Category: National

Categories
National politics

Power Struggle

This is nothing new in politics (power struggles in general or this one in particular) but it is starting to get more press coverage – the question is, “Who controls the nomination process – the states, or the parties?” The struggle is most public among the Democrats as their candidates have now promised to honor the Party primary calendar. The Republicans are dealing with the very same issue but without the same level of publicity. The struggle between the parties and the states seems to be a direct result of a struggle among the states to gain influence in the candidate selection process. I am left to wonder how the traditional set of early states was initially established? Was that set by the parties, or by the respective states? (Can anyone enlighten me on that?)

In my mind the parties should not control the process. On the other hand, they are choosing representatives for their respective parties so they should have control of how those representatives are chosen. I believe that experience had led the parties to value a process where they largely mimic each other through the primary cycle. (I’m not sure exactly why that is although I have a few guesses) While I believe that states should be able to choose how and when they participate in the primary selection process I’m not convinced that voters win when the primary season is pushed so far in advance of the general election. Imagine if the candidates for the election of 2000 were chosen in mid 1997 and then had 9/11 occur in mid 1998. We could find that the candidates we had chosen were ill suited to our new reality. (I know that’s an extreme example – almost too ridiculous to comprehend, but you can’t miss my point) There’s always a certain amount of risk that changes will occur between the primary selection and the final vote, but the earlier we push the primaries the greater that risk becomes.

What do other people think? Who should control the primary schedule? What would the ideal schedule look like (in general terms)? Is the current reshuffling power-struggle good, bad, or neutral for voters and the country?

Categories
National politics State

Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

If there is anyone who still reads this blog they will be well aware that I have been lousy at posting anything in the last month or so. I have been working on various other projects and purposely leaving this site dormant for the present, but I am compelled to post after I heard that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is hearing a lawsuit on gay marriage. The court is being used as a vehicle to try to get a 1913 law thrown out which prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not residents of Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home states.The argument is that the law is being used to discriminate against gay couples. Unfortunately this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the law is being used to discriminate against gays then it should be applied equitably rather than being repealed. These plaintiffs need to prove that heterosexual couples who would not be allowed to marry a home are being given marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

It is easy to see that the agenda operating behind this is not deterred by state boundaries. This is nothing more than a step to legalize gay marriage throughout the country. If this suit succeeds there will be couples from around the country who come to Massachusetts to marry and then complain in their home states that they are facing discrimination. Nobody can argue that this is not the case because the plaintiffs include eight out of state couples. This will happen despite the fact that there is already a federal law stating that one state is not obligated to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I will attempt to walk a very fine line here. I do not wish this to be viewed as a homophobic posting. Unfortunately I cannot claim to know and love a large number of gay people (that would strengthen my argument) but I would hope that it can be said that I treat all gay people with whom I come in contact with the same respect that any human being deserves. I might add that this is the same respect which I withold from bigots of every type. I abhor bigotry and hope never to be guilty of it. That being said I want to address this suit in the light of judicial activism.

Suits like this are the very thing that give rise for judges to exercise any pre-disposisiton towards judicial activism. If this suit has merit the proper course of action would be to have the law rewritten or applied fairly. The plaintiffs have expressed their intention – which is to have the law annulled. If they fully win their case activist judges on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts can use it as an excuse to rule that the law be removed rather than corrected and enforced properly.

Anyone who nievely argues that this case stops at Massachusetts must ask themselves what a gay couple gains by going to Massachusetts to get married if they then return to their home state knowing that their marriage will not be recognized. The answer is that they gain nothing except more leverage in their fight to legalize gay marriage in their home states. This is not the correct way to go about changing the law. If you want a legal gay marriage move somewhere that it is already legal. If you want to legalize gay marriage live within the bounds of the law and push for legislation to make gay marriage legal where you live.

We have an estalished process for the passage of laws. If a majority of people believe in something it will become law. We have checks in place to minimize the chance for majorities to trample the rights of minorities, but the judicial system is to interpret law and not write it through opinion. If the 1913 law should be repealed that should happen through a vote of the legislature or a ballot initiative. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger understood that when he vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage because the people of California had already passed a proposition stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The governor argued rightly that “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” It can also be said that we cannot have a system where the people vote and judges derail the vote once it has passed by a super-majority.

Categories
National politics

Nomination and Confirmation

Well, we’ve had the name of John Roberts as the niminee for the opening on the Supreme Court bench for a couple of days now. I have tried to give myself some time to gather some information and draw some conclusions before I posted my thoughts in this nomination. The main questions were: (1)should John Roberts be confirmed? and (2)will John Roberts be confirmed?My personal answers at this time are: (1)I still don’t have enough information to say for sure and (2)probably.

John Roberts has the objective credentials to be a supreme court justice. There are those who might complain about a lack of experience, but really we could do much worse on experience. So far the democratic senators who have spoken up seem to indicate that they will not make this a nasty confirmation. They have both the right and the responsibility to question Judge Roberts thoroughly during the confirmation hearings but it appears that they will not resort to a filibuster which means that he will probably be confirmed.

Now, because of how little I have been able to learn about this man with the thin judicial resume, the question has been raised in my head: is the way to get people appointed to the supreme court in these days of divisive politics to find someone who has a scant record who you hope will do what you want (based on your own ideological leaning) but who has very little for the opposition to oppose? That seems to be the formula here. I do not mean to imply that Judge Roberts is unqualified or even that the president might think him unqualified but dependable. I am saying that one of the reasons that I believe this nomination will succeed, and possibly one of the reasons that it was made, is because the liberals may have their objections and suspicions but they have very little ammunition from Roberts’ short tenure as a federal judge.

Hopefully I have made it clear what I am referring to when I ask: does our political situation dictate that this is how to make things happen? And if so: is it a safe situation to require that a judge have a short track record if he is to survive the confirmation process?

Categories
National politics

The Power of the Minority

I am very interested in the moves that the democrats will make as they try to get back to their winning ways. I found an interesting perspective by David Brooks in the New York times.

I really expect that American Politics are largely going to be determined – for better or worse – by what the Democrats end up doing in their efforts to start winning majorities at the national level.

Categories
National politics

The Fastest Way Out

I drive around the city and see a smattering of yard signs saying “Bring the troops home now.” I feel that those who post the signs do not care about the welfare of the Iraqis. No matter how bad their lives are now with insurgents, the worst course of action we could take would be to walk away right now. After reading Friedman’s “Pop-Tarts or Freedom?” I had an interesting thought about those who display those signs. Undoubtedly those who post the signs disagree with the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. Friedman suggests that the fastest way to get the troops home is to hold elections. If people believe that then these people who don’t support the administration would have to support the stance of the administration in not postponing the Iraqi elections.

Categories
National politics

A Little Prophecy

In one of his last columns William Safire makes an interesting prophecy about the political future of our nation. He says, “If I were starting out in politics or its commentary today, I’d become a Democrat.” Coming from one of the most staunchly Republican pundits I have ever read, that is an interesting statement.

His reasons offer a ray of hope to the democratic party today and a voice of warning to the Republicans who currently hold power. To the republicans he says, “The G.O.P. personality will split in a couple of years, as all huge majorities do in America. Idealistic neocons will be challenged by plodding, pragmatic paleocons, who, by fuzzing the party’s present character, will someday lead it down the road to defeat.” and to the Democrats he suggests that they can begin to win again if they will “take advantage of its bantamweight agility and ‘stand for something.'”

In some ways I am starting out in politics in that I figure that I still have at least 30 years worth of political participation ahead of me. I could not agree more with Mr. Safire that joining the Republicans represents jumping onto an old champion racehorse – lots of victories behind it, but not many left in front of it. Siding with the Democrats gives the newcomer an opportunity to help shape an up-and-coming champion which will start to produce greater and greater victories so long as discipline and principles are vigilantly maintained.

Categories
National politics

The Election is Over

At the (earlier than expected) conclusion of this election season, I just thought I would add a thought in reaction to the ending. I hope that President Bush will be as gracious in his victory speach as Senator Kerry was in his concession speach. I hope that he talks about unifying the nation – as his opponenet did – but more importantly I hope the president follows such talk through with real action.

As for John Kerry, I think that he displayed real class in acknowledging when victory was out of reach and also in not buckling early while victory seemed remote but not impossible. I was prepared to wait for days while the provisional ballots were counted in Ohio. John Kerry made that possibility less disturbing by calmly allowing the process to proceed without crying foul or vowing to win at all cost or any other thing he could have done to make this election ugly. Before he cried for unity in his concession speach, John Kerry refrained from sowing dischord and thus displayed some of the qualities that make him a remarkable American.

My hat is off to this brave and determined competitor and citizen.

Categories
National politics State

Mandatory Split

I have thought for a long time about changes we could make to our political system and what they would mean in reality. I have a new one. I wonder what the effect would be if each state were required to elect one democrat and one republican as their senators? From a very short-sighted point of view it would make very little difference from our current senate split of 50-49-1. Any ideas about what it would really mean?

Categories
National politics

Longterm View

I have figured out the best reason to re-elect George Bush this year. I am under no pretense that everybody agrees with this idea, but I think few people have considered the unique opportunity that re-electing our current president provides for the American political system.

If George Bush is re-elected he will not leave any heir-apparent in the Republican party which would give moderate republicans four years to get to work in the effort of taking back their party from the extreme rightists that currently control it by the time that they have to hold a primary election to select their next presidential candidate – someone who is moderate rather than someone who is willing to talk moderate.

Before every presidential election the party that is not in control of the White House holds a presidential primary to choose their guy, but the party in powe rarely does that. If President Bush is re-elected both parties will be holding serious prmary elections – there will be no real incumbant in either party and moderates in both parties can make their voices heard so that we do not end up like this year without a good candidate on the ballot – that includes all the third party candidates.

One of the resons that I find it rather easy to write this before the election is because my vote is already cast based on geography. Because I live in Utah my vote will be counted for President Bush no matter who it is I would like to support. Perhaps I am trying to find a reason to support the vote that will inevitably be recorded for me in the electoral college.

Categories
National politics

Interesting Thought

I just had an interesting thought. I have been looking at our presidential candidates and what they have been saying and I just recognized a difference in the campaigns.

President Bush is running for the office of president of the United States. (Anyone reading that is going to say “Duh, what did you think he was running for?”) The interesting things is that I just realized that Senator Kerry is not running for the office of president of the United States (Now those same people are saying “I thought he was running for president of the United States, what do you think he is running for?”) he is running for the office of “Leader of the Free World.”

Is there a difference? Yes.

Which one should they be running for? That is for the voters to decide.