Purple State's Blog

A vision for TPMCafe?

2010-08-30T10:43:46Z

I guess I'm one of the complainers.
At the time of the sign-on conversion, I happened to be in the midst of a conversation with another user. All of a sudden, without explanation, I could no longer sign on without first logging in to one of four large sites. I had an account on only one of these four sites (Facebook) and I didn't want that account associated with my comments on TPMCafe. The other three sites are ones I have no relationship with and don't know anything about. Why was I being forced to go to these other sites? I was annoyed by the change, and in the absence of any explanation, I assumed it was probably about ad revenue. Why else would we be redirected to other sites?
Well now I know it has something to do with a new log-in standard that gives us a single identity across multiple sites. That's something I'll need to learn more about before I'm comfortable with it. Not all of us keep up with the latest internet technology--and those of us who are interested in protecting our privacy aren't always ready to adopt a new technology until we've had a reasonable explanation of its security. Unfortunately, no explanation was provided during the conversion.
And so I complained--maybe a bit too snarkily for Josh's taste. But Josh himself isn't always without snark himself. It's the way of the internet. In the absence of body language, we tend to speak a bit more rudely to each other. Maybe we shouldn't, but we do. We didn't evolve to be disembodied voices after all--and we haven't fully adapted.
Regardless of the lack of explanation prior to the change, Josh's comments after the fact have been interesting and helpful to understand what's happening with the Cafe. It is obvious to those of us who have been here for a while (I've been here since early 2005), that this part of the site is no longer a main focus of TPM. When the Cafe opened, it was a very interesting site in my opinion. Reader blogs weren't a big part of it. Instead, we had blog entries written by a large variety of interesting analysts, and lively and interesting discussions among the readers (and sometimes between the readers and analysts) about the content of the main posts. This was a fabulous concept--one where ordinary readers could engage in intelligent dialogue with pundits and other ordinary readers. That site attracted a number of very insightful readers and led to very good--and generally respectful--conversation.
Since that golden age, Josh has introduced a number of software changes, each which in my opinion led to a weakening of the discussion. At the same time, the number and diversity of lead posters has declined. With that decline in number and diversity, the issues discussed have become far more limited (Israel all the time!). And the blogs increasingly aren't original--just blogs reposted from other sites.
There's also been a great proliferation of reader blogs. Some of these are very good. But much of the volume is weak content. And because nothing stays on the front page long, discussions rarely go on at length as they could in the old site.
Now I understand that the software changes may have been necessary for technical reasons--but in my opinion they've changed the nature of the Cafe and weakened it considerably. Josh it seems has less and less interest in this part of the site. He's moved on to expanding TPM's reporting capabilities and that's clearly (as he says) his focus now. Honestly, I'm not interested in TPM other than the Cafe. It may be a very good site, but it has never caught my interest. I came to TPMCafe primarily for the quality of the discussion. Reading Josh and Josh's reporters was never an attraction for me.
If Josh shuts down the reader blogs, I won't feel a great deal of loss. What would be nice, though, is if Josh were to think about ways to restore the original concept of the Cafe. That would require trying to increase the number and diversity of lead posters and adjust the software to encourage better dialogue among readers. It might even require a certain amount of moderation or editorial oversight. Maybe instead of a free-for-all of reader blogs, readers could submit material to an editor who would decide to publish it or not. It would use less server space, improve the quality of content, and give Josh more editorial control over what appears on his web site.
Maybe it's not interesting to do that. Maybe it's not financially viable. But I think something like that would be valuable. It certainly was when it existed back in 2005.

BP Asserts Its Sovereignty in the Gulf; Federal Government Defers

2010-05-16T13:55:56Z

BP is now actively discouraging scientists from measuring the flow of oil from its leaking well. BP claims it is doing this to prevent the scientific activity from interfering with the attempts to stop the leak. In reality, we all know that BP is trying to hide the extent of the leak both for PR purposes and--most important--to try to make measuring the extent of damage and, therefore, of BP's liability impossible. What's shocking is that our government seems to have deferred completely to BP in this matter. Similarly, BP has decided that it has a right to pour untold amounts of dispersant into the Gulf all the while refusing to reveal what chemical that dispersant is. BP may be poisoning the Gulf, but they act as if they can do so at will without answering to any authority at all. It's as if BP believes it owns the Gulf. In fact BP's arrogance and our own government's timid deference makes one wonder who really holds sovereignty in the Gulf. Increasingly, it seems that the oil company rules and we the people of the United States have no rights at all to control or question the company's activities in what I once thought were public waters. Some serious questions need to be asked here. Our President and Congress seem impotent compared with British Petroleum. How did this happen? And why is it being tolerated for even one day longer?

Oil, Chemicals, Cancer--A Failure of Oversight

2010-05-13T11:43:22Z

Increasingly obvious as the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico unfolds is the fact that our legislators and regulators failed to take seriously the potential risks of offshore oil drilling or to take effective action to eliminate those risks. As the gusher of oil continues to poison the Gulf and dominate the news, a report just released by the President's Cancer Panel has received too little attention. In that report, the panel claims that the vast amounts of chemicals being released into the environment by industry may be significantly increasing the incidence of cancer in our population. Most alarming is the fact that our regulators and legislators are doing almost nothing to explore the risks of these chemicals or to control the types and quantities of untested chemicals being released into the environment and added to our food and water daily. As they did with the oil companies, government officials are simply allowing companies to "self regulate." One hopes that the disaster in the Gulf wakes the American people and their leaders to the dangers of lax oversight of profit-driven industries. The lack of attention being paid to the Caner Panel's report, however, suggests that we still haven't learned from our mistakes and that similar tragedies resulting from unregulated industrial activity are likely in our future. It's time for a comprehensive environmental policy to be developed for this country to protect both our natural resources and our health for decades to come. Sadly, however, our approach to environmental problems seems to be completely reactive--ignoring warnings and then scrambling impotently to limit damage once problems occur--and there appears to be little interest among the public or our leaders in any kind of serious and comprehensive effort to develop and enforce the kinds of regulations that would be necessary to protect our environment and our health from the toxic activities of industry.

What will laissez faire destroy next?

2010-05-03T10:49:32Z

A few years ago our financial system came crashing down in a heap thanks to the marvels of unfettered markets and deregulation. Now, the Gulf Coast ecosystem--and all the industries that depend upon it--are threatened with ruin because our faith in free enterprise made us loath to regulate the activities of the oil companies. As the tragedy in the Gulf unfolds, we witness the spectacle of American Tea Partiers--their jobs shipped to China years ago under the banner of free trade--clamoring for even less regulation while the big business Republicans who quietly fund their rallies cheer them on. Our nation remains in a thirty-year stupor induced by the simplistic pro-market, anti-government formulations of a half-senile B-movie actor with a talent for delivering reassuring platitudes. One wonders what's next when the ersatz populism of a Sarah Palin or a Glen Beck can convince working class men and women that their declining standard of living is the fault of the institution that writes their Social Security checks. What does it mean when the middle class is persuaded by millionaire radio hosts that the best way to defend its interests is by fighting to protect the right of robber barons to maximize their profits and give as little as possible back in the way of either wages or taxes? Will our private health care system finally bankrupt us? Will an under-regulated chemical industry saturate our food and water with toxins and leave our tissues clotted with cancer? Or is the ever-beneficent invisible hand now pushing an unfettered nuclear industry toward us--and when its fist is finally unclenched will we stand slack-jawed and powerless as the deadly atoms rush at us with a fury that makes even the wild geyser bursting from the floor of the sea seem tame? Laissez-faire my friends. Remember the wisdom of Reagan and Palin and Beck and sleep thee well: Whatever the capitalists do to you is sure to be good for you.

Health Care: Have the Dems Fallen into a GOP Trap?

2009-12-20T13:19:37Z

A lot of those in the center-left are now starting to look at the current health care bill as "half-full." The bill beneficially insures many poor people who are currently uninsured. It does so by expanding eligibility for Medicaid and by providing extensive subsidies to lower income citizens. That makes it--as I'm sure the Republicans will begin to shout on FOX just as soon as the bill is passed--a WELFARE program. We all know that the only social programs that survive in the US are those that benefit the middle class--programs like Social Security, Medicare, and student loans. Expanding Medicare to cover all Americans would have created a program immensely popular with the middle class and therefore untouchable. But expanding Medicaid to cover more poor Americans will create class resentment. Combine this with taxes on so-called "Cadillac" plans--i.e., the plans that many union and white-collar employees get from their employers--and you create a dynamic of class warfare between the poor and the average, with the middle class resentful of paying higher taxes to support the poor. That's exactly the dynamic the Republicans have exploited since Reagan to maintain their power. While I do think the health care bill has a positive side to it, I can't help wondering if the Republicans are setting a political trap for the Democrats and the Democrats, timid and stupid as usual, are stepping blindly and firmly into it.
I guess we'll see.

Judges: Another Failure of the Democrats

2009-11-17T12:28:04Z

The hypocrites in the Republican Party--the very same senators who said judicial filibusters were an affront to the Constitution--are now regularly filibustering every Obama judicial nominee. This is reprehensible of course--but also expected. It's the way the Republicans play politics. Sadly, though, the Democrats also continue to play politics the way they do. Instead of attacking the Republicans just as vocally as the Republicans attacked the Democrats, the Democrats are either completely silent or, if they say anything, are trying to make compromises with the Republicans in the name of "bipartisanship." As a result, we are getting no liberal to moderate judges appointed to the courts. Instead, our federal judiciary remains packed with right wing ideologues. Appointing liberal judges is arguably the most important and transformative action the Democrats could take while they are in power. Instead, they are squandering their opportunity. And, given the complete ineptitude of the Democratic Party, that opportunity is almost certain to be fleeting.

No Direction vs. Wrong Direction

2009-11-05T12:33:45Z

Our two distinguished political parties summed up: no direction and wrong direction. One party can't seem to define what it stands for and can't seem to lead even its own members in any consistent direction. The other is very clear what it stands for and can get all its members to move forward in lock step, but the direction it insists on running in is the same direction that led us into the mess in which we find ourselves now. If only the Democrats could get their act together, there's such an opportunity to lead the country in a new direction. But Obama is floundering and the Blue Dogs are pulling the cart off the path. It's all very discouraging. I'm afraid, by default, the Republicans will begin winning again because at least the American people know where they're headed. Wrong direction will trump no direction, and the opportunity Obama and the Democrats have had before them will be squandered.

Health Care: Two Problems, Not One

2009-06-23T10:37:12Z

I admit to being completely perplexed about how health care should be reformed in this country. That there is a problem is undeniable: costs are already much higher than they are in the rest of the world and are growing at rates far above inflation, large numbers of people lack coverage, and medical outcomes are mixed. Add to this an absurdly complex administrative system that makes scheduling visits and paying bills a nightmare, and one gets a clear picture of a badly broken system.

While the problem is undeniable, the solution remains unclear to me. And unfortunately, I find the debate about what to do about health care remarkably superficial and unenlightening. What bothers me most is that the discussion seems to focus on just one part of the problem: how we pay for care. Should there be a single payer? Should insurance companies still be involved? What is the right role for employers? How much should the government pay and how much should stay in the private sector? All these questions about paying for care are important, but they only address one of the problems affecting health care. And it may not be the most important problem.

A much more significant problem, in my mind, is the underlying cost of medical services. Why are they so high in the US compared with the rest of the world? Why are they growing so fast? And what do we do about about them? There's a tendency on the left to blame the insurance companies for all the excess cost. While the insurance companies do deserve some blame, I think it's disingenuous to attribute the entire problem to profit-taking and administrative overhead. Even if the insurance companies skim 10% to 20% of the money being pumped into the system, the remaining 80% to 90% paid to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other providers still represents the bulk of the huge and growing cost.

By changing the payment system, we may get more people covered and may reduce some of the cost and hassle of obtaining care--but the cost gains are likely to be temporary if we don't address the underlying cost of care problem. I don't have a solution to the problem to offer today--but I hope my post will at least stimulate some debate on this second, and possibly more essential problem: how do we control (or adjust to) the underlying cost of health care services and products?

The Two-State Delusion

2009-06-14T15:02:00Z

I am republishing this as a detailed comment on Bernard Avishai's article of June 14, "Total Settlement Freeze? No, a Border."

Anyone who regularly reads the comments to MJ. Rosenberg's numerous posts on Israel and Palestine knows that I am (or at least have become) extremely skeptical about the feasibility of the so-called two-state solution as a way to end the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There was a time when I was not quite so skeptical, when I believed that, while no solution was perfect, the creation of two states was an achievable objective and also a reasonably fair and effective way to resolve the problem

Over the past five or six years, however, as I have read more about the conflict, listened more carefully to the arguments of both Jews and Arabs, and observed events on the ground, I have slowly but inexorably come to the conclusion not only that the two-state solution is unworkable, but--much more important--that all attempts to advocate for or negotiate a two-state solution must increasingly be judged irresponsible (if not willfully pernincious), because all they can do is distract from and delay the work required to produce a feasible solution.

Conditions for Success

Before explaining why the two-state solution is unworkable, let me identify what would be necessary for a solution to succeed. For a solution to this conflict to be feasible, I believe it must meet two conditions:

First, the solution must be acceptable and reasonably satisfactory to both parties. If not, no agreement will ever be signed.
Second, the solution must be able to endure. A signed agreement is only the first step in achieving a solution. What happens after the agreement is signed is far more important. If the situation created by the agreement is unstable and unsustainable, the agreement will collapse and the conflict resume.

Some may object to my first condition, saying that mutual agreement is not necessary because a solution can be imposed on one of the parties by the other or on both of the parties by the international community. The problem, though, with imposed solutions is that they tend to result in unstable situations post-imposition. The risk, therefore, is that by ignoring the first condition and imposing a solution, the second condition will not be met. And the second condition is really the most important, because a solution that cannot endure is not really a solution.

The Features of a Two-State Solution as Currently Conceived

So what does this mean for the two-state solution? Most supporters of the two-state solution argue that its features have been known for a long time and that the primary reason for the inability to reach agreement is merely a kind of stubbornness among the two parties or the result of poor leadership on one or both sides or in the international community. I'd argue that, in fact, the reason the two-state solution has not been agreed upon despite decades of discussion and negotiation is that:

Its features are actually not known because the details of the solution have never been fully explored, and these details must be known before before any agreement can be had.
If its features were known (i.e., the details were fully explored), the solution would be neither mutually desirable nor capable of producing a lasting, peaceful arrangement, and would therefore fail to be agreed upon or, if agreed upon, collapse soon after the solution was implemented.

I might even go further and argue that the constant attempt to put off "final status negotiations" reflects a tacit understanding among negotiators that a two-state solution is impossible and that the negotiations will collapse as soon as the final status issues are raised. Two-state negotiations, in one form or another, have gone on for decades without reaching any agreement. Furthermore, whenever final status details are discussed, the negotiations become tense and, eventually, collapse. Empirically, this should be strong enough evidence to convince any rational person that there is something significantly wrong with the two-state proposal. Yet, discussions continue and the conventional wisdom remains that a two-state solution is both desirable and acheivable.

So let's look more closely at the outlines of the supposed solution. Most say that the three basic features of the solution are:

Borders approximating the 1967 green line
East Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state
Compensation (but no or very limited return) for Palestinian refugees

The problem with this vision is that the first two featuers are no longer possible to implement because of Israeli settlements and the third, while possible, is likely to be agreed upon by the Palestinians only if they receive much more than they are likely to be offered.

Let's look at each of these features of the imagined two-state solution individually and explore the details more closely.

Borders

First, borders. To really understand this issue, you should review this map and also these population statistics. If you look at the map, you'll see the geographic extent of Israeli settlement. Especially significant are the large settlement blocks near Jerusalem, near Qalqiliya, and near Hebron, but there are settlements large and small scattered throughout the West Bank. If you look at the population statistics you will also see that the number of people living in these settlements is approaching 300,000. Returning to the 1967 borders (or even anything close to them) will require the removal of more than a quarter of a million people from hundreds of locations across the West Bank. This is simply impossible for Israel to do. Not only will the effort create something like a civil war in Israel, removing and resettling 300,000 unwilling people is a daunting and politically disasterous task, which no Israeli leader would ever agree to undertake.

In fact, the impossibility of returning to 1967 borders is now widely accepted. This is why all proposals for two-state solutions now suggest that land will need to be swapped. The problem here is which pieces of land are to be swapped? To understand the complexity of this problem, one must know something of the geography of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. One could divide the land in of this region into four categories. Category A is the fertile land along the coastal plain, in the Jezreel Valley, around Gallilee, and parts of the northern Jordan River valley. This is the most valuable land, most suitable for growing crops. Most if it is in Israel. (In fact, one reason the Arabs reacted so badly to the original UN partition is that nearly all of this best land was given to the Jewish state.) Category B land is also suitable for agriculture, but it's drier or more mountainous and therefore has more limited capacity. Much of this category B land is found in the western portion of the West Bank and in some areas of Israel. Category C land is near desert. This makes up much of the Eastern portion of the West Bank and much of the southern part of Israel north of the Negev desert. Finally, there is Category D land, which is true desert. This is found in the Negev and the southeastern part of the West Bank.

If one looks at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, one sees that most of the settlements are on category B land. Some smaller (in population, but not area) settlements have been built in the bit of category A land in the Jordan River valley north of the Dead Sea (land which Israel says it wants to keep as a "security zone" even after a Palestinian state is established). So most of the land swap provisions in two-state solutions require the Palestinians to relinquish category A or B land. Typically, what they get in return is category C or D land. After all, it is C and D land that is sparsely populated and hence open in Israel. So most of the land swaps not only fragment the West Bank, they reduce the overall quality of the land in the Palestinian state.

This has significant consequences. The population of the West Bank and Gaza is about 4 million. Those 4 million need to eat. If the agricultural land is poor, growing enough food will be challenging. In most proposed versions of the two-state solution, Israel retains control of most of the water. So irrigation will be difficult for the Palestinians. And the soil is relatively poor in many places anyway. So Palestine will need to import much of its food.

This means Palestine will need to have an industrial base to generate the wealth to buy food. But Palestine now has little industry. And there is no reason to see why the West Bank and Gaza will attract much industry. Palestine is not like Singapore or Hong Kong--city states with important ports that were significant to the world trade of the British Empire and that therefore were able to develop viable economies despite a paucity of good land. Palestine currently has no deep water port (there have been plans proposed to create a deep water port in Gaza, but that's a major undertaking); and it has none of the business and other infrastructure that a Singapore or Hong Kong had because of their historical economic importance. Palestine would be building its industrial base from the ground up, facing significant competition from richer or more established economies, and with few natural advantages to build on. The prospects--realistically--are not promising. The likely scenario for a Palestinian state is actually continued poverty for many, many years, with at best a marginal agricultural base and a weak industrial base. This doesn't bode well for the long-term stability of the Palestinian state.

Before we move on to East Jerusalem, let's return to the issue of fragmentation of the West Bank. I mentioned in passing that the settlements kept by Israel would leave the West Bank fragmented. In fact, those settlements would likely bisect the West Bank into separate northern and southern sections. And this is a "best case" scenario: some proposals would actually divide the West Bank into three or four or even five pieces. Fragmentation creates significant challenges. Already, the problem of connecting Gaza with the West Bank is thorny. Now multiply this problem several times over. If the Palestinian state is so fragmented, Palestinians will continue to have to pass through Israeli checkpoints to move within their state. This will be a huge economic inconvenience that will discourage businesses from locating in Palestine and, maybe more significantly, will mean constant tension--and potential violence--between Palestinians and Israelis. Fragmentation makes a Palestinian state highly unstable and likely unsustainable.

To conclude the discussion of borders, we must acknowledge that the 1967 border is no longer possible and that the actual possible borders are really nothing at all like the 1967 border. Worse, the borders that actually are possible result in a fragmented and economically disadvantaged Palestinian state. This state will not be stable and is unlikely ever to be a peaceful neighbor to Israel, which means repeated Israeli blockades, incursions, or even re-occupation should such a state ever be created.

East Jerusalem

The Israelis have been creating large Jewish neighborhoods within East Jerusalem. The populations of these neighborhoods now approach a quarter million. Furthermore, East Jerusalem is almost completely surrounded by Jewish settlments. It will be detached completely from all other parts of Palestine should a two-state solution be agreed upon. It will therefore make a very poor capital for the Palestinian state. In fact, making East Jerusalem a practical capital of the Palestinian state seems impossible without vast transfers of the Jewish population living in and around it and the dismantling of at least some of the settlements that separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. I don't see how any of these actions will ever occur. Because of this, East Jerusalem is no longer available to be the capital of Palestine so this feature of the two-state solution is as completely unreaslistic as a state on borders approaching the 1967 borders.

Refugees

Israel insists that either no or very few refugees will be allowed to return to Israel. Already the population of the West Bank and Gaza is 4 million. Palestinian refugees living outside the West Bank and Gaza (in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) could potentially increase the population by another 1 to 2 million. This creates a very crowded Palestinian state. As we explained above, there is neither an agricultural or industrial base to support this many people. The crowded, impoverished conditions of Palestine will tend to make the state unstable and will also likely result in conflicts with neighboring Israel. This kind of weak state will almost certainly need to be attacked or re-occupied at some point by Israel, which means a quick return to today's status quo.

Of course, the Palestinians are very reluctant to agree to give up what they view as their right to return to Israel for reasons of justice and emotion. But were they ever willling to compromise on this point, they would still need something in return to help avoid the kind of economic and political disaster that would result from overcrowding and poverty. No proposals for compensation that I have seen even come close to addressing this economic need. And the border problem--which further reduces the agricultural capacity of Palestine--only exacerbates the difficulties. The refugee problem--oft mentioned, but rarely seriously addressed--is a major sticking point. And if solved in the way most of the proponents of the two-state solution assume it would be solved, it will only increase the economic instability of Palestine.

Maintaining the Illusion

For all the reasons outlined above (and many others too such as, water rights, control of airspace, or the nature of the Palestinian military), a two-state solution seems completely impossible.

Two questions then arise:

First, why do we continue to cling to the illusion that a two-state solution can be effected?
Second, what alternatives are possible if we ever relieve ourselves of the two-state delusion?

The primary answer to the first question is that the two-state solution superficially seems like a good one and most people (including a large number of Israeli Jews and Palestinians as well as much of the international community) don't carefuly examine the details. So most people continue to accept its feasibility as fact. A second answer is that the illusion of the possibility of a two-state solution is attractive to two groups within the Jewish community. Liberal Jews in Israel and elsewhere who want to preserve a Jewish state find it emotionally attractive to think that a solution other than a bi-national state or outright ethnic cleansing is possible. On the other hand, certain conservative Israeli Jews may have come to realize that pretending to be interested in the impossible two-state solution provides useful cover for a more cynical strategy of delaying a solution indefinitely in the hopes of wearing down the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, the supporters of a two-state solution seem to be hoping that they can garner support among the international community and use this support to obtain more from the Israelis than the Israelis would like to give them (a highly unlikely possibility). And of course, there are corrupt and/or ineffectual Palestinian politicians who depend on the West for money and power and who must publically back the two state solution to continue to be supported by their Western sponsors. So for all these reasons, the two-state delusion continues to remain attractive (or at least useful) to many minds while, in fact, being effective only at delaying and even interfering with progress toward any real solution.

Alternatives

There are really only two alternatives to the impossible two-state solution. One is some kind of bi-national state or federation that re-integrates the two populations into one economic community. This solution would solve all the problems of borders and would make the transfer of populations unnecessary since everyone in both groups would be free to live and work where they like within the region (it negates both the refugee problem and the settler problem). Better yet, a bi-national or federated solution would allow the Palestinians to once again find jobs and work in Israel, creating economic hope for those impoverished populations and helping to create a more stable and peaceful Palestinian community.

The other alternative is removing the Palestinians to some other part of the world. This of course is generally unacceptable. However, an argument can be made that if the two-state solution is unworkable and no one will agree to a bi-national or federated solution, then ethnic cleansing is the only answer. If this is the case, one has to ask whether continuing to argue for a two-state solution is in any way defensible. All it does is delay justice (the bi-national state or federation) or prolong the suffering of the Palestinians while still condeming them to the ultimate injustice of ethnic cleansing.

For all these reasons people who truly believe in the sanctity of human rights need to begin to challenge the two-state delusion and create a new and more realistic path toward justice and peace. I recommend some kind of bi-national state or federation. I'll leave it to others to argue for ethnic cleansing or for continuing to maintain the two-state delusion for another 60 years, while the injustice and suffering continue unabated.

Nine Is Not Enough (Supreme Court)

2009-05-13T23:45:27Z

When I get some time, maybe I'll do some statistical analysis, but intuitively it seems to me that having a Supreme Court of nine people with lifetime appointments results in a rather stagnant court, with a high probability of having disproportionate representation not only of things like gender and race, but even more significant, of legal thinking. Right now, we have four of the nine seats filled by men with very similar ideas, which significantly limits diversity of thinking. Worse, these seats may be occupied for years, preventing new ideas from reaching the court and possibly making the court's perspectives anachronistic as legal thinking evolves, but the court continues to be occupied by men with old, stale, and out-of-favor ideas.

Now some of this calcification is good--it prevents change from happening too rapidly--but maybe we should have some better balance between preserving the old and giving the new a voice? And also bring more diversity in thinking and background to our court?

How about increasing the size of the court? Nothing in the constitution prevents that and the Democrats are powerful right now and so may be able to do this. I suggest increasing it to 15, with 2 new seats opened during the Obama administration, and 2 new seats opened in each of the succeeding presidential administrations. (I know adding two seats during the Obama administration is a bit of a strong-arm tactic--the more politic thing to do would be to add the first two new seats in the next administration, but maybe the democrats should exert some muscle here? The republicans have been pushing them around for too long on these issues--hitting back might be healthy, actually, if not 100% fair.)

In addition to creating a more diverse and dynamic court, the addition of a few more justices might help ease the workload that weighs so heavily upon the current justices.

Let's hope the Democrats start thinking about this. It's a damn good way to spend some political capital.

America at Its Best

2009-05-03T22:16:15Z

Yesterday was town meeting. I love town meeting. Yes, it's long and often tedious. It kills a whole Saturday in May, sometimes two. And with the weather finally warming nicely and the fresh buds starting to burst on every tree, spending the entire day inside the dreary high school gymnasium is hardly appealing.

But nothing restores your faith in America and American democracy like town meeting. Yesterday, the big issue was a huge development project proposed for our town center. A large corporate developer was behind the project and our elected town officials--the selectmen, the advisory board, and the planning commission--were all supporting it.

But the project would transform our small, residential town into a major commercial center. Many in the town were for the project. It would raise millions in new property taxes. And it would bring new jobs at a time when employment is dwindling across the state. But the project would also mean more traffic, more crowding, and the end of the quaint, quiet, still slightly rural community we love. And so many of us were against it.

For those not from New England, open town meeting is the common form of government for smaller and medium-sized communities here. Once a year, the citizens of the town assemble together to discuss the town's business and vote up or down every expenditure and every significant change in town policy.

About halfway through the meeting, the big issue came to the floor. The planning board was recommending a change to zoning laws that would allow the big development project to proceed. The developer made a slick presentation telling us about all the benefits of the project and emphasizing the tax revenues for our community and how the money would help the schools. Then the planning board, the advisory board, and the selectmen all spoke in support of the project.

But direct democracy is very different from the representative democracy we're used to at the state level and in Washington. In representative democracy, the slick corporate lobbyists meet in private with our representatives and present their arguments, all too often gilded with offers of campaign support. The ordinary citizen remains unheard. And only the representative gets to vote. But in town meeting the back room doors are swung open and the ordinary citizen not only peers in but stands up to speak.

So one by one, they lined up before the microphone. Car mechanics, construction workers, engineers, housewives, school teachers, store owners, accountants, mid-level executives, farmers, and retirees. Always lots of retirees. And they had their say. Some argued for property tax relief. Some argued for more jobs. Many more argued for keeping the town the way it is: uncongested, clean, quiet, and a good place to live.

Two types of speaker always strike me the most at town meeting. The first is the ordinary man or woman--a farmer or a mechanic or an engineer--who walks to the microphone, notes in hand, and then proceeds to give a remarkably articulate, even eloquent, presentation filled with indisputable facts, impeccable logic, and moving rhetoric. Who knew there was such talent, such wisdom, such statesmanship among the ordinary middle class Joes and Jills you see everyday at the local grocery?

And then there's the second type of speaker. This one is unsophisticated, uneducated, not a good speaker, but still possessing the courage and the commitment to get before the microphone and speak honestly about what she believes. And I am almost moved to tears, when this speaker, stumbling, confused, mixing her words, makes a strong point and the whole town meeting rises to applaud. Where else could such heroism arise from such humility?

And so the town votes. Two-thirds are required to change the zoning laws. The debate has shown the room quite divided. But the proponents of the development sense the mood is against them. So they motion to postpone the vote. The motion fails. More debate ensues. Another motion to postpone. Three times the cycle is repeated. But finally, the moderator moves to the vote. Hands are raised. The tellers walk through the room. The tally is presented: 275 for, 345 against. The motion to change the zoning laws fails. The big-box development is stopped. (I emit a sigh of relief.)

So town meeting goes on. People begin to file out. The big issue has been addressed and the day is getting late. People have dinners to cook and children to care for. The crowd dwindles from 600 to 400 to 300 to maybe 100. It's now nearly an hour since the big vote. A hand is raised. One of the supporters of the development project--a burly bearded guy in shorts and a Harley-Davidson T-shirt--rises to present a motion. It's a motion to reconsider the earlier vote.

A parliamentary maneuver--from a biker guy! Yes, town bylaws allow any vote to be reconsidered as long as the motion to reconsider is raised within one hour after the vote. The petitioner knows the rules, and he's met the time limit. The crowd is smaller, different. The outcome could be different too!

Debate ensues. Townspeople rise to object. We had a fair vote! The town has made it's decision! This isn't right! But the bylaws are the bylaws and the petitioner is within his rights. But before we can revote on the zoning laws, the motion to reconsider must pass. And that motion requires a two-thirds vote.

So we proceed to vote. "All those for" cries the moderator. Hands go up. The count begins. I look around the room. A lot of hands are up. I'm nervous. "All those against." I look around--a sea of hands! It's obvious--the motion fails. It's now an hour and a half past the original vote. The vote to end the development is final. It can't be changed. It's safe to leave.

But who wants to leave? There's more to vote on. And suddenly nothing in the world seems more important than raising my hand to approve the appropriation of $200 to repair the ballfield fence.

Torture Unrestrained

2009-04-25T12:01:57Z

Many moderates among the chattering classes are now arguing for restraint in prosecuting those in the last administration who authorized or participated in the torture of detainees. The usual argument of these moderates is that, while the torture that occurred is deplorable, prosecuting its perpetrators would be too disruptive and divisive for our nation, particularly at a time like now when we face so many other serious challenges. Many also question whether prosecution of a prior presidential administration by a new one would create a dangerous precedent. And finally, some argue that the prior administration was struggling in good faith to keep Americans safe from a new and not fully understood threat, and so some mistakes should be forgiven given the circumstances.

To those who make these arguments, I have to ask two questions:

First, if we excuse war crimes in situations where there is an exonerating circumstance or when prosecution of the war crime is disruptive to the nation to which the war criminals belong, aren't we simply excusing war crimes in nearly all cases in which high officials of a country are involved? Certainly, the prosecution of high-level officials and prominent political figures is always disruptive to any country. Are we really willing, then, to apply universally to all countries a standard that essentially says war crimes will be ignored if prosecuting them will be inconvenient to the nation whose officials are involved in those crimes? And since war crimes by definition always occur during war and therefore always occur as officials are trying to defend against threats, wouldn't most war crimes automatically be forgiven by the standard being proposed? If we adopt such a lax attitude toward war crimes for ourselves, then we must apply it to the rest of the world. In doing so, we are essentially saying to the international community that war crimes no longer really matter.

Second, if we exonerate the past administration for their war crimes, what message are we sending to future administrations? Is it truly wise to set a precedent that war crimes will be forgiven just because prosecuting them is inconvenient or uncomfortable or otherwise problematic? If we do that, what administration will hesitate to commit war crimes when it believes doing so is politically expedient? Just as war crimes will no longer be taken seriously internationally, so will they be ignored domestically.

The only effective restraint on torturers and other war criminals is the threat of prosecution. If we exercise too much restraint in the prosecution of torture, therefore, we should not be surprised if the result, both at home and abroad, is torture unrestrained.

Geithner Meets Our Lame-Ass Press

2009-03-29T16:56:11Z

I listened to Geithner on This Week and Meet the Press this morning. On both shows Geithner contrasted his bank bail-out plan with two others: (1) doing nothing and just letting the market handle the banks and (2) buying all the banks' bad assets ala Hank Paulson. Sadly, neither of the interviewers (Stephanopoulos or Gregory) was quick enough or prepared enough to ask Geithner about a third option: receivership (or nationalization). So a huge opportunity to hear Geithner respond to Krugman's ideas was missed. Oh well, I guess we can't expect anything better from our lame-ass press.

Update: I should add that I got the impression that both Stephanopoulos and Gregory thought that Geithner was addressing Krugman's criticisms of the Geithner plan when, in fact, Geithner was completely avoiding discussing Krugman's ideas and was instead comparing his plan to two different alternatives that have nothing to do with Krugman's ideas: doing nothing and adopting Paulson's plan. Stephanopoulos and Gregory were therefore woefully unprepared for their interviews.

Save the Bankers, Screw the Workers

2009-02-22T15:40:48Z

On Meet the Press this morning, Louisiana governor and GOP rising star Bobby Jindal is standing by his decision to refuse to accept unemployment relief for Lousiana's laid off working men and women while demanding capital gains tax cuts for wealthy bankers and investors. That's the Republican party in a nut shell, isn't it? Tell working people to go to hell and give huge tax breaks to the plutocrats who largely caused the economic crisis we're in today.

Tom Geoghegan Runs for Rahm Emanuel's Seat

2009-01-04T20:07:22Z

I just read in James Fallows's blog that Chicago labor lawyer, author, and all-round good guy Tom Geoghegan is running for Rahm Emanuel's seat in congress. I know Tom a bit--a friend of mine used to work for his law firm (Despres, Schwartz, and Geoghegan)--and I don't think there's a person more committed to labor rights than Tom, nor can I imagine a better person to send to Congress.

Here's some of what Fallows has to say about him:

To the extent Tom is known publicly, it's mainly because of his books, like Which Side Are You On?, The Secret Lives of Citizens, and In America's Courts. These really are masterful and original pieces of thinking and writing, which most writers would be content with as their entire contribution to the human endeavor during the period Tom has turned them out. Which Side, which was published in 1991, begins this way:

'Organized labor.' Say those words, and your heart sinks. I am a labor lawyer, and my heart sinks. Dumb, stupid organized labor: this is my cause.

The remarkable thing is that in Geoghegan's case writing has been a sideline. Day by day for several decades he has been a lawyer in a small Chicago law firm representing steel workers, truckers, nurses, and others employees whose travails are the reality covered by abstractions like "the polarization of America" and "the disappearing middle class." Geoghegan's skill as a writer and an intellectual are assets but in themselves might not recommend him for a Congressional job. His consistent and canny record of organizing, representing, and defending people who are the natural Democratic (and American) base is the relevant point.

It has often been said you can judge a person by the company he keeps. With that in mind, it's worth mentioning that the senior partner and founder of Tom's law firm, Len Despres, was the long-time alderman from Barack Obama's Hyde Park district and, for many years, the only Alderman with the courage to oppose the elder Mayor Daley. Back in 2005, the University of Chicago awarded Len the Benton Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Here's an excerpt of the University's description of Len's accomplishments:

Despres, considered the liberal conscience of Chicago politics for decades, was born in Chicago in 1908, attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and graduated from the College in 1927 and the Law School in 1929.

In addition to attending school at the University, Despres also taught classes at the Law School . . .

In 1955, Despres was elected to the Chicago city council to represent Hyde Park as 5th ward alderman, the same year that Paddy Bauler famously uttered that "Chicago ain't ready for reform." But that is exactly what Despres delivered. One of the few independents on the council and the most liberal alderman in the city, Despres ushered in 20 years of reform efforts. His demand to cut out the corrupt sale of city driveway permits made him enemies from the very beginning, particularly among the administration of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley.

Over the years, Despres, 97, has crusaded to ban discrimination, preserve Chicago landmark buildings and gain equality for African-Americans. After serving for 20 years with great distinction as alderman, Despres worked as a parliamentarian for the Jane Byrne and Harold Washington administrations, as well as as an attorney, teacher and lecturer.

He is also the author of the recently released Challenging the Daley Machine: A Chicago Alderman's Memoir. In his political memoir, Despres offers a first-person account of the corruption and cronyism that defined Chicago politics, and his efforts to stand up to the machine, frequently facing 49-to-1 defeats in the city council.

I believe Tom would bring to Congress the same spirit of independence and reform Len brought for so many years to the Chicago city council. If you are committed to progressive politics, this is a candidacy you should support.