Bullets and Ballots

NPR's Linton Weeks reports that guns are very big with politicians in both parties this year.

I find that stunning, and I'm not really sure why. I mean, I know that conservatism is enjoying something of a revival in America. Poll after poll, after all, has suggested that there is considerable backlash against Democrats/liberals/progressives — and that seems likely to be confirmed when the votes are counted in November.

But guns aren't political props for Republicans only.

Some Democrats, as Weeks observes, are using guns to make the case that they are in touch with their constituents' concerns. Of course, macho posturing doesn't always work. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

Others — those who, presumably, can't bring themselves to hold a gun even when posing for a publicity photo — are already busily pointing their fingers at potential fall guys in anticipation of what is to come.

And many in the media are enabling them by coming up with scapegoats well ahead of time. Heck, it isn't even Labor Day yet.

"The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown," writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "with the right spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment."

She then goes on to defend Barack Obama against the religious prejudice that has been stirred up by the mosque near ground zero controversy — never once acknowledging that Obama, as he tends to do, jumped into an argument that really is not something to which a president with a bad economy, soaring unemployment and two unpopular wars to resolve should devote even a fraction of his attention.

Of course, the same thing could have been said of Obama's so–called "beer summit" a year ago. Or his highly publicized NCAA tournament selections a little more than a month after he took office. Diversions at best. Distractions at worst.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that, even in the best of times (which these clearly are not), a president doesn't need to be weighing in on this kind of an issue. In fact, I would think that the last thing a president whose religious affiliation is, at best, confused by many Americans — and whose middle name has an ominously Muslim sound for Western ears — would want to do is wade into a no–win argument like this in the middle of a bleak midterm election campaign.

Obama, Dowd writes, is "[t]oo lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics." That may be, but he'd better develop more of a taste for it — and an appreciation for how the game is played — if he really wants to be more than a one–termer.

I get the sense that Dowd is beginning to understand this, however grudgingly. In Dowd's world, it's all a big misunderstanding, and I guess it will stay that way, even after November, whatever those midterms may bring.

"Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch," Dowd writes. "And to the extent that people don't know him or don't get him, he becomes easier to demonize."

So, apparently, we're back to blame again — but not blame for Obama. Nothing is ever his fault. The blame is for those who "don't get him." Maybe they're stupid. Maybe the problem is that they "cling" to guns and religion because they feel they've been abandoned by their leaders.

Voters do understand guns and religion. Those two things have been winning elections for candidates in both parties for many years. A good political strategist knows there are more votes to be gained than lost when you whip up a frenzy over either one.

As much as Dowd and other Obama defenders may want to believe that this demonizing is racist or, perhaps, the result of religious bigotry, demonization has been part of American politics for a long, long time.

If Mo didn't know that, where the heck has she been?

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to calm a frightened nation by telling it that the only thing it had to fear was fear itself. But fear comes in many packages, and the politicians who can exploit it the best, particularly during bad times, are usually the ones who are the most successful.

Americans are fearful today. Politicians in both parties understand this. Why else would they incorporate guns into their campaigns?

That's Ridiculous ... And Yet ...

Whatever else you may say about him — and there certainly are many things one could say about him — House Minority Leader John Boehner is not bashful about expressing himself.

In a conversation with NPR, Boehner said Republicans will seek to repeal the health care reform legislation if they win a majority in Congress in this year's midterm elections.

My immediate reaction was twofold:

• I sort of took it for granted that the Republicans in Congress wanted to repeal the health care bill. I thought they made it quite clear that they were against it.


• They've also been aiming to recapture a majority in Congress. That would allow them to control the agenda for the last two years of Barack Obama's term in office.

At this point, I am inclined to think that the Republicans are poised to narrow the gap between themselves and their Democratic colleagues, but I'm not convinced that either chamber is going to flip — yet.

So, right now, anything Boehner says about what Republicans might do if they pull off a 1994–like reversal in the midterms strikes me as being so much wishful thinking.

And then Boehner came across as just plain looney when he asserted that "at least 100 seats are in play." Never in the history of midterm elections has one party enjoyed that kind of lopsided advantage over the other.

And then ...

Boehner spoke about the special election in Massachusetts, in which Republican Scott Brown won the Senate seat that had been held for nearly half a century by Ted Kennedy. And he said this: "If Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, there isn't a seat in America the Republicans can't win. What we're seeing every day is the playing field widen, widen beyond anything we've seen around here during my 20 years."

I find that argument harder to refute.

Next Friday, we will get the jobs report for April — and it will answer some important questions, or, at least, it will start to answer them. Will the economy see jobs added for the second straight month? Or will the March numbers turn out to be a mirage brought about by some sort of economic abnormality?

While I would welcome any good economic news, I am skeptical about the likelihood of seeing any kind of noticeable dent in the unemployment problem by the time that voters go to the polls in November. That would require many months of continuous high six–figure gains — in permanent, not temporary, employment — and I have seen no reputable forecasts that predict anything like that.

Common sense tells me the Democrats can't get credit for creating enough jobs to earn them many points with the voters this fall.

They need to be looking for ways to connect with disgruntled voters if they want to retain their majorities in 2011.

A Matter of Faith

---

"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. ... [I]f you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell ..."

Arnold Vinick
The West Wing

---

A couple of days ago, I examined the likelihood that Barack Obama will have the opportunity, either this year or next, to nominate the replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

I discussed a number of the issues involved. But there was one angle I didn't explore. Today, Nina Totenberg of NPR did bring it up, and I am glad. Not because it matters to me but because it could influence the debate over Obama's nominee.

The angle Totenberg brought up? "[W]hen Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the Court, for the first time ever."

That might not be an issue. When Stevens retires and Obama announces his choice for a successor, that successor could turn out to be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian — or a member of another Protestant denomination.

But what if he nominates a Catholic? Or a Jew? Totenberg points out that three of the people who are frequently mentioned as the leading contenders are Catholic or Jewish.

And can you imagine the reaction if Obama nominates a Muslim?

---

"In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all the justices were Protestant."

Nina Totenberg
NPR

---

Given the fact that, as Totenberg observes, "almost nobody has noticed" the impact that Stevens' departure could have on the religious balance on the court, it might not be important to many Americans.

On the other hand, when you consider the issue of child sexual abuse that has plagued the Catholic church, adding a seventh Catholic to the Supreme Court might do more than raise a few eyebrows.

And if another Jew was nominated to the highest court serving a self–identified Christian nation (where less than 2% of the population is Jewish), there might be some backlash in the Christian community.

Personally, I don't think a jurist's religion should be of any more consequence than his/her political party affiliation. It smacks of a litmus test, like inquiring about a potential nominee's views on abortion.

But that's probably a perfect world we're talking about — and God knows this world is far from perfect.

The fact that a nominee has a religious faith — whatever it may be — seems to me to be a good thing. It shows that he/she has given a lot of consideration to issues that affect the human condition, that go well beyond his/her personal circumstances. Even if a nominee is an agnostic or an atheist, that, too, suggests the nominee has thought about things that are bigger than himself/herself and has come to a conclusion with which he/she is comfortable.

Such a demonstration of mental acuity does have meaning for me because it shows that the nominee (or, if confirmed, the justice) is capable of evaluating an issue from many sides and arriving at a fair and reasonable conclusion. That is relevant to all sorts of matters that could come before the Supreme Court — not just cases involving religious freedom.

In my own case, I am a journalist. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press matter, and protecting those freedoms is paramount to me. I believe that all of our freedoms are important, but everything else depends on those freedoms.

Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the high court, penned perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech in the high court's history in his concurrence in the Whitney v. California (1927) case (in which the concept of a "clear and present danger" played a prominent role):

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self–reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

I am a Protestant, but I would support whole–heartedly the nomination of anyone — Catholic, Jew, Protestant, whatever — with that kind of agile mind.

It doesn't seem to me that it could be said of a nominee who has simply shown no interest in religion (or, at least, not enough to form an opinion) that he/she has an agile mind — beyond cynically calculating how an expression of religious faith (sincere or not) could help his/her career goals.

And, as Arnold Vinick implied on The West Wing, some potential nominees will say whatever they think their listeners want to hear if they believe it will make it easier to get what they want.

A nominee's religion could be very important to some Americans, though, and for good reason. Supreme Court justices are not subject to the whims of voters so Stevens' successor could very well be on the court for two or three decades.

If a Protestant is not nominated, some Protestants in America might wonder if their interests will be represented in the high court's rulings.

Timing, as they say, is everything, and a lot may depend on whether Stevens decides to leave this year or next year.

Few Republicans in Congress have shown any interest in cooperating with Obama, and it is reasonable to expect that any new Republicans who are elected this fall will be unlikely to extend an olive branch to the administration.

If Stevens retires this year, Obama knows he will have 59 Democrats in the Senate who are likely to support his choice. But, rather than risk a messy confirmation proceeding that could further endanger Senate Democrats (nearly half the Democratic seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be on the ballot this year, and two are already believed to be at risk of a Republican takeover), he might choose a safe nominee (which might include picking a Protestant).

If Stevens waits until next year, it's anyone's guess at this point whether Democrats will still be in the majority in the Senate. But Obama will know that the next election will be more than a year away. If he prefers a nominee who breaks boundaries, 2011 may be a better time to do so — although not if his party loses its majority.

Given all the political considerations Obama will have to juggle, one would be justified in wondering whatever happened to the (alleged) separation of church and state.

Or, to quote an exchange from The West Wing, when Vinick asked President Jed Bartlet that question, Bartlet replied, "It's hanging in there, but I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of church and politics."

A Barrel of Ice Water

Optimism is a good thing. These days, it's important to stay positive, with unemployment rising and businesses going under.

But the bad news is relentless and it won't go away if you simply ignore it.

So it's also a good idea to remain realistic. And Bob Herbert has a big dose of reality for you to swallow in the New York Times.

Yesterday, I observed — as many did — that it was a hopeful sign that the job losses in April were not as bad as had been expected.

Herbert has an answer for that.

"It's a measure of just how terrible the economy has become that a loss of more than a half–million jobs in just one month can be widely seen as a good sign," he writes. "The house is still burning down, but not quite as fast."

Herbert went on to say, "I can understand why people are relieved that we no longer seem to be hurtling toward a depression, but beyond that I see very little to be happy about."

Is that realistic enough for you?

We've been hearing a lot about the stock market rally. A commentary at CNN.com wonders if it is for real.

In a chilling observation for those who thought a college degree — or an advanced degree — was a ticket to a lifetime of security, Herbert reminds us, "The employment picture for even the most well–educated Americans — men and women with four–year college degrees or higher — is the worst on record."

Herbert isn't the only one who sees no signs that things are really getting better. NPR wonders if we're really seeing signs of an economic turnaround.

To his credit, Barack Obama warned Americans yesterday, as he seems to do after every monthly jobs report, that more job losses lie in the future. He may need to make that a weekly mantra.

As David Sanger observes in an analysis for the New York Times, "The formula for restoring national confidence — part good policy, part good politics, part good luck — can be hard to find." That's the unenviable challenge facing the administration.

This economic downturn is unlike anything most Americans have experienced before. For most Americans, a recession has been something to be endured for a few months, perhaps a year, and then things start to turn around. This is different, and lots of folks don't seem to have gotten that message yet.

Obama needs to impress upon people that this isn't your father's recession. Not everyone has figured that out yet. The sooner they understand it, the better. For everyone.

When I lost my job, right around the time of the economic meltdown, I called my doctor. I wasn't scheduled for my semiannual checkup for a couple of months, but I wanted to see if we could move it up so I could have it before the end of the month, when my health coverage would no longer be paid by my former employer.

The nurse I spoke to told me there was no point in moving the appointment up and then said, "Well, you'll get another job in a week or two, don't you think?"

I told her that I hoped so — but something told me this was going to be a long ordeal. Then the meltdown occurred, and here I am, more than eight months later, still looking. Last week, I had my second semiannual checkup since having that conversation. I didn't see that nurse in the office last week — maybe she lost her job, maybe she was taking that day off. But I assume she figured out, after our conversation, that this was different.

If she still hasn't figured that out, I would invite her to join me the next time I attend a job fair. We'll need to get there early. Crowds start to gather long before the doors open. And she'll see a lot of well–educated people hoping to land jobs that pay a lot less than they were making at their previous jobs.

Attitudes do seem to be changing, but there are still people who view things from the pre–meltdown perspective. In their experience, when people lose their jobs, they'll find something else soon. It just doesn't work that way these days.

Sometimes I wonder if it ever will again.