America shares a civic religion. Today was its holiest day.

Americans' love of country and love of our form of government is a secular "religion," of course, which doesn't preclude religious references from being made both by it and about it. As but one example, our nation's flag is treated as a downright sacred object by many Americans. But the most sacred of our civic rights is the peaceful transfer of power which happens every four years at the United States Capitol, when we swear in a new president. This year, of course, the new president was the old president, as Barack Obama enters that rarest of clubs in our history, as a multi-term president.

Some might object to using religious language to describe the trappings of our democracy. Some strongly object to actual religious language used by politicians in our secular nation ("so help me God" is not, in fact, part of the presidential oath of office, it is merely added at the request of the person being sworn in). Four years ago, Barack Obama made what I believe is the first mention in any presidential inauguration speech of the non-religious, when he said: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." But whatever your personal beliefs are in matters of faith, all Americans share the same feelings of awe and grandeur on certain of our civic occasions. While such things as the State Of The Union speech or a national election make us all pause a moment in our busy lives, there is nothing quite like an inauguration to display the deeply-held belief virtually every American shares in the way our government was designed.

Continue Reading »

Eric Cantor, much to our surprise, almost just did something we not only would have agreed with, but in fact given our wholehearted support to. Almost.

In the midst of caving in to President Obama on the whole debt ceiling fight, Cantor tossed out a proposal (likely, to distract attention from his giant cave on the debt ceiling) which, at first glance, sounds great.

In a statement released to the media after the annual House Republican retreat, Cantor says the following:

We must pay our bills and responsibly budget for our future. Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget. Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.

Cantor is then backed up by John Boehner, who also bluntly states: "The principle is simple: no budget, no pay."

I was all ready to jump on board, at this point. After all, I've written (on multiple occasions, since 2007) previous articles with the same basic title: "No Budget? No Pay!"

Unfortunately, later on in the news article appeared an unattributed statement (from a "leadership aide") that "if the House were to pass a budget and the Senate did not, House members would still get paid but senators would have their pay withheld."

Up until this point, I thought they were serious. This statement, however, means they are not. They are just playing politics, and bad politics at that. Because a House budget that doesn't make it through the Senate does not count, guys. Sorry. A House budget that cannot pass the Senate is, by definition, a political stunt, not "a budget."

Continue Reading »

We're going to spend today waxing nostalgic, just to warn everyone up front. Because four years ago I traveled to Washington D.C. to attend the Inauguration of President Barack Hussein Obama's first term in office. Next Monday will be his second swearing-in ceremony (he will actually be officially sworn in on Sunday, as the Constitution dictates, but since it falls on a Sunday the public event will be held on Monday -- which just happens to be Martin Luther King Jr.'s federal holiday as well). On top of this symbology, exactly 150 Januaries ago American witnessed President Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. So it's going to be a meaningful event, one assumes, in all sorts of ways.

Continue Reading »

There is no silver bullet.
--Vice President Joe Biden

In a little-noticed remark just days before President Obama announced sweeping plans for gun control action and legislation, Joe Biden summed up the problem his task force was charged with tackling by using (depending on your reaction) either an incredibly appropriate phrase, or a wildly inappropriate phrase. After all, the subject is guns, so perhaps it isn't the time for bullet metaphors.

Then again, it's hard to argue with how perfectly the phrase "there is no silver bullet" fits the task Biden was assigned: to come up with suggestions for possible government action on the availability of guns in America. A "silver bullet" is a magical answer to a fantastical problem. In the classic myth, silver bullets were used to slay werewolves, and (depending on the fantasy realm you explore) at times, vampires and other things that go "bump" in the night. When faced with a big and unfathomable problem, a magical bullet can be forged which will slay the demonic foe. This is not to say that you can't literally make a bullet out of silver in the real world, but that the "silver bullet" idea itself is nothing more than a fantastical plot device. And such things rarely exist in reality. Biden reminded us all of this by his choice of words.

The big problem with gun control legislation is that a lot of it boils down to nothing more than liberal "feel-good-ism." Or, perhaps, "do-something-ism." Gun control legislation has, historically, almost always been purely reactionary in nature. Some terrible slaughter happens, the public demands the government "do something," and laws are passed which sometimes do have a positive effect and sometimes do not. The first major federal gun control law was passed in part due to the Saint Valentine's Day massacre in 1929, and Chicago gangsters' fondness for "Tommy guns."

Continue Reading »

I have refrained, so far, from writing about the Newtown school shooting tragedy and the related issue of gun control. I thought I'd be writing about it this week, since the list of recommendations from Joe Biden's task force had been rumored to be released today. Since the White House has announced they'll be released tomorrow when President Obama lays out what he's in favor of doing, I'm going to hold off on commenting on the whole gun control debate until then.

Which, of course, left me with a blank sheet of paper for today's column. Serendipitously, before I had time to wonder what I'd be writing about today instead, I was contacted by a spokesperson for the Justice Policy Institute with a proposed op-ed piece. I get a lot of these in my email, but this one caught my eye because of the relevance to this week's debate, and because it is a well-written advocacy piece which should give some food for thought on one of the ideas currently being proposed: putting police officers in schools. I'm not fully advocating the views put forth here, but I thought it would be a good addition to the debate. I'll be writing about my thoughts on gun control tomorrow. For now, here is the view of the Justice Policy Institute's Executive Director, Tracy Velázquez.

-- Chris Weigant

Cops In Schools

Vice President Joe Biden's office is on a fast track to issue recommendations for reducing gun violence in response to the Newtown school shootings. In terrible incidents like this, the public demand that policymakers "do something" is high; however, too often, a quickly-crafted "solution" creates lasting harm to the very people it seeks to protect, in this instance, the students themselves. This certainly will be the case if special interests like the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) have their way and we see the number of police in schools begin once again to rise.

Continue Reading »

President Obama held the last press conference of his first term in office today. He used the opportunity to clearly stake out his position on the looming debt ceiling fight. Obama's position: he's not going to have this fight. Period. Congress can either pass a bill he can sign, or we're going to hit the debt ceiling. Either way, Obama will not treat the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in the ongoing partisan struggle over the federal budget. Obama will refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling at all, and is not even entertaining ideas of any sort of "Plan B."

President Obama was astonishingly clear. What happens now is going to be interesting, because Obama may have changed the whole narrative in this debate. If it works, Obama will emerge from the fight stronger politically. If it doesn't work, Obama risks being blamed himself for a debt ceiling catastrophe by the public. If Obama backs down and does haggle over the debt ceiling, then he will disappoint his base and any future ultimatum he issues will be laughed at Republicans.

Continue Reading »

According to the news media, America's biggest concern right now should be the silliness of Jack Lew's signature. That's the kind of week it's been, at least among the inside-the-Beltway cocktail party circuit.

Lew has been nominated by President Obama for Treasury Secretary. Because of this, his signature is going to be required on all paper currency issued. And his signature is amusing, according to those in the Fourth Estate whose job it is to point out important political developments in our Nation's Capital. Obama even got in on the fun, joking that he's going to require at least one legible letter in Lew's signature. Lew is reportedly working on a new signature, as Washington breathlessly awaits.

There are times, when writing about the political world, when it is impossible not to feel like I am trapped inside a Jonathan Swift satire. This is one of those times. Real life and farce blur into one, and we all pretend this is normal. Sigh.

Continue Reading »

OK, I've been meaning to do this for a while now, but it just wasn't possible before last month's Obama Poll Watch chart (which was done right after New Year's Eve, I would point out in my defense), and I haven't gotten around to it. Until now, that is!

Since Barack Obama is going to be president for another four years, we are going to take the chance to slightly upgrade our charts of his approval ratings. So I spent the afternoon playing around with Excel, and came up with a few directions I'm considering. And I thought I'd run them by everyone, to see what people thought.

To refresh your memory, here's what last month's chart looked like (click on any of these to see a larger copy):

Continue Reading »

Last night, on a primetime television show, a character had an abortion. Does this shock you? It might, if only for the fact that such a plotline is so incredibly rare on American television. In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Roe v. Wade case will be forty years old. Four decades later, the debate over abortion still rages. But it is a debate which is largely silent on the small screen. Even last night, abortion did not really dare to speak its name.

The show I refer to is the NBC series Parenthood. Like many shows, when it first started, it was fairly brilliant and fresh and well-written, but it has faded a bit over time. The first year was edgy and realistic, with characters caught up in all sorts of life's problems -- but with (as the title suggests) strong family ties to fall back on in times of trouble. From this launching point, it has deteriorated to the point where either every plotline is resolved with rainbows and sweetness, or blows up in spectacular fashion (only to be resolved later, with unicorns and fields of flowers).

I say this not as a television critic (which I fully admit I am not) but to set the stage to discuss last night's show for those who have never seen an episode. Parenthood started out breaking some ground on television with (for example) a child with Asperger's Syndrome as a major character. In one of their first episodes, responsible adults (parents, even!) smoked some marijuana, and (gasp!) the entire world did not come to an end -- instead, they just got high for a while, and life went on afterwards. Recently, however, the plotlines have mostly devolved into "what can we think up next" sorts of episodes, and the main characters seem to have won several lotteries (must have missed that episode...) because no main characters ever have any money issues at all anymore. Even having said all of that, their decision to take on the subject of abortion was a brave one indeed, simply for the fact that so few other primetime broadcast television shows have ever done so.

Continue Reading »

President Barack Obama has it within his power to chart a new course for his administration on the Justice Department's continuing refusal to take into account the will of the voters in over one-third of the United States on medical marijuana. He could do so quite easily, by issuing a presidential pardon for Aaron Sandusky, who just received a 10-year prison sentence for running medical marijuana dispensaries in the state of California -- where such activities were legalized by the state's voters.

Sandusky, upon hearing his sentence, had this to say to the court:

I want to apologize to those with me and their families who have been victimized by the federal government who has not recognized the voters of this state. I want to apologize to the families who are suffering and who have to go through this. There are no winners here. Not the state, not the federal government, not the patients who need medical marijuana.

Continue Reading »