There's a big political fight happening in Washington, but for once it does not break down easily along partisan lines. There are free-traders among both the Democrats and the Republicans, and opposition exists on both sides as well. But the main skirmish in this fight is currently happening between President Obama and some of his fellow Democrats. While both sides have valid points to make in this disagreement, I find that both sides are also being a bit disingenuous in their rhetoric and their tactics.

First, the facts. Here's where we are, at the moment. The Obama administration has been hammering out a Pacific Rim trade agreement with many countries in order to open borders and reduce costs to trade around the Pacific Ocean. They have not released a draft of the agreement they have so far negotiated. Drafts have reportedly been available to hundreds of corporate executives in the United States, however, for them to make comments and suggestions. Drafts are provided to Congress, but the text remains "classified," meaning that Congress is not exactly free to comment upon it to the public (lest they be accused of leaking classified information).

Congress will get a chance to vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or "T.P.P.") agreement, and the text will become declassified before they do. The public will indeed get a chance to see what's in it before Congress votes on it. But this week Congress is voting on a related bill, which gives the president "fast-track authority" on trade agreements. This is essentially Congress tying its own hands, and giving up some of its legislative power to the executive branch. Fast-track authority is not a new thing -- other presidents have been granted this power by Congresses reaching back to the 1970s -- but the earlier laws have lapsed, meaning Obama does not currently have this power. Fast-track means Congress only gets an up-or-down vote on any trade agreement proposed by the president; they cannot amend it or otherwise change the text of the agreement in any way. They can only accept it or reject it, as is.

Continue Reading »

When it comes to the 2016 field of Republican presidential candidates, the rule of thumb this time around is obviously going to be "the more, the merrier!" The number of officially-announced Republican candidates actually doubled this week (from three to six), as Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee all tossed their hats into the ring.

Perhaps we should hold a contest to see who can guess closest to the total number of official Republican presidential candidates there will be on the 2016 primary ballot? Hmmm... I'd have to go pretty big on that, and guess somewhere in the range of 14-to-16, personally. Whatever the final number, the first debates will doubtless be pretty crowded (hope they can find enough podiums!).

Of course, there was a hilarious reaction to Fiorina's announcement online, since she had apparently forgotten to buy up all the internet domains containing her own name. So head on over to carlyfiorina.org to see how many people she laid off during her term as the head of Hewlett-Packard! So much for being some sort of tech genius, eh?

Continue Reading »

I write today not to defend Pamela Geller, or to defend anything she has ever said or done. Much of what she says and does I consider rather indefensible, in fact. Instead, I write today in defense of Pamela Geller's absolute right to freely say and do what she wants. I write in defense of her rights, but that in no way means I would even attempt to defend her words or ideas, which I find odious in the extreme.

But I am actually amazed at the level of hypocrisy there is out there in reaction to the terrorist attack on Pamela Geller's event, a contest to select the best cartoon portrayal of Mohammed. Because the event itself is so offensive and provocative (in the strongest sense of that word), few who were gladly proclaiming "Je suis Charlie Hebdo!" not so long ago are now speaking up for Pamela Geller's right to do exactly the same thing. That's a shame, in my opinion, because to be on the side of freedom of speech and the First Amendment means occasionally defending odious people, ideas, or events. It comes with the territory, but there are many who are too squeamish to be ideologically consistent on the issue.

Continue Reading »

While watching the television interview with Bill Clinton the other night, I began thinking about the practical problems of how to treat him if his wife becomes president. I have to admit, Bill did drop one offhand line about his future -- something about what he'd do if he were "called to public service again" -- which sounded rather suspiciously (to my ear, at any rate) like: "Perhaps Hillary will put me in her cabinet, who knows?" I have to admit a snatch of the song "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?" from The Sound Of Music also flitted through my head. But then, Bill Clinton is known to have strange effects on your outlook, at times.

Kidding aside, it did start me seriously thinking not only about what Bill's role might be in a Hillary Clinton administration, but also about the unprecedented nature of the problem. We've never faced this problem as a nation, and not just on one single level, either. Like all things Clinton, it's complicated. The line that became the soundbite from the interview, after all, was Bill talking about continuing to give high-priced speeches if Hillary wins, and his "gotta pay our bills" attempt at making light of the situation. As I said, multiple levels of this situation to consider, all of them unprecedented.

Continue Reading »

Obama regains ground

After a somewhat disappointing March in public opinion polling, President Obama has regained ground in April. His monthly average job approval was up, and his job disapproval numbers went down even more. All around, it was a pretty good month, but to put it in perspective he's really just roughly gotten back to where his numbers were in February. Let's take a quick look at the new chart.

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

April, 2015

Continue Reading »

Last week, the field of officially-announced Democratic presidential candidates doubled in size, from one person to two. This week, the Republican presidential field is likewise going to double, from three candidates to six. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have all previously officially announced their candidacies, and this week they will be joined by Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson (who announced today), and Mike Huckabee (scheduled to announce tomorrow).

I like to examine every official candidate as he or she enters the race, so today let's take a look at all three of the new Republican entrants, in the order of the likely chance they'll have to become a major contender in what is expected to be an incredibly crowded field.

Carly Fiorina

I strive to take every official presidential candidate with all the seriousness that the highest office in the land should demand, but it's tough to call Carly Fiorina anything more than a "vanity candidate." I define that term as "a candidate with a bunch of money and no realistic chance of winning, who wants to see his or her name in the news for a few months and doesn't care how much it costs to achieve this." Herman Cain and (if he ever actually ran) Donald Trump would be other examples of this phenomenon.

Continue Reading »

We've got everything from hippies to Satanists to cover this week, so let's just dive right in, shall we?

The Supreme Court heard a monumental case on marriage equality, which could indeed be their last case ever on the subject (if Justice Kennedy votes the way many expect him to, resulting in gay marriage in all 50 states). Feelings, as always, ran high on both sides of the issue, but more and more it's looking like a lost cause for all the "defenders of traditional marriage."

Interestingly enough, the best quote I read this week was from a Republican from Illinois, Senator Mark Kirk. For some context, Kirk faces a tough re-election race in a blue state, but even so, the sentiment is a brilliant one. Speaking to the crowd in front of the Supreme Court building, Kirk said: "As a history nerd, you could make the case that we could've lost World War II but for one British gay mathematician named Alan Turing. And we are a much more powerful country because of our gay community." Well said, Senator! We still hope Illinois replaces you with a Democrat, but credit is due where credit is due. Kirk is now the second Republican senator to come out in support of marriage equality (Rob Portman was the first). Even the Republicans running for president are reportedly beginning to realize what a tightrope the issue is going to become for them in June, when the court rules.

Continue Reading »

Introduction: Below is an excerpt from a writing project of mine, presented as a historical interlude. It is not presented, however, as any sort of commentary on recent events in Baltimore. For the time being, I leave that to others. I am drawing no parallels here, and not in any way attempting to tie events 200 years ago with what is happening now. I just had this piece of writing available and thought it'd be an interesting detour through the past, that's all.

The year was 1812, and the political parties of the time were in violent disagreement over whether America should go to war or not with Great Britain. One Baltimore newspaper publisher wrote a scathing anti-war editorial, and as a direct result unruly mobs and rioting took place in Baltimore for an astounding period of two months. The mobs ruled the streets at night, and all sorts of ugliness was unleashed. This story is, somehow, almost unknown today and is considered no more than a footnote in history (and who actually reads the footnotes?). So I thought it was worth a slight detour into history today, just to remember that Baltimore has seen riots before, even if few today remember it.

One piece of context is missing from this excerpt -- a conclusion. What happened afterwards (on a national scale) was that the Federalists went so overboard in their condemnation of the war that they actually disappeared as a political party (then called a "faction") almost immediately thereafter, ushering in the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" (essentially, one-party rule in America). One other technical note: if anyone is truly interested in my own footnotes and citations which accompany this piece, please ask and I'll post them as a separate page (there's a lot of formatting necessary to do so, which is why I didn't). That's enough of an introduction, I think, so please now sit back and enjoy the following historical interlude.

One of the journalists was killed on the spot and the others left for dead

Jefferson's embargo did set the stage for the next major American political crisis, which proved both the Federalist and Antifederalist political factions were equally capable of radicalism in showing their distaste at being the Out party. In 1809, Jefferson was succeeded in office by fellow Antifederalist James Madison, who then led America into what some historians consider one of the most pointless wars the country has ever fought: the War of 1812. The Federalists' over-reaction to this war would bring an end to America's first partisan era.

Federalists, ignoring their previous fervor for the Alien and Sedition Acts, now saw the value of having their own newspaper network capable of attacking the sitting administration. The factional struggle for American public opinion was now to be fought in the editorial pages, and the Federalists quickly adopted their rivals' tactics in an effort to stay relevant and influential on the American political scene. This was a complete reversal of the Federalist position when they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in the first place, of course. But strict logic and partisan politics have never shared all that close a relationship in American history -- neither then, nor now.

Continue Reading »

We've had a President Jimmy and a President Ronnie, so why not a President Bernie?

That was my first thought on hearing the news that Senator Bernard ("Bernie") Sanders is going to formally announce his candidacy for president tomorrow. Often, first thoughts are not the most profound, as I seem to have proved here. But upon reflection, a deeper meaning can be teased out of my sophomoric response: why not a President Bernie? I'm pretty sure there will be many in the media who laugh Sanders off as some sort of "not serious" candidate, and attempt to pigeonhole Sanders into the role of court jester to Hillary Clinton: there to amusingly point out foibles, but in a way that cannot be taken seriously. This is a mistake. Bernie Sanders is a serious candidate, no matter what his chances at the ballot box may ultimately be. He cares deeply about the issue of inequality, and he is not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. You can question how viable a candidate Sanders will be, but no matter what the answer to that turns out to be, Sanders will be a serious candidate. The issues he will raise on the campaign trail deserve serious discussion and consideration, from not only Hillary Clinton but also from the media themselves.

Continue Reading »

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Now, admittedly the name "Obergefell" is going to be quite a mouthful for future students of constitutional law to stumble over, but then who am I to criticize hard-to-pronounce (or hard-to-spell, for that matter) Germanic last names? Pot, meet kettle, in other words.

Sorry, I do not mean to make light of the historic nature of today's case, far from it in fact. I have to admit being personally stunned at how fast events have developed. Almost exactly two years ago I wrote a column predicting that America had reached the tipping point on marriage equality. I've re-run this column a few times, and last October I pointed out that when I wrote the original article, the following was true:

Continue Reading »