Intrepid Liberal Journal's blog

The Death of Why? An Interview With Author Andrea Batista Schlesinger

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:00:09 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

The phrase "knowledge is power" is a cliché in our culture. Yet as often as we hear it from others or speak it ourselves, how often have we contemplated the process of acquiring knowledge? Is there a blueprint for obtaining knowledge and wisdom? Are we encouraging children to be intellectually curious or merely teaching them that every question has an instant and obvious answer?

In her book, The Death of Why?: The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy (Berrett-Kohler Publishers), New York City policy expert Andrea Batista Schlesinger writes that,

"Why is the first question most children ask. With this question we express, to the delight and chagrin of our parents, our power.
In my life, questions have always been power. Asking them enabled me to overcome the challenges I faced as a young woman sitting at tables where I didn't automatically belong."

Although only thirty-two, Schlesinger has operated in the arena of policy debates locally in New York City and nationally for over a decade. Since 2002, Schlesinger has applied her background in public policy, politics, and communications to transform the Drum Major Institute ("DMI") into a progressive policy think tank with national impact. During her tenure as Executive Director, DMI created its Marketplace of Ideas series which highlights successful progressive policies from across the country and launched two public policy blogs that reach several thousand readers a day; and embarked on a national program to nurture careers in public policy for college students from underrepresented communities.

Recently, Schlesinger took a leave of absence from DMI to serve as a senior policy adviser to the re-election campaign of New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg - a decision that is controversial among New York City liberals like myself. Prior to joining DMI, Schlesinger directed a national Pew Charitable Trusts campaign to engage college students in discussion about the future of Social Security and served as the education adviser to Bronx borough president and mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer.

The one life lesson Schlesinger has learned above all others in her career and promotes passionately her book is that questions equals power. It is Schlesinger's contention that our culture promotes instant answers at the expense of inquiring.

With this book, Schlesinger has four primary objectives:

Convince readers of the importance of inquiry in our democracy
Illustrate how the very institutions that should be encouraging inquiry such as schools, the media, and government, the Internet are instead undermining intellectual curiosity in our society;
Inspire readers with hopeful examples of people working to restore inquiry to its rightful place of importance;
Convey a sense of urgency among citizens to develop effective "habits of the mind" and not be easily seduced by instant easy sound bite answers to complex challenges such as global warming.

Death of Why, is a well researched and scrupulously sourced eleven chapters and 215 pages of text. Where Schlesinger's book is especially provocative is when she takes bloggers like me to task for engaging in robotic group-think and avoiding engagement with people possessing different viewpoints.

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said that,

"The road to wisdom is asking 'why'? Andrea Batista Schlesinger has been asking 'why?" and supplying her own bright and thoughtful answers for long enough so that some of us suggested she write a book. It's foruntate for all of us that her answer was 'why not!'"

The publisher of The Nation, Kathleen vanden Heuvel added that,

"From her start in politics as a teenager Andrea Batista Schlesinger has asked the important questions. Now she asks her most important: are we teaching young people to value inquiry, and if not, what hope can we have for the future of democracy?"

Schlesinger graciously agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me this afternoon about her book. She was engaging and assertive in a conversation that was just over forty-six minutes. Among the topics discussed and debated is her contention that we're ideologically segregated, her argument that the Internet has reinforced a destructive group think mentality in our society, her advocacy for civics education and objection to teaching "financial literacy" in public schools and we closed by discussing her decision to join Mayor Bloomberg's re-election campaign as a senior policy adviser.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/071909_Interview_With_Adrea_Batista_Schlesinger.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by either searching for the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

The Ultimate Organizer: An Interview With ACORN's Founder Wade Rathke

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:57:21 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

It seems no matter which political party in America holds the majority, a Washington/Wall Street corporate centric axis dominates policy making. Indeed, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin recently observed that banks, "Frankly Own the Place." Among liberal-progressive activists like myself, this condition has facilitated a confrontational mindset.

Our experience suggests that the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few will not be voluntarily relinquished. Hence, everything from healthcare reform to bankruptcy protection for aggrieved homeowners is perceived by many of us as a high stakes pitched battle between struggling families and feculent corporate behemoths. Although activism has certainly facilitated important victories on behalf of working people, fighting for economic justice often seems analogous to climbing an endless wall.

Veteran activist Wade Rathke has been steadily climbing that wall on behalf of working people for forty-years. As the founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform ("ACORN"), Rathke has a unique perspective about what community organizing strategies work best to empower working people that are struggling to save and accumulate wealth. Rathke is also an assertive advocate for welfare benefits on behalf of people out of work. He's both won and lost more than his share of battles. Both he and ACORN have the battle scars of scrutiny liberals typically receive from standing up for America's poor and disenfranchised.

In Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign To Save Working Families, (Berrett-Koehler), Rathke writes,

"We need to create a national economic and political consensus that increasing family income, wealth and assets is not `welfare' or an entitlement `give-away' program but an investment in the public good and well-being."

His book is an accessible thirteen chapters and 171 pages of text presenting his blueprint to organize regular folks to win economic and political power. Rathke's book also contains revealing anecdotes about ACORN's negotiations with corporate entities such as H&R Block and their bank, HSBC, to end the predatory practice of Refund Anticipation Loans. Perhaps the most compelling topic in his book is covered in chapter nine when Rathke laments how millions of citizens eligible for Food Stamps, Medicaid and the State Children Health Insurance Program ("SCHIP") are disenfranchised from participating in the very programs designed to help them.

Rathke has remained involved with organizing activities after leaving ACORN in 2008. He is the founding board member of the Tides Foundation as well as the chief organizer of SEIU Local 100 in New Orleans and publisher of Social Policy magazine. He posts regularly at the Chief Organizer blog.

Rathke agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and among the topics covered is the meaning of citizen wealth, why economic justice has lagged behind expanded civil liberties for minorities and women, the methodology of ACORN's approach to fight H&R Block's predatory practices of Refund Anticipation Loans, the criticisms ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act have received about the housing crisis and his belief that worker/labor organization is imperative for all segments of society. Our conversation was twenty-eight and a half minutes.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/071209_Wade_Rathke_Interview.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be accessed at no cost the Itunes Store by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Living On $2 A Day: An Interview With Economist Jonathan Morduch

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:37:10 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

According to the World Bank, almost forty percent of humanity lives on a daily income of less than two dollars per day. Another 1.1 billion scrape by on less than one dollar per day.

How can anyone possibly survive or raise a family with such a meager income? In New York City, two dollars per day won't even cover my daily Brooklyn/Manhattan round-trip subway commute. Yet billions of low skilled people put food on the table, educate their children, grapple with unexpected emergencies and even save money.

In Portfolios of the Poor: How the World's Poor Live On $2 a Day, Darryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven, compiled yearlong "financial diaries," of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The diaries track penny by penny, how specific households manage their money with sophistication and resourcefulness. Recently published by Princeton University Press, Portfolios of the Poor, presents revealing data in an accessible seven chapters and 184 pages of text. The text is supported with an additional eighty plus pages of appendices, data tables and notes illustrating "the story behind the portfolios."

In a tour de force of primary research, the authors report that the world's poorest do not live hand to mouth and desperately spend what they earn just to keep from drowning. Instead, they utilize financial tools, rely on "informal" networks through relatives and neighbors and navigate perils such as medical calamities and political strife. Their stories are both inspiring as well as heartbreaking.

Although the world's poorest are far more adept at financial management then previously understood, they're confronted with what the authors describe as the "triple whammy":

1. Low income.
2. Irregularity of income.
3. Unpredictability about when they will earn income.

Hence, the authors assertively advocate for microfinancing as a means of empowering the world's poorest with more secure and convenient instruments to access and manage money. Microfinancing is financial services for low income clients in the world's poorest countries who are self-employed or operating their own businesses.

The authors argue in their book that microfinancing should also be extended to address the needs of exceptionally low-income wage earners as well. It is their contention that poor people in the countries they researched demonstrate on a daily basis that they are responsible money managers and would also be reliable clients of microfinancing services.

One of the authors, Jonathan Morduch, is a New York University ("NYU") professor of economics as well as a managing director of the Financial Access Initiative - a consortium of researchers at NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Morduch, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about the book and our conversation was just under twenty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered was how his team earned the confidence of the people interviewed, the informal market tools utilized by the world's poorest in Bangladesh, India and South Africa and why he's a proponent of extending microfinancing to the world's poorest wage earners.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/062709_Interview_With_Jonathan_Morduch.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman.

Billy Graham & the Rise of the Republican South: An Interview With Historian Steven P. Miller

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:16:10 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn't so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America's conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.

Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham's role in this realignment with his doctorate thesis entitled, "The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980." Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Miller's book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy.

With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued "moderation" between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people "one soul at a time" through his integrated "crusades" where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel.

Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or "states rights." In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham's defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn't do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument.

Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the New York Times that,

"Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it's a credit to Steven P. Miller that his `Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,' a study of the evangelist's relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved -- for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller's account, one of 20th-century America's most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn't.

The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement's successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men -- men like Billy Graham."

Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham's role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/060709_Interview_With_Steven_P_Miller.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

Mon, 18 May 2009 14:10:04 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don't rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush's presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled "Of Black Holes and Radio Silence," Ms. de la Vega wrote:

"There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order."

However, she also argues that,

"First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry."

Please note that Ms. de la Vega's post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat.

Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th:

continue reading after the jump

"What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative - comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence - that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need."

On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled "Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?"and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the "torture statute" didn't start ticking until Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009 - when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010.

Ms. de la Vega's position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General's and community awards, including the prestigious Director's Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force.

Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush.

She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet.

Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages Antemedius.com for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil's advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/051809_Interview_With_Elizabeth_de_la_Vega.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either "Robert Ellman" or the "Intrepid Liberal Journal."

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber

Sun, 17 May 2009 19:54:15 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It's a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they're likely to be.

Regrettably, that hasn't occurred since the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork. At the time, Bork scared the hell out of me and I'm grateful his nomination was not approved. Even so, I always respected how Bork was upfront about his ideology and judicial philosophy. Bork didn't hide what he was and the American public and the Senate had a clear picture of what sort of justice he would be.

Sadly, since the Bork nomination fight, our Supreme Court appointments process has become a Kabuki dance existing in an alternate reality. Nominees are conditioned to reveal as little as possible about their judicial philosophies or even avoid acknowledging they have one. A pitiful example is Chief Justice John Roberts who famously compared Supreme Court justices with baseball umpires during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings:

"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire."

Contrary to John Roberts' testimony, a Supreme Court justice has a unique and expansive role in our society. The Constitution contains too many abstract references and clauses for any justice to merely adhere to the rules based on a strict interpretation of the text. An example is the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. As the highly regarded legal scholar, Christopher L. Eisgruber, observes in his 2007 book, The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press) the Equal Protection Clause reads,

"'No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

How should judges interpret this clause? Presumably, they must ask what it means for the laws to protect people equally. Yet that question takes judges straight to the nerve center of American ideological controversy. Liberals and conservatives disagree passionately about what it means for the laws to protect groups equally and about when it is appropriate for the laws to treat one group better than another."

Overall, Eisgruber argues that due to the Constitution's many vague abstractions, a Supreme Court justice is disproportionately influenced by their individual values and ideology in determining when it's appropriate for the court to intervene and even overrule our country's prior laws. How could it be otherwise when the Constitution's text is frequently subject to broad interpretation as with the Equal Opportunity Clause? Hence, it is imperative the senate determines if the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee is representative of the country.

Some legal scholars such as Yale law professor Stephen Carter have argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should simply stay home because their testimony has ceased to contribute anything substantive. There is definitely merit to Carter's point of view. Nominees since Robert Bork typically speak only in vague platitudes about practicing "judicial restraint" and are ultimately voted up or down based upon their reassuring television appeal.

Eisgruber however argues in his book that the senate should ask more open-ended questions of prospective nominees about their judicial philosophies. Too often senators attempt to trap nominees with "gotcha" questions or ask about specific issues such as abortion that that can easily be deflected to "preserve their integrity" prior to joining the Supreme Court. Ultimately, little is learned and unless opposition interest groups get any traction or a scandal emerges, the nominee is likely to sail through without defending or explaining their ideology.

One example of the sort of question Eisgruber suggests asking is,

"The late Chief Justice William Rehinquist wrote that `manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper.' Could you tell us something about the values and purposes that will guide you when you interpret provisions like the Equal Protection Clause? How do those values and purposes distinguish your approach from those taken by other justices?"

Eisgruber contends this approach has a better chance of determining the sort of justice a nominee is likely to be. He also argues that it will facilitate more moderate nominees and discourage stealth extremists.

Eisgruber, who previously clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham (a conservative) and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a liberal), agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book. Among the topics discussed were the insights he gained clerking for two ideologically different judges, the importance of justice's philosophy about judicial review, President Obama's desire for a justice with "empathy" and whether we might have a justice who did not serve in the appellate courts. I also asked him numerous questions from my liberal perspective, including whether ideological balance on the court would be better served by appointing assertive liberals instead of moderates.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

The Democracy Index: An Interview With Law Professor Heather Gerken

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:00:33 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, "How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index." Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index ("EPI") shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a "Democracy Index" would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.

Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:

"This index should take what Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji calls a `moneyball approach.' The word `moneyball,' of course, refers to Michael Lewis' book of the same name about the success of the Oakland A's after management substituted hard numbers and empirical research for the gut-level judgments of baseball scouts in making hiring decisions.

Similarly, the Democracy Index could change the terms of the debate by giving voters something new: moneyball politics. It would offer cold, hard numbers and comparative data in place of atmospherics and anecdotes. It would provide bottom-line results in place of subjective judgments. It would let reformers talk like corporate executives, not starry-eyed idealists. And, most important, it would enable the voters to hold election officials accountable for their missteps.
In the end, a ranking system would work for a simple reason: No one wants to be at the bottom of the list."

Gerken further described her Democracy Index proposal and identified the major obstacles to good election practices with her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It (Princeton University Press). Her book is an accessible 181 pages and postulates that we need more facts about our election practices and that a ranking metric is our best hope to facilitate accountability and reform. Gerken also contends that our broken electoral system has less to do with intended malice than "deferred maintenance," a term typically applied to failed infrastructure such as broken bridges.

Shortly after Gerken's LegalTimes article was published, Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, put her concept into proposed legislation and within a year, Congress set aside $10 million to fund model data collection programs in five states and the Pew Center. Other foundations also sponsored conferences and initial research. On March 1, 2007, Obama referred to these initiatives on the Senate floor as,

"an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information."

Hence, Gerken's efforts illustrated at least the potential for action from the body politic to facilitate electoral reform but obviously, more needs to be done.

With respect to electoral law, Gerken is among the most authoritative voices in the country. In 2006, Gerken joined the Yale Law School faculty where she teaches election and constitutional law. Previously, Gerken clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She has also written for the New Republic, Roll Call, and Legal Affairs and has been a frequent media commentator.

Gerken was among several commentators who appeared on Charlie Rose's program the very evening the Supreme Court rendered its fateful decision in Bush vs. Gore. During the 2008 presidential election, Gerken served on Barack Obama's election protection team.

Gerken agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about her book and proposal for a Democracy index. Our conversation was just over seventeen minutes and can be accessed via the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Max Baucus Is A Corporatist Class Warrior

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:19:09 -0700

The topic below was originally posted yesterday evening at the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

A personal friend and avid reader of my blog recently complained that,

"You're too tough on Democrats and Barack Obama. Since the election you've fired more rhetorical bullets at Democrats than Republicans."

This was in response to my recent critiques of the Obama administration's handling of the banking crisis as well as my March 8th post, entitled "Evan Bayh Is A Corporatist Class Warrior." To my friend and others like him I say this: just because I worked hard to elect Democrats as well as our current president doesn't make me an unquestioning Borg drone.

Our conservative counterparts cheered while George W. Bush and his party brought America to its knees with their insipid indecency. Now it's the Democrats in power and they must also be held accountable. The purpose of my activism as well as the participation of the "netroots" contained three objectives:

1. End predatory conservatism's reign of indecency.

2. Enable the Democrats to obtain power in exchange for influence.

3. Leverage our influence within the party to pursue policies that facilitate broad prosperity, peace and social justice.

Put simply it's a business relationship. Democrats are using people like me and we're using the party. That said, I fully acknowledge the mess President Obama and Democrats have inherited and appreciate how four decades of predatory conservatism can't be undone in two months.

I'm patient as long we're going in the right direction and a strong critique from the left is necessary to keep the party and administration honest. I prefer to think of it as "constructive engagement." Recently, in a podcast interview with me longtime journalist and author, William Greider referred to it as a "righteous struggle." Overall, I believe the creative tension has gone reasonably well on some issues and less so on others. Now that Democrats control two of the three branches of government, vigilance is even more imperative.

Entrenched moneyed interests realize the onetime Republican gravy train is irrelevant and instead hope to persuade "Blue Dog" Democrats like Evan Bayh with dollars and even lucrative jobs for their families. Another Democrat beholden to corporate interests is Montana Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Regrettably, Baucus has been an aggressive apostle of Washington's rewarding wealth over work culture since his election in 1978. Sadly, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus has jurisdiction over any health care legislation that congress passes.

Yesterday, Howard Dean said that unless Americans have the choice of enrolling in a new public health care plan, the system won't be made more efficient. Most Americans would prefer to have a public option for health care. Yet Senator Baucus had the following reaction:

"Let's see what we come up with. I think we can accomplish the objective [Dean] wants without [a public plan]. We can, we're going to have to work on it. But we may have to have it, [Dean] may be right. Just don't know yet."

Translation, Baucus is willing to offer rhetorical platitudes suggesting he supports expanding health care but is really working to preserve the domain of the medical industrial complex at the expense of regular folks. According to OpenSecrets.org, these are the top five industries contributing to Baucus campaigns between 2003-2008:

Securities & Investment $832,918

Lawyers/Law Firms $668,004

Insurance $590,185

Health Professionals $537,141

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $524,813

There you have it. Baucus is beholden to Wall Street financiers at the expense of wage earners and small business entrepreneurs and the lapdog of a health care industry that prioritizes profit over wellness.

His voting record certainly reflects the donations he's received. For example, Baucus was one of eighteen Democrats to support the 2005 predatory bankruptcy legislation passed by congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Baucus also supported the Bush administration's catastrophic tax cuts in 2001 that helped give us the deficits so called moderate Democrats like him claim to worry about today.

Indeed, it seems moderate Democrats like Baucus always promote fiscal responsibility until it gets in the way of redistributing wealth from wage earners living paycheck to paycheck to the super rich. How the hell has this dude managed to maintain a populist image in Montana?

Some may be tempted to rationalize that Baucus is the price for having a Democratic Senator from Montana. Recent evidence however suggests that is ridiculous. In 2006, Jon Tester defeated entrenched conservative Republican incumbent Conrad Burns with a populist campaign for the senate. And Brian Schweitzer has emerged as an effective, popular and progressive governor. Indeed, as a New Yorker I wish we had Schweitzer as our governor instead of the hapless David Paterson.

Democrats such as Max Baucus are the reason I've donated to Accountability Now. Accountability Now was founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher to provide a needed counterweight to pressure Democrats like Max Baucus. What I wrote about Indiana Senator Evan Bayh on March 8th is doubly true for Max Baucus:

"Nothing concentrates a politician's mind like the prospect of a primary challenge. Accountability Now is a vehicle to obtain leverage and pressure Democrats such as Evan Bayh that opposing progressive change will put their careers in jeopardy. Delivering power to the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 was merely Phase One. Phase Two is transforming the Democratic Party as the people's party rather than simply existing as the lesser corporatist evil in a two party duopoly."

When Max Baucus guides his finance committee with respect to the health care debate and President Obama's budget, it is imperative he hear from us. Baucus must be convinced that failure to act on behalf of the people's interests will result in his political extinction. That is the only language entrenched power respects.

Even if you're not a Montana resident, Baucus obviously accepts many contributions outside his state and as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has disproportionate influence over the economic security of all Americans. It therefore seems reasonable that Americans across the country make it known to Baucus that we'll be monitoring his actions closely and help end his career just as we helped elect Jon Tester in 2006. I did a lot of phone banking on Tester's behalf in 2006 and would be more than happy to volunteer on behalf of a liberal primary opponent to Max Baucus.

In the meantime, Baucus needs to feel the earth tremble beneath his feet. Click here for the telephone numbers of Baucus's seven offices and here to email him.

Even with President Barack Obama in the White House, obtaining change we can believe in remains up to us. That means using our leverage to either place more liberal minded senators on that body's powerful finance committee or persuading status quo champions such as Max Baucus not to stand in our way.

Come Home America: An Interview With Truth Teller William Greider

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:37:37 -0700

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

I first became aware of William Greider after the publication of his 1981 Atlantic Monthly profile of President Reagan’s embattled Office of Management and Budget Director (“OMB”), David Stockman. At the time I was just a kid and the Reagan administration insisted they could simultaneously balance the budget, cut taxes and increase defense spending exponentially.

Greider’s reporting however exposed that even Stockman, doubted the fiscal prudence of Reaganomics. After the article’s publication, Stockman absorbed public humiliation when President Reagan took him “to the woodshed.” I trace that article as a seminal moment in my own political awareness.

continue reading after the jump

Over the years, Greider has been a determined voice of truth against a backdrop of America’s pro-war, pro-Wall Street governing elites and their enablers inside the corporate media. While Alan Greenspan was celebrated, Greider warned that the Federal Reserve and other regulatory agencies were guilty of dereliction. When celebrated economists such as Paul Krugman extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, Greider warned of diminished wages at home and condemned the shameful exploitation our consumption habits subsidized abroad.

Greider’s latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country, just published by Rodale, is a manifesto of hope and warning. In Chapter One, Greider writes:

“Think of America at this point as a muscular teenager, full of talent, adolescent energy, and youth’s over-reaching impulses. This is a critical stage in human development and for our nation it could go either way. Some nations that acted like willful children when they were young formed balanced societies when they became adults. Other nations have never really grown up.

The question, I think is whether-we-the people who proudly call ourselves Americans – can mature as a society. The country can develop a deeper sense of what matters most in life and what doesn’t. It can shed some self-destructive reflexes and acquire a wiser sense of national self-interest that is anchored in the nation’s ideals. Wisdom tempers egotism. This is true for both people and nations.

Or, the United States can plunge ahead self-indulgently, repeating destructive habits, acting out reckless ambitions, and getting into deeper trouble. We all know children who, for whatever reason, got older but never found themselves. This is possible for nations too, especially ones that refuse to reconcile themselves to new realities.

I am betting we will grow into our maturity and hoping that lots of Americans agree.”

Greider’s book chronicles why America is in dire straits and proposes numerous solutions to facilitate a better economic foundation for America's struggling middle class. His recommendations include consolidating many of the Federal Reserve’s functions within the executive branch to ensure public accountability for monetary policy, replacing private pension plans such as 401ks with government pension plans instead and capping U.S. trade deficits through a general emergency tariff authorized under the charter of the World Trade Organization.

Even more than any singular remedy however, Greider’s book urges outraged citizens to embrace activism as a means of forcing the powerful in the public and private sectors to finally put our national interests above corporate greed. Ultimately, Greider's book argues that the current crisis is an opportunity for citizens to reengage and facilitate a more just and equitable society.

Greider is the best-selling author of five previous books, including One World, Ready or Not; Who Will Tell the People; and Secrets of the Temple. He’s written for the Washington Post and Rolling Stone as well as serving as an on-air correspondent for six PBS Frontline documentaries. Currently, Greider is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation.

Greider agreed to a podcast telephone interview with me this afternoon about his book and views. Our conversation was just over forty-eight minutes and among the topics we discussed were the current A.I.G. bonus controversy, the Democratic Party’s culpability in overriding state and local laws against usury, his recommendations to overhaul the Federal Reserve and America’s pension system, our destructive relationship with China, America’s excessive militarism and the fine line being walked by activists who support the Democratic Party and President Obama while simultaneously pushing for real change.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store at no cost by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:45:17 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday.

Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they're concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for.

Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase "working majority" during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims.

Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode "It's A Good Life." Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we're dealing with.

The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation, the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter and Maine's Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut's "Independent" Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives.

Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama's political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it.

Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic senators a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear.

The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush's insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is a delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it's this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Reinventing Our Relations With the Muslim World: An Interview With Former CIA Analyst Emile Nakhley

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:33:19 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Building consensus within America’s body politic and national security establishment for a new way forward with Muslims worldwide is a formidable challenge. Many Americans still don’t appreciate the complex nuances of Muslim society and remain stubbornly Islamophobic almost seven and half years after 9/11. Equally formidable is earning the goodwill of Muslims worldwide following the Iraq War as well as American atrocities perpetrated upon Islamic detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Hopefully, President Obama’s historic election has finally opened a path for constructive conversation about how America can most effectively engage the Muslim world.

The CIA’s former point man on Islam, Emile Nakahleh, has vigorously entered this conversation with his new book, A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations With the Muslim World (Princeton University Press). From 1991 to 2006, Nakahleh served as the director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program in the Directorate of Intelligence at the CIA. He holds a PhD in international relations and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Nakhleh’s book combines a revealing memoir with in-depth analysis and proposals for the future. Ever since his retirement from the CIA in 2006, Nakhleh has been a vociferous critic of the Bush Administration’s legacy with respect to American-Muslim relations. Indeed, in September 2006, Nakhleh told Harper’s Magazine that because of Bush’s policies,

“We've lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world.”

Nakhleh's proposals for improving American-Muslim relations stems from his conversations with Muslim "interlocutors" spanning three decades. These conversations include government ministers, Islamic activists, academics and radicals. Nakhleh also examined and analyzed considerable polling data of Muslims worldwide.

Overall, Nakhleh contends that the vast majority of Muslims and America have common interests and values. His blueprint includes robust dialogue with mainstream Islamic political parties as well as a tangible commitment towards democracy in the Muslim world, even if we don’t always like the short-term electoral results. His book is an accessible 160 pages and divided into four chapters: (Chapter 1) Political Islam and Islamization, (Chapter 2) Intelligence, Political Islam, and Policymakers, (Chapter 3) Public Diplomacy: Issues and Attitudes and (Chapter 4) Public Diplomacy: A Blueprint.

Nakhleh was born in Galilee, north of Nazareth in Palestine and raised a Greek Catholic. He emigrated from Israel to the United States approximately 50 years ago and attended a Benedictine university in Minnesota for his B.A., a Jesuit university in Washington, D.C., for an M.A. and was awarded a Ph.D. from the American University in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the CIA he taught at a catholic college in Maryland for 26 years.

Nakhleh agreed to a telephone interview with me in podcast format. Among the topics we discussed was whether he believes the surge in Iraq worked, the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran inside Iraq, President Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan, Hamas and America’s role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his argument that American commitment to democracy in the Muslim world is imperative to our long term interests.

Some of Nakhleh’s answers and views may surprise many listeners. Our conversation was just over 47 minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below.

Either searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman” can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

Please note I erred in the audio introduction when I said Emile Nakhleh worked for the CIA between 1991 and 1996. I meant to say he worked for the CIA between 1991 and 2006. Also, my apologies for the echo on Emile Nahhleh's side. Sometimes technology has its limits.

America, It's Time To Say Goodbye To Wall Street: An Interview With Author David Korten

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:43:22 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal..

"We face a monumental economic challenge that goes far beyond anything being discussed in the U.S. Congress or the corporate press. The hardships imposed by temporarily frozen credit markets pale in comparison to what lies ahead.

Even the significant funds that the Obama administration is committed to spending on economic stimulus will do nothing to address the deeper structural causes of our threefold financial, social, and environmental crisis. On the positive side, the financial crisis has put to rest the myths that our economic institutions are sound and that markets work best when deregulated. This creates an opportune moment to open a national conversation about what we can and must do to create an economic system that can for work for all people for all time.”

Internationally renowned social scientist and historianDavid Korten wrote those words in the introduction of his new book, Agenda For A New Economy: From Phantom Wealth To Real Wealth, scheduled to be released by Berrett-Kohler Publishers tomorrow.

Some of you may have previously read Korten’s 1995 international bestseller, When Corporations Rule the World. Longtime readers/listeners of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may also recall my August 2007 podcast interview with Korten about his book, The Great Turning: From Empire To Earth Community. You can learn more about Korten’s background by clicking here and reading the introductory text to that podcast.

Korten’s current book is organized in four parts: Part I, The Case for a New Economy; Part II, The Case for Eliminating Wall Street; Part III, Agenda for a Real Wealth Economy and Part IV, Change the Story, Change the Future. Essentially, Korten divides the economy into “Wall Street” and “Main Street.” The first half of Korten’s book is dedicated to indicting Wall Street for generating “phantom wealth” at the expense of society’s quality of life. In the second half, Korten promotes twelve concepts to empower a “Main Street” economy that facilitates the exchange of tangible goods and services among citizens living within their means.

His diagnosis and prescriptions are jarring. Korten postulates that Main Street is far closer to the original vision of Adam Smith while Wall Street capitalism is the antithesis of a free market economy. Reform-minded liberals, who believe we can work within America’s established financial credit markets banking system and stabilize our economy with band-aids and bailouts, will likely be just as opposed to his book as Wall Street apologists. Conservatives will likely dismiss Korten’s solutions because he believes in government regulation to ensure that businesses and citizens behave within agreed upon social norms.

As Korten sees it, corporations in a Wall Street economy are given incentives to destroy the planet’s environment and inflate its financial statements by taking a wrecking ball to the middle class. In a true market economy, business entities that inflict harm on the environment and their community’s overall quality of life could not survive. Hence, Korten writes that under a Wall Street economy, corporations,

“If it were a real person, it would fit the clinical profile of a sociopath.”

Sadly, in American society, sociopathic behavior was rewarded as the proper spoils of capitalism. Hence, one of Korten’s twelve concepts to empower a Main Street economy is to “Reclaim the corporate charter” so that the public has a means of ensuring accountability and social responsibility.

The future that Korten envisions is a community ethos in which citizens and businesses have a stake in the health, infrastructure and overall quality of life in their local community as well as the world at large.

Vicki Robin, coauthor of Your Money or Your Life and cofounder of Conversation Cafes issued the following praise for Korten’s book:

“Once again David Korten has provided us with a clear understanding of why the old economy is driving us and nature to ruin - and a framework for transforming it. Especially in this time of economic meltdown it's crucial for caring people everywhere to get that patching the tires of a vehicle that's going over a cliff is neither sane nor acceptable. The financial crisis is a healing crisis and Korten gives us prescriptions that could actually give us a thriving and just economy that works for people and the planet. I hope every reader feels, as I have, a sense of relief at hearing the truth and a renewed passion for civic engagement, now knowing what direction we need to steer our ship."

Korten agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone yesterday afternoon about his latest book, why he believes the Wall Street economy is irredeemable and his solutions for the future. Our conversation was approximately forty-two minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below.

Either searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman” can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

When America Burned After the King Assassination: An Interview With Clay Risen

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:42:16 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Tomorrow, America honors the birthday of heroic civil rights activist Martin Luther King. Americans revere King across the political and ethnic spectrum for his wisdom, idealism, courage and practice of non-violent civil disobedience against the forces of racial oppression. Thanks in large part to the trailblazing efforts of King and his followers; America inaugurates its first black president the very next day when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20th. Yet even as Americans celebrate the historical arc from Martin Luther King to Barack Obama, the scars of racial injustice remain woven into our country’s fabric.

Understandably, historians have overlooked the immediate aftermath of King’s assassination in a Memphis, Tennessee hotel on April 4th, 1968. The meaning of King’s life as well as the tragedy his loss represented has received considerable attention from historians and the body politic. Yet the immediate aftermath of King’s death was dwarfed by his iconic life as well as the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the violence that took place during the Democratic National Convention later that year.

Clay Risen, author of A Nation On Fire: America In the Wake of the King Assassination (John Wiley & Sons) argues that what transpired immediately after April 4th impacted America as intensely as King’s death itself. Within hours, there was rioting in Washington D.C. and before the violence subsided, the U.S. Army occupied three major American cities while National Guard units patrolled a dozen more. Overall, there were disturbances in nearly 120 cities. Ultimately, the riots helped facilitate forty years of conservative hegemony as urban America reaped the whirlwind of white resentment and indifference.

Risen specifically chronicles the period covering President Lyndon Johnson’s withdrawal from the 1968 campaign on March 31st, to King’s assassination on April 4th and culminates with Johnson’s signing of the 1968 Civil Rights Act on April 11th. The author relies on dozens of interviews as well as newly declassified documents to provide a dramatic day-by-day, city-by-city narrative of the riots, from the looting in Washington to violence in Chicago, Baltimore and other cities following King's death in Memphis.

Indeed, Risen skillfully takes the reader on a historical tour with larger than life personalities like the militant Stokely Carmichael to white racist vigilantes in Baltimore and political figures such as New York City Mayor John Lindsey, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, New York Senator Robert Kennedy and Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew. Perhaps the book’s most dramatic anecdote was when a young Deputy Attorney General named Warren Christopher, joined General Ralph Haines, and Public Safety Commissioner Patrick Murphy at a Washington DC gas station pay-phone to recommend to President Johnson that he deploy federal troops in the nation’s capitol.

George Pelecanos, author of The Turnaround and The Night Gardner issued the following praise for Risen’s book:

"Clay Risen’s A Nation on Fire is the long-awaited definitive account of one of the most important, underreported events of the 1960s. As important for its historical aspect as it is for understanding where we are today, it is an exciting, important document, excitingly told.”

Risen, was formerly an editor at The New Republic and is the founding Managing Editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He has also contributed to Smithsonian, Atlantic, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Risen agreed to a telephone interview with me in a podcast format about his book as well as the fateful days following King’s death. Our conversation was just over forty-seven minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below.

Either searching for the Intrepid Liberal Journal or Robert Ellman can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

Reclaiming the Word Liberal In the Age of Obama

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:16:47 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Words matter. Labels matter. Although it has become vogue to say, "Voters are tired of labels" they remain powerful. How we define the meaning of those labels is critical. Those of us who call ourselves "liberal" have learned this the hard way. As a liberal activist who slogged, blogged and endured, I find myself reflecting about the word "liberal" and the abuse it's absorbed with Obama's inauguration less then three weeks away.

It seems like only yesterday I volunteered for the Dukakis campaign in college as my candidate defensively denied he was a liberal. At the time voters associated the word "liberal" with convicted rapists. In the last days of the '88 campaign, Dukakis finally declared himself a liberal and attempted to define it on his own terms. Alas, it was too little too late.

From 1968 through 2004, predatory conservatives successfully defined liberalism to mean unpatriotic intellectual elites living in ivory towers, spewing hate America first diatribes while celebrating permissiveness over responsibility, trashing God, empowering welfare recipients over those who work and advocating surrender to America's enemies. In other words, to be a liberal was to be un-American. This past year, liberalism wasn't necessarily made "cool" but the right wing's ability to distort it was undermined following eight years of George W. Bush's reign of indecency.

Ultimately, predatory conservatism's success at equating "liberal" with "un-American" empowered a theocratic kleptocracy to wage class warfare from the top, undermine civil liberties and prosecute an immoral foreign policy. If money is the "mother's milk" of politics then words, labels and definitions are the music that either inspire or scare. Hence, we must reclaim the word liberal or President-Elect Obama and congressional Democrats will find themselves in a defensive crouch anytime they try to promote peace abroad or establish a compassionate, judicious and fairer social contract at home.

Diane G, put it well in a comment to me following an x-post of my essay "Replacing the Cultural Ethos of Predatory Conservatism" over at Wild Wild Left:

"Equally, the campaign against the term Liberal has brutalized its image, when in fact it is more Patriotic to support EVERYONE's rights, and oppose abuses of our fellow citizenry.

Our first work must include making those terms of definition themselves irrelevant, for one cannot easily unlearn trained connotations."

For the very reason Diane G articulated, I named my blog Intrepid Liberal Journal when I started blogging in November 2005. Like many bloggers, I was expressing myself in opposition to our criminal foreign policy abroad and the conservative nomenklatura at home. Although I've certainly used the word "progressive" and like it, declaring myself a "liberal" was a proud act of defiance following decades of slander by predatory conservatives and their accomplices in the corporatist media. My attitude was,

"Yeah, I'm a liberal. Want to make something of it?"

Well, Democrats are no longer the opposition but the word liberal still needs to be defined if they are to govern in a manner that reconciles with our ideals. Most are familiar with John Kennedy's characterization of liberalism:

"But if by a `Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a `Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal."

My Left Wing's Maryscott O'Connor referenced Kennedy's definition during the '08 presidential campaign with a terrific essay entitled, "Why We Are Liberals" and went much further. Three months later it remains a must read and even more relevant with Democrats poised to assume the reigns. Her three paragraphs below are especially poignant:

"Liberals want to live in a world whose political leaders serve the people, rather than their own interests. We want American politicians to serve their constituents, rather than the corporate interests represented by the lobbying industry, let alone their own selfish aims (which almost always begin with retaining their seats of power, to the exclusion of actually using that power in the manner they ought).

We want to live to see the day when healthcare is a human right, not a pricey privilege or a `benefit.' We want to live to see a day when the government regulates corporations, not personal lives. We want to be told the truth by the media and by those the media cover. We are sick of the lies, the spin, the charade. So sick of our default setting perception of anyone in government or power being distrust and cynicism. And so very sick of the wretched, ubiquitous suspicion that the whole system is rigged and there's nothing about it we can do.

We are idealists. That's what liberals are, really; those who see what is and ask, `Why?' and see what isn't and ask `Why not?' Liberals want to see met the basic needs of every human being. Liberals look at a world where one rich man can build an entire city out of gold while millions of poor people go without nutrition, water or medicine for their entire lifetimes -- and ask, `Why is this so? Is this not wrong -- and insane? And why do so many refuse to see it as such?'

Nobody writes like Maryscott and there isn't much I can add to that.

I would point out though that liberalism is the indispensable alternative to revolution or reaction. Now more then ever our world is teetering between elites that desperately want to hang onto power and privilege, xenophobic absolutists that reject any worldview different from their own, anarchists opposed to any kind of structure and revolutionaries eager to replace the oligarchies and autocracies that oppress them with their own brand of dictatorships.

The best thing America can do for this world on the brink is to lead by example with a humane society that values truth, nurtures progress without bloodshed or oppression and embraces dignity as a universal right for everyone. People should not have to take to the streets for healthcare, be paid the wages they deserve, insist that we stop incarcerating millions of people gratuitously for profit or demand their government only goes to war as a last resort. A liberal government that puts the needs of the people above it or the powerful will never have to fear the people or prevent them from knowing the truth.

Judicious, compassionate, intelligent, rationale, humane and visionary represents liberalism's core values and creed. Predatory conservatives will most certainly endeavor to obstruct President-Elect Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by disparaging the word liberal as well as distorting the record of Franklin Roosevelt's liberal New Deal. Thus, if Obama's era is to be one in which peace and prosperity prevail, we must vigilantly equate the word liberal with the very principles we hold dear.

Replacing the Cultural Ethos of Predatory Conservatism

Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:57:21 -0800

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal on Friday, December 26th.

Presidents define our country's cultural ethos. Our cultural ethos impacts how large America's economic pie is and whether the benefits and sacrifices are proportioned fairly. The Republican presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, promoted a cultural ethos of hyper individualism that rationalized waging ruthless class warfare against the middle class, working poor, the unemployed poor, the very old and the very young. Liberals were lonely voices against the tide as predatory conservatism eroded protections for consumers and wage earners alike.

Predatory conservatism's rationale was the virtues of entrepreneurial capitalism. Alas, it was crony capitalism that was promoted at the expense of America's meritocracy instead. As an American kleptocracy consolidated its grip, conservative Republicans justified their immoral excess as the establishment of an "ownership society" that would transition wage earners into the investor class and magically create wealth for everyone. Republicans also believed their electoral majority would be enhanced as more Americans joined this "investor class" and even hoped to dump Social Security in our fraudulently toxic stock market. Now investors, entrepreneurs and wage earners are all hoping the Democratic Party can pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire.

Sadly, Democratic presidents such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were unable to redefine this cultural ethos and with too many policies were even co-opted by predatory conservatism's influence peddling machine. Indeed, the Democratic Party was itself corrupted as illustrated by New York Senator Charles Schumer's relationship with Wall Street predators who dumped hydrochloric acid on our economy's deregulated naked raw flesh. Democrats often rationalized such compromises as the price for power.

In fairness to Democrats, power and principle can be a delicate balance. The discredited former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was fond of saying, "Power without principle is barren. Principle without power is futile." Despite Blair's legacy as George W. Bush's poodle, that is a sagacious quote. It expressed a sentiment that largely defined the Clinton years and thankfully he possessed the political skills to squeeze as much juice on behalf of regular folks as his political capital allowed when predatory conservatism was riding high.

Times have changed and the body politic is currently debating whether America remains a center-right country - if it ever truly was. My admittedly unscientific visceral sense is that an old cliché still applies: Americans are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. During prosperous times Americans embrace an ideologically conservative mindset and favor the preservation of their individual equity over policies they consider "redistributionist." An economic calamity such as we're experiencing today translates into Americans channeling a more operational mindset as they struggle making ends meet on a daily basis.

Put another way, John and Jane don't want Uncle Sam to subsidize a jobs program or healthcare when they have good paying jobs, healthcare and a valuable home in a nice neighborhood. But once John and Jane are threatened with foreclosure, are out of work themselves or working harder for less and their retirement pensions are disappearing into the free market ether, government intervention doesn't feel so intrusive. Hence, the cultural ethos of the moment is economic security over hyper-individualism.

It is imperative that President-Elect Barack Obama strikes while the iron is hot because predatory conservatives are always lying in the high weeds to seize at any soft underbelly they can exploit. One such underbelly is the newly formed Blue Dogs Caucus in the Senate founded by Indiana's Evan Bayh with Majority Leader Harry Reid's approval. With Republicans in the minority, predatory conservatives will look to establish a fifth column through so-called Democrats such as Bayh and peddle as much influence as they can. Thank goodness Obama didn't pick Bayh to be his Vice President. At least Joe Biden had the excuse of supporting bankruptcy legislation while a senator because it favored his Delaware constituents.

Yet even with predatory conservatism always lurking and dubious cabinet nominees such as the corporatist friendly Colorado Senator Ken Salazar for Interior and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack at Agriculture, I am encouraged by what I hear from the nascent Obama administration. Franklin Roosevelt also had to soothe the body politic with some of his appointments too and so far Obama's team is talking big with respect to his economic recovery plan.

When Tom Daschle was nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services, it was with the understanding that universal healthcare is an indispensable component of economic recovery. The brilliant and unapologetic liberal Jared Bernstein was also recently appointed as Joe Biden's chief economist. Biden will chair a task force with respect to recommending economic policies designed to help the middle class. It's reassuring to know that Bernstein is in a position to influence Biden who in turn will influence policy.

The upshot is that the current calamity has the American public in an operationally liberal mindset and a Democratic president-elect with stratospheric poll numbers. The stars haven't been this aligned to establish an enduring progressive legacy since the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt skillfully used his political capital to establish institutions that even endured predatory conservatism's feculent rule decades later. Today, Obama has a bully pulpit and progressive Democrats in a congress such as the new House Committee Chairman for Commerce and Energy, Henry Waxman, have a platform to educate the public about why we need polices that consider the American community as a whole while the citizenry is receptive to it.

Yes, I fully recognize that predatory conservatism has not surrendered and never will. Yes, we liberals must remain vigilant and put Obama on notice whenever he compromises too much such as cultural pandering to homophobic evangelical preachers like Rick Warren or with respect to civil liberties issues such as FISA. The challenges ahead are immense. Predatory conservatism has left behind considerable debris and Obama won't bat 1.000 during the cleanup.

No president could and re-educating the public that the pursuit of empire is self-defeating as well as immoral while simultaneously maintaining political viability is a juggling act. Hence, Obama will have to sometimes tread carefully and dance through the raindrops as a public addicted to consuming a quarter of the world's resources endures withdrawal symptoms. Cleansing Americans from decades of predatory conservative brainwashing will not be accomplished overnight.

Yet, even as my 401K disintegrates and I'm scared about my own economic future, I am optimistic as we approach the new year. Debris and wreckage also means the opportunity to build something that is new, better and enduring. Instead of debating whether we need healthcare reform the conversation will instead be about how to achieve it. The days of having to scream that global warming is real are no more. Instead the debate will be focused on how to address it. Rather then having to justify the necessity of government as a check on private corporate power, the conversation will instead be about how to reform and establish public institutions that effectively protects wage earners and consumers.

After years of activism and blogging in the wilderness of opposition, I'm eager to roll up my sleeves and get to work.