This past week the catch-22 nature of the Guantanamo prison came into sharp focus because of a court decision on the fate of 17 men from western China who belong to a Muslim ethnic minority called the Uighurs. Reportedly at odds with the Chinese government, they face persecution and possible death if they return to China. Unfortunately, they chose Afghanistan as a destination around the same time the CIA was offering cold cash to anyone in Afghanistan with the ability to raise an index finger, point toward another living human, and pronounce the words: TALIBAN, or AL QAEDA.

These 17 men have spent the last seven years in Guantanamo prison. No formal charges against them. No lawyers until now. No real court hearing. They are Muslims, and they have a great animosity towards the Chinese government, but everyone – even the Bush administration – has said they are guilty of no crimes and pose no threat to the United States.

Why can’t they be let go? We cannot release them in the U.S., the D.C. Court of Appeals said, because they were captured abroad. This means that if you are captured with the label “enemy alien” (read terrorist), even if you have done no wrong, you cannot win your freedom by proving your innocence because the label itself places you outside the protection of our laws. Once called an enemy alien, you must always be an enemy alien. Catch-22.

This is the most explicit example of why Guantanamo must be closed, why the due process-deficient military commissions must be abandoned, and why all inmates at Guantanamo should either be charged and tried in our judicial system, or be released.

It is that simple. For those who continue to try to scare the country by conjuring up the worst attacks that could occur unless we hold people in prison without due process, I say, it is far scarier to live in a country in which the government treats some people outside the law.

We have heard the scare tactics for seven years running. At some point, we need to say enough, and start following the Constitution. Some of us thought we drew that point on November 4.

America is not America without its constitutional values of due process, the rule of law, and individual freedoms. It is kind of a reverse catch-22.

Why is it that Senators, lobbyists, and the news media who cover Congress take as an article of faith that Democrats need 60 votes to pass their legislation in the Senate and the Republicans only need a simple majority?

The press has been reporting the need for 60-vote majorities as if it has always been a given – because 60 votes are needed to close down debate if the minority objecting decides to filibuster. Under Majority Leader Harry Reid, the idea of upsetting the Senate by daring the Republicans to actually carry through on their threats to filibuster is out of the question. When I asked a 30-year veteran Senate staff person this week how this phenomenon has come about, he said, “comity in the Senate is valued more than taking a stand for something.”

The Democratic leadership anticipates the Republicans will filibuster everything, so we read in the press that “under an agreement in the Senate, the bill needs 60 votes to pass.” But when the Republicans ran the Senate (many days it seems they still do), they passed something as important as Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination with just 58 votes. No Democrat filibustered the nomination, and Alito took his long record of siding with large institutions against individual rights with him to the Supreme Court bench for the next 30 years.

Convinced by their pollsters and consultants that Americans do not want controversy, Democratic Senators cowered whenever then-Senate Majority leader Bill Frist called them obstructionists. This misreads the American people. We have found in our research that voters can discern between taking a stand on a controversial issue and bickering like school children.

For example, Americans view the filibuster as an appropriate tool for senators to use to make a point. In focus groups we conducted a few years ago we heard strong support for filibusters as a “check on the majority view,” part of our system of “checks and balances,” and a way to hear a diversity of views. If you lose public support after staging a filibuster, it be because voters disagree with you, not because you tied up the Senate business.

This Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid has seen no real filibusters, but has been limited by more 60-vote agreements than any in the history of the Senate. Some commentators have looked at this sorry situation and concluded the remedy is to eliminate the filibuster altogether, so there would be no need for cloture votes. I disagree. I think the voters in our focus groups had it right – the filibuster is a check on some extreme action that may be proposed by the majority party. It is not intended to be invoked on every vote – and if Reid challenged the Republicans to go ahead and filibuster, it would not be used that way.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate should force the Republicans to stand and defend their opposition to Democratic initiatives – dare the Republicans to filibuster. On issue after issue – on aid to cities and states, on taxes, on health care, on education and transportation funding – if the Republicans want to dramatically demonstrate their differences with Democrats by way of the filibuster, the Democrats should let them. This would require the Democrats having the ability to defend their own positions. Right now, neither side needs to engage too much – they simply “have an agreement that it will require 60 votes to stop debate and pass the legislation.”

Amplifying attention to issue differences between Democrats and Republicans would mean that the winners and losers would be more clearly defined. When Senator Strom Thurmond staged a filibuster to block civil rights legislation in the 1957 he heightened the attention of the nation on the issue of racial equality. Ultimately, his position failed.

As soon as the Democrats learn not to fear the filibuster, there will be fewer threats to the filibuster and the Senate will get back to majority rule.

Update: edited for clarity

When progressive groups fail to challenge what they oppose in Congress because they think the other side is too big, has too much money, or has already won the public opinion war, they should take a lesson from Friends of the Earth [FOE] this past week.

Working in a coalition with like-minded groups, little FOE defeated the large nuclear industry lobby by killing the proposed $50 billion loan guarantee to the nuclear industry that was in the stimulus bill. FOE succeeded because it had confidence in its cause, courage to communicate a clear and consistent message based on values and information, and a team that could create a lot of impact with a small amount of resources.

When FOE got wind that Utah Sen. Bob Bennett was pushing for $50 billion for loan guarantees for “innovative low-carbon producing energy technology” the group went into action. Everyone knew the money was for the nuclear power industry to start building new nuclear reactors around the country, since other forms of low-carbon producing energy – wind, solar, biomass, etc—are attracting enough private investment that they are not seeking government loan guarantees as is the nuclear industry.

The nuclear industry — or as the Senate would have you call it, the “innovative low-carbon energy technology industry” – is the primary recipient of “loan guarantees” which means if a new nuclear reactor project fails to break even, taxpayer dollars pay back the investors in the project. This way, if you invest in nuclear reactors and they make money, you make a profit. If the reactors go bust, you get paid back by the taxpayers. Private investors make the profits, taxpayers take all the risk. This unfortunate situation is made worse by a Congressional Budget Office report that predicts a 50% default rate on new nuclear reactors. Any way you look at it, it spells BAIL OUT. It is another sad but common Washington story of a self-proclaimed fiscally conservative Senator (in this case Bennett) seeking a $50 billion bailout for a specific industry (nuclear).

FOE simply informed the people of Senator Bennett’s state of these facts, via some very effective television advertising in Utah. It also reached out to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s constituents with on-line advertising. The message: Do not give the give a $50 billion bailout for the nuclear industry to try to build new nuclear reactors across the country when we have alternatives that are cheaper, safer, and cleaner.
(Full disclosure here: The ads were created by Wild Bunch media and informed by message research produced by Belden Russonello & Stewart for FOE.)

After Sen. Bennett heard an earful from true conservatives in his state he felt it was not worth the effort, and he dropped the proposal from the stimulus bill.

Here is the irony: The nuclear industry spends millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions in order to try to win billions in federal subsidies, and they are defeated by FOE which spent $10,000 on media to inform the public what was going on.

There is a lesson here about courage of conviction, determination, and message discipline.

In assembling his economic team President Obama has made one move that can only be described as spectacularly counter-symbolic. It is the equivalent of naming Dr. Kevorkian to head a cabinet-level office on long term care.

Obama’s choice to head the nation’s economic recovery team for saving jobs and putting people back to work is the man who was singularly responsible for erasing the jobs of four million Americans from 1981 to 1983. He did it deliberately, methodically, and effectively to bring down inflation.

Paul Volcker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1979 to 1987. When President Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker, the country was in a panic over inflation that had risen from 3.2% to 14.8%, and consumers were wondering if their dollars would become worthless in the near future. As soon as he became Fed chairman, Volcker raised interest rates, squeezing the money supply, which made business investing and hiring very difficult. Unemployment, already high at 7.0%, rose to 10% under Volcker. But within two years, Volcker had stopped inflation in its tracks and reversed it all the way back down to 4.2%.

During this wrenching period, Volcker was vilified for his policies. The Federal Reserve building in Washington saw its first protestors since the 1930’s. Members of the House and Senate denounced him. Labor unions considered him public enemy number one. The eccentric chairman of the powerful House Banking committee, Congressman Henry Gonzales of Texas, reserved time at the end of each day that Congress met to speak on the House floor calling for Volcker’s removal from office. As a young staff person, I can remember seeing Gonzales’ face get redder and redder as he got worked up over Volcker’s policies.

Throughout the two-year ordeal of economic correction, Volcker’s six foot seven inch frame was a symbol of more than long unemployment lines. He epitomized giant-sized, confident decision making based on knowledge and stony resolve. He was the anti-Alan Greenspan. He was not pals with the politicians or the press. When angry congressional committee chairmen would call him to testify, you would see his bald giraffe-like figure walking slowly to congressional committee hearings in a cloud of cigar smoke. The whole picture told you he was above them all.

Volcker succeeded not only in stopping what Americans feared would be an out of control inflationary spiral, but also in lowering inflation and putting the country on sounder economic footing.

Volcker’s story suggests there is a double irony at work in his new appointment. The first is obvious — that the jobs killer has been appointed to be the jobs creator. The second irony is that he could be exactly the right man for the job, if the president is willing to give him more control over economic decisions.

I say this for several reasons:

• First, unlike Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, Volcker is a man who is not on his way up. At 82 years old, Volcker has seen a great deal of good times and bad, and his knowledge of real-world economics is more than that of Summers and Geithner combined.

• Second, Volcker knows Wall Street but he is not a creation of Wall Street. He is not tied as so many of the other advisors are to the Robert Rubin, Hank Paulsen mentality of telling taxpayers in Kennedyesque terms, “ask not what Citibank and Merrill Lynch can do for you, ask what you can do for Citibank and Merrill Lynch, and its executives and stockholders.”

• Third, Volcker is a steady hand on the wheel, and has shown courage and wisdom in riding out a storm.

Just as you can make a case that Dr. Kevorkian’s experience helping patients die peacefully would make him an especially sensitive and effective administrator for those who choose life, so too Volcker’s experience in 1981 and 82 could make him the perfect person to figure out how to restore jobs in 2009. He may not be as skilled a self promoter or infighter as others on the Obama team, but he is someone who has a proven record of doing what needs done to save the economy. He might even be willing to regulate what the banks do with the money the feds are giving them.

As the first team stumbles, President Obama should consider tapping Volcker to come off the bench and show them how it’s done.

President Obama’s first strategy for his stimulus package was to try to guilt trip Congress into approving it because the dire state of the economy demands that we show bipartisan support.

His message to Congress essentially said, “the moment is urgent, we need action now, so do not worry over whether you agree or disagree with certain provisions, go along with it because of the need to be bipartisan.” These were the same arguments that got us the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and the Vietnam war.

To their credit, the Republicans would not be guilt-tripped. They wanted to fight for their ideas, however wrong they may be. More tax cuts, less school modernization, more tax cuts, less aid to state government to provide services for people.

President Obama’s team has been slow and fuzzy in response, but in Indiana today he is starting to move beyond merely criticizing the stimulus opponents for ignoring the need to act quickly and to be bipartisan. He is beginning to engage in a debate on his ideas:

…I put forth a Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that is now before Congress. At its core is a very simple idea: to put Americans back to work doing the work America needs done.

The plan will save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years. But not just any jobs – jobs that meet the needs we’ve neglected for far too long and lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth: jobs fixing our schools; computerizing medical records to save costs and save lives; repairing our infrastructure; and investing in renewable energy to help us move toward energy independence.

He needs to take it farther. Instead of accepting more tax cuts in return for more Republican votes, he needs to tell the country why building new schools is a better thing to do than to give upper middle class people more tax incentives to buy a home.

Ronald Reagan did not win his legislative battles by asking Congress to stop playing politics and be bipartisan. He won many Democrats to his side by appealing to values of responsibility and individuality and then rolling over those who opposed him by labeling them as politicians who had been addicted to “deficit spending” all their lives. He omitted the part about how his tax cuts were about to increase the size of the federal deficit far beyond what it was under his predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

Obama needs to define the current debate by contrasting his vision for the country and his policies with those of his opponents. Part of the problem may be that he felt he did not have opponents. Now he knows better.

image used under cc from cathro.

Before President Obama prostrates himself at the altar of bipartisanship, he should consider that working with political opponents should be a means to an end – not an end in itself.

When someone calls for bipartisanship, I immediately wonder: Is the person not able to argue for the idea on its own merits? Bipartisanship has come to mean putting aside your political convictions, if you have any. This usually leads to disastrous results.

• Bipartisanship kick-started the war in Iraq. So strong was the call for bipartisanship that Democratic and Republican Senators were willing to ignore the report from the United Nations weapons inspector who reported that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The Senate voted a lop-sided 77 to 23 to give President Bush the green light for an unnecessary war. This was not unlike the bipartisan Senate support – only 2 nay votes — for the Tonkin Gulf resolution President Johnson used to send Americans to die in another lost cause.

• Bipartisanship produced the Patriot Act, which the Senate passed 98 to 1 shortly after 9/11. Members of both parties admitted they did not read the act they voted on, even though they were warned it took away civil liberties. The need to show bipartisanship overtook their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, protect the rights of their constituents, or even the duty to know what they were enacting.

• Bipartisanship became an alibi for Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House intelligence committees, and the leaders of each party, who remained silent for four years even though they knew the president was authorizing illegal wiretapping of American citizens. When the New York Times uncovered the government eavesdropping without a warrant, the Democrats (Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, and Harry Reid) who had known all along about the surveillance on American citizens feigned outrage — a bit like the Vichy general in the film Casablanca who is “shocked” that there is gambling going on in the casino. In Washington, this type of behavior is excused because it is done in the interests of bipartisanship. It reminds me of the words of the late comedian George Carlin, who said “bipartisanship usually means that a larger than usual deception is being carried out.”

Where did we go wrong? The word partisan took on darker connotations in the late 1980s and early ‘90s when Newt Gingrich showed Republicans that they could regain entrance to the halls of power through the doorway of the politics of personal destruction. Instead of engaging in partisan debates on issues, Gingrich made partisanship synonymous with character assassination.

This page in the Republican handbook was practiced with gusto by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft and many others in the Bush administration. The vice president, in particular, often accused any Democrat who disagreed with him as helping terrorists. After hearing these attacks for 8 years, Americans decided that the administration was a one-trick act. Eventually they got bored and annoyed with the act.

Possibly in reaction to the Bush years, the public embraced Obama’s non-belligerent personal style. By being too cool to personally attack others, he gives people confidence that he can run the country better than those who relied on name-calling and fear-baiting to stay in power. Continue reading