Sara Haile-Mariam

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Peggy Noonan has a column critiquing those who are trying to politically posture themselves to be more in line with the reformers in Iran. She states:

“This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else’s delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.”

This isn’t a time for politics, this is a time where we allow the very premise that this nation was founded on speak for itself.

After accurately stating “I think freedom means freedom for everyone,” former Vice President Cheney rewrote history to justify his position against a federal statue that would permit same-sex marriage stating, “Historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis.”

While he’s right, historically, marriage has been regulated on the state level, in the case of interracial marriage, the process of amending marriage inequality ended at the federal level. In 1967, the Supreme Court determined that
Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional in the case of Loving v Virginia in 1967. The decision marked the national end of race based restrictions on marriage.

When this decision was first articulated, over 70% of the population opposed interracial marriage. With a man of mix-raced heritage occupying the highest office, the very thought of determining marriage eligibility on the basis of race seems absurd. Yet the arguments being made to oppose same-sex marriage are based in the same premise, we fear what we don’t know, and as a result we’ve justified legislating equality. It’s not acceptable. Freedom means freedom for everyone.

In case you missed it–Krugman points to Reagonmics as the origin of our current financial crisis.

“But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.”

A really insightful take from John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira of The American Prospect.

As the country is evolving, so are the American people’s views on what government can and should do. Start with the likely diminution in the culture wars that have bedeviled American politics for so long. While cultural disagreements remain, their political influence is being undermined by the rise of the millennial generation, increasing religious and family diversity, and the decline of the culturally conservative white working class. Culture-war issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which so conspicuously failed to move many voters in the last couple of elections, will lose even more force in years to come.

Instead, we are likely to see more attention paid to health care, energy, and education–issues Americans care about and in which government has a positive role to play. The public holds distinctly progressive views in each of these areas, supporting health care for all, a transition to clean energy, and building a 21st-century education system, including a major infusion of resources to improve K-12 education and college access. The public’s commitment to these progressive goals is only likely to intensify, since rising demographic groups tend to be especially supportive.

I’ll only add that if this study proves true- and the electorate makes decisions based on the long term policy implications that a candidate espouses, as opposed to a candidate’s ability to politically meander controversial wedge issues, then we’re likely to see a smarter electorate emerge in the decades to come. Blogs and facebook and twitter enable candidates and even elected officials to engage in off the cuff, unscripted conversations with their constituents. The benefit of this is that it’s conducive to education and accountability. Granted, this assumes that our representatives want to educate the masses (Claire McClaskil for instance, is extremely thoughtful on her twitter page taking time to respond to specific policy questions that get tweeted her way).

The point is that if we can remove some of those stigmas that tend to frame political debate (ie: Pro-life, Pro-Business) to get down to the specifics, (ie: What are you going to do for students strapped down by college loans, what are you going to do for small businesses who can’t meet payroll)- then we’re likely to see a more complicated debate, which is something I’m not entirely sure the Right is prepared for.

A smart admission by Former GOP Rep Tom Davis

“It is not the people in the party. It is the national branding that so hurts us… There are 18 states, which total, with the District of Columbia, 238 electoral votes that have now gone democratic in five straight presidential elections. And Sen. McCain wasn’t within ten points in any of those 18 states.”

Was the 2008 Presidential Election a sign of a long term political realignment? Larry Sabato’s thinks so elaborating in his new book, The Year of Obama.

Politico offers a summary:

“The big idea of this book is that 2008 looks to be a realigning election — a very rare event in American history. The previous three were 1896, 1932, and 1980. Translation: The Democratic majority is going to last for a while. There have been 38 presidential elections since 1860, and Obama received the 6th highest share of the vote for a Democrat. Only FDR (four times) and LBJ (once) exceeded Obama’s percentage. There were three giant demographic shifts that powered this:

“— The young broke more than 2-1 Democratic, and it was an intense preference unlikely to fade quickly. As this group ages and replaces older voters, Democrats will benefit even more since this group’s turnout will go up.

“— The proportion of minority voters (black, Hispanic, and Asian) shot up and is likely to climb consistently every four years (mainly because of Hispanics). Democrats get about three-quarters of the votes of minorities, taken as a collective group.

“— Americans with post-graduate educations have begun to move firmly to the Democrats, not just because of Bush and the economy but also because of the GOP’s conservative stance on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.)

If Sabato’s analysis holds steadfast, and I do think it will, then perhaps it’s time to rethink the sixties, often argued as a decade that solidified the defeat of the left. The issues of the sixties are still be debated today (racism, sexism, homophobia, peace, environmental efficiency) but over the last four decades, the country has moved to the left on all of those issues. As much as the Right insists that we remain a “center-right” country, I think we’re arriving at a point where that no longer proves true- left has become mainstream, and President Obama has helped this dynamic along. He’s been able to insert a sensibility into political discourse that makes progressive principles, make sense. Now a realignment isn’t guaranteed, I’ve heard a number of young people in particular refer to themselves as “Obama Democrats”- meaning that they align with the individual and not necessarily the party. However if the GOP, well, keeps doing what they’re doing (pretending that nothing has changed), and if more Conservative Dems can refrain from taking conservative positions simply to prove that they’re independent minded (I’m looking at you Bayh) then I think we’re bound to see some really interesting developments over the next 10 years.

An excerpt from Meghan McCain’s speech before the Log Cabin Republicans:

“I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.”

While I don’t ascribe to the same political ideology as Meghan, I wanted to take a moment to wish her luck. The party leadership would be wise to listen to her; young people are diverse, politically complicated, and still up for grabs. The Republican party as it stands right now has no chance of winning them over with teabagging and cries of socialism. Those tactics represent politics at its worse and are incredibly damaging for a party that’s already perceived as being divisive and exclusive.

Young people responded to an inclusive message in 2008 and Meghan is right to want to tap into that. After the images that resulted from last weeks protests, I can’t help but feel relieved to hear an inclusive voice on the right. We should be able to have a politics that while comprised of competing viewpoints operates within a respectful climate.

I wish her, and RINOS like her, nothing but luck as they fight for the future of the Republican party.

A bit crazed this week (evidenced by my lackluster blogging) but I’ll have more commentary up this weekend.

In the interim, I didn’t want to pass on the chance to commend the President for his performance abroad thus far. In 48 hours he has…
1.Set the foundation for negotiations with Russia with the intention of collaborating to combat nuclear proliferation (and to work in concert to lower our nuclear arsenals).
2.Laid the ground work for strong diplomatic cooperation with China.
3.Released a stern joint statement with South Korea warning of a stern response if North Korea goes ahead with their planned mission launch.
4. And, evidently, played moderator between France and China during today’s deliberations.

If you want obsessive coverage and commentary of the G-20, be sure to check out Politico 44, The Huffington Post’s G-20 Big News Page, or the Guardian’s Live Blog.

Back on this side of the pond…while the President’s away, the Republicans have chosen to play. Yesterday, the GOP released a rather…dismaying alternative to the President’s budget (which passed the House today). Bob Cesca lays out the contradictions in this piece.

I’ve got a post up on gomyd.com (the website for Manhattan Young Dems) on the race upstate. For those of you who aren’t familiar- there’s a special election being held Tuesday for Kristen Gilibrand’s vacant Congressional seat between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco. Murphy was down by something like 20 points a month ago and now some polls have him ahead so it’s anyone’s game. The RNC is already looking to position a Murphy loss as a referendum on President Obama’s budget or leadership or maybe even his bracket. A Murphy win (which would be a huge upset) will likely be positioned as a referendum on Michael Steele who by the way has given up on reaching out to the President…of the United States of America…So we’re clear, Stelle oversees a political party, Obama oversees the country, just in case there was any confusion.

In any event- check out the post, there’s a little call to action for those of you who long for the days of phonebanking.

My latest Huffpost piece:

“So to those GOP “communicators”, I have a very simple message to relay to you. One that I’ve heard articulated by members of my own generation, particularly those who supported Barack Obama. To be clear, as you aim to inject some “hip-hop” into you’re party, we didn’t support him because he asked us to stand up and make some noise, we supported him because he asked the Democratic party to stand up for the next generation, and he asked us to stand up for our own futures.”