The Pope and the Speaker September 30, 2015September 30, 2015 Did you see outgoing House Speaker John Boehner on “Face the Nation” Sunday? Clearly a good and decent man who was exceptionally moved to have the Pope accept his inivtation to address the Joint Meeting of Congress. It is a lovely segment. As Speaker, he faced a tough job trying to deal with the “no compromise” caucus of his party. But he said in this interview that his guiding principle has been, and his advice to the next Speaker would be, “just do the right things for the right reasons.” And I found myself wanting John Dickerson to ask — not in a gotcha way; I would be truly interested to hear his answer — “How is it the right thing, for the right reasons . . . when polls show the majority of the Ameican people are for something, and the Senate has passed it by a wide margin, and the President wants to sign it . . . not to allow it up up for a vote in the House?” If you see him, ask, and let me know what he says. Another thing the Speaker said I liked a lot as well: “Have the courage to do what you CAN do — it’s easy to have the courage to do what you can’t do.” Right? Like Ralph Nader having the courage to demand perefection when the Clintons and Gores and Obamas of the world merely move the ball down the field in the right direction. “In our system of government,” the Speaker continued, “it’s not about Hail Mary passes, it’s the Woody Hayes school of football — 3 yards and a cloud of dust; 3 yards and a cloud of dust . . .” So we don’t get single-payer health care (as obviously we should have) or an Iran deal or a trade deal that is perfect (as obviously we can’t) — we get the best we can, which is a whole heck of a lot better than what we had. Anyway, John Boehner was apparently not right-wing and uncompromising enough for the Republican Congress. It will be interesting to see how his successor performs. EXPLANATION OF RELIGION AND WORLD POLITICS IN ONE SENTENCE John Carroll: “It all went wrong in 633 CE when it was revealed that the Unitary God of the Abrahamic Religion was keeping three sets of books and nobody could agree on the prophets.” OUR FIRST JESUIT POPE Janet Tavakoli: “The Pope’s interpretation of Roman Catholic philosophy supports healthy mental and physical life. He keeps saying: ‘When God forgives, he forgets.’ Who has not done something in their lives that they wish they had done differently? You have to forgive yourself, put it behind you, and move on, but more than that, move on with hope. The only sin that is beyond the power of forgiveness is the sin of despair, i.e., suicide, because, well, you’re not around to repair and forgive. But for those of us who are here, the idea is to look forward to and contribute to a brighter future—not just to turn inward and want a better future for yourself, but to work for a brighter future for everyone. If you read about the Jesuits, it’s a fascinating history and a fascinating present. At their best, they are an extraordinary crew of highly intelligent men who practice clever global politics. Georgetown is an incubator…amazing connections. In my murder mystery, I predicted the Jesuits would force the (prior) Pope to cede power, so it had to come true. Seriously, though, this is a monumental change in thinking for people to stop using pejoratives (including: ‘bigot!’) and learn how to live with people who are caught being human. In other words all of us.”
Trendlines, Not Headlines September 28, 2015September 28, 2015 Watch President Clinton outline the state of the world as he opens yesterday’s session of the Clinton Global Initiative. There is so much to be hopeful about — as seen more clearly in the trendlines than the headlines — and so much in what he and his team have helped catalyze since leaving office to marvel at. Watch President Obama address the state of equality — and pretty much everything else — at the DNC’s LGBT dinner in New York last night. He was in a good mood. [UPDATE: Oh, nuts – that link is to C-SPAN’s coverage of last years’s speech. As soon as I can find a link to this year’s, I’ll fix. But here’s the transcript — though you’ll miss some priceless facial expressions.] And behold The Donald’s tax plan. He would cut taxes for almost everyone — and cut from 39.6% to 25% the top rate on the best off and from 35% to 15% for corporations — even as he scraps Obamacare and gives great private health care “to everybody” at government expense, ramps up military spending, repairs our crumbling infrastructure, and deports 11 million or more folks so Americans can pick their own tomatoes — think of it! 10 million great jobs brought back from China and Mexico with 11 million fewer people to do them . . . surely no inflationary pressure on wages or upward pressure on interest rates in that scenario, yes? . . . less tax revenue and higher expenditures yet, presumably, because it’s Donald Trump, a yuuuuge budget surplus because growth will be so beauitful, it will be so amazing, you won’t believe how great the growth will be, even better than it was under Reagan/Bush (about 3% a year, during whose 12 years the National Debt quadrupled). The great thing about “Trump Wall” — did I mention this? — besides being really beautiful and impenetrable and paid for by Mexico — is that it will have a beautiful door for most of those 11 million to come right back through. Wait! I’ve got an idea! How about instead of spending a fortune to round up 11 million people, totally disrupting their lives and those of their employers . . . and then processing, say, 10 million of them back through, leaving behind only the drug dealers and rapists . . . why not just sign into law the comprehensive immigration bill the last Senate already passed 68 to 32 that would accomplish the same thing without all the expense amd disruption? Just round up the the million rapists and drug dealers instead? The Donald is entertaining, for sure, but will not be the nominee. Watch two real presidents — amazing presidents — above. (And contrast them with the very likeable George W. Bush, who didn’t know who the president of Pakistan was — but how much do you really need to know about stuff to be a good president and lead the world effectively if you’ve got good gut instincts and love America?)
The Pope – PS September 26, 2015 Well, it was thrilling, even from my vantage point. (From my vantage point: a giant dumptruck — filled with dirt to make it extra heavy — parked below my window to block cars from breaching the secure perimeter.) And thrilling to watch his speech to the UN (on TV, like everybody else) imagining that in the days ahead, as the President meets with the presidents of China and Russia, et al — few of them Catholic, but all of them human — more prgress may be made than otherwise might have been. And thrilling to see my friend Mo Rocca open the mass at Madison Square Garden — in Spanish, no less. (And not just my friend, but my well-known-to-be-openly-gay friend. What a statement that makes.) And how thrilling Pope Francis believes atheists can go to heaven (thrilling to me not because I believe there is a heaven; but because he gets that non-believers can lead righteous lives). That last, of course, in stark contrast to the radical Islamicists who believe infidels must convert or die. Whoa! Which is totally not what most Muslims believe but a good segue to this profile of my friend Parvez Sharma, whose film I’ve told you about (and whose initialed email sign-off — PS — makes me crazy because I keep looking for the PS). As you’ll read via that link (or in the print edition of tomorrow’s Sunday New York Times), it’s his view that it is mainly the Saudi brand of Islam the rest of Islam needs to unite the world in somehow defanging. That pretty much concludes my very limited understanding of religion and world politics. Have a great weekend. Oh, wait . . . PS: Judging from the throngs desperate to get even the tiniest glimpse of the Pope, you might imagine that virtually any Catholic — moved by his message of concern for the least among us and for our shared environment — would kill for a cushioned front row seat to hear his address to the joint meeting of Congress. Three Catholics who didn’t use their tickets were Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Antonin Scalia. I find that interesting.
The Pope Is A Mensch September 24, 2015September 23, 2015 Atheist though I am, I love the teachings and spirit of Jesus, one of the two Jews I’m proudest of. (You do know he was Jewish, right?) Well, no pope in my memory has ever “gotten” those teachings and that spirit as well as this one, gracing us with his presence this week. I’m sure I don’t need to explain, as such an overwhelming majority of Americans seem to agree. So I just didn’t want to talk about politics or money — or share some inane clip — on a day when he’ll be within walking distance. Do I share his stated view on reproductive rights and marriage equality? You know I don’t. (I’m not certain even he does; there’s only so far one can push the envelope.) And do I think, by the way, while I’m at it, that Jesus was himself probably gay? (Well, he had to be something?) Yes, I do. And good for him if he was. Lots of gays have gone on to do great things and he would — obviously — by orders of magnitude be greatest of them all. Welcome to New York, Your Holiness. Keep punching. Gridlock notwithstanding, we’re thrilled you’re here. *The other, in case you were wondering. (And, while I’m no special fan of Freud or Marx, this panel makes an amusing statement.)
OK . . . FDR September 23, 2015September 22, 2015 After posting the 49-million-viewed Rube Goldberg version of “This Too Shall Pass” by OK Go I found this completely different version. Feels very Sergeant Pepper to me. What are these people on? And then there’s this OK Go production. Barely passed 10 million views, yet kinda neat if you like dogs. (What? Someone doesn’t like dogs, Jerry? Who doesn’t like dogs?) Jim Burt: “I visited Hyde Park today and was struck by how timely some of the things FDR said remain today.” Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting. ☞ Progressive as he was, Roosevelt seemed here to forget that black Americans. Even after the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, efforts have routinely been made to limit its effectiveness. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals, we now know that it is bad economics. We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.
Hamilton September 22, 2015September 22, 2015 As of this writing, you could snag two good seats to tomorrow’s matinee for $861.62 each in Row P (seats 103-104) or economize in the fifth row of the mezzanine for $484.88 each. But you can also listen to the original cast album, free, just-released made available here on NPR. Three things the next president should do are: Amend the Affordable Care Act to allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices and direct the FDA to take a harder line on approvals and pricing (and/or make it easier for private insurers to piggyback on the prices Medicare and Medicaid negotiate). Why should a 62-year-old generic drug suddenly be hiked from $13.50 a pill to $750? There are many outrageous examples like this; but this one is so egregious, it just might turn into one of those, “at long last, have you no sense of decency” moments that turn the tide. Ramp up the efforts, already underway, to reform our criminal justice system — see, for example, The Atlantic‘s cover story this month. Keep Hamilton on the $10 bill and replace Jackson with a woman in 2020. (And not Ben Carson’s mom or Mike Huckabee’s wife, either — this one).
This Too Shall Pass September 21, 2015 In the Frivolous Monday Dept . . . if you’re not one of the 49 million people who’ve already seen this, from the band OK Go . . . crazy amazing. Watch. And then — how did they do it?
Trump and Iran September 18, 2015 We learned in the second debate that Trump has a sense of humor — “Humble” is the Secret Service code name he suggests — and learned, yet again (if you ask me), that he won’t be the Republican nominee. That first exchange with Rand Paul, which Paul likened, in semi-disbelief, to “junior high,” was so appropriate for junior high. (And BTW? I loved junior high!) And then there was the confrontation between Trump and Bush on casino gambling in Florida, leading to this subsequent fact-check: Surprise: In Debate Dispute, Trump Straight-Up Lied About Florida Casino Gambit. But what I really wanted to offer today is this article from Foreign Affairs on the Iran deal. I know it is the worst deal Trump has ever, ever, ever seen — a terrible deal negotiated by stupid, stupid — really stupid — people. But in the estimate of Gary Sick it is not that at all: Any evaluation of the Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, must consider three different time periods, each of which is roughly a generation. First, of course, is the initial 10–15 year period of the agreement itself, in which extraordinary restrictions will be placed on all of Iran’s nuclear activities: from uranium mines to centrifuge production plants; from the configuration of its nuclear reactors to the operation of its enrichment facilities; and from the size of its uranium stockpile to the level of enrichment—all of this and more will be under the constant supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is correct to label these restrictions extraordinary. No other nation in the 47-year history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has ever voluntarily agreed to such intrusions into its nuclear activities. It is also correct to praise the complex and interlocking terms of the agreement. One creative element is the “snap back” provision, which permits the re-imposition of sanctions by the United Nations in case of serious breach of the agreement, with no veto right. The agreement also provides a special supervised channel for Iranian trade in peaceful nuclear materials and technical oversight provisions that have never been applied to any other country that is party to the NPT. One of the chief U.S. negotiators repeatedly compared the agreement to a Rubic’s Cube, since every part depends on every other part. As the limits and terms of the agreement came to be better understood, even its harshest critics generally acknowledged that they would dramatically raise the barrier for any Iranian attempt to break out. There were some remaining questions about enforcement mechanisms, such as fears that access to a suspect site could be delayed by up to 24 days or that access to Iranian military sites would be impeded. However, assurances from Yukiya Amano, the director general of the IAEA, and from U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, one of the world’s leading nuclear physicists, who was intimately involved in the final negotiations, satisfied most of those concerns. By 2030 and certainly by 2050, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, now approaching age 80, will no longer be Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Similarly, most (if not all) of the leading political and clerical figures in Iran who carried out the 1979 revolution and who have governed Iran ever since, will no longer be politically active. And the United States could have changed presidents two or even three times. Assuming that the nuclear agreement holds throughout the first generation, moreover, Iran will have experienced years of reduced sanctions, potentially greater engagement in world commerce, and interaction with the international community. That is no guarantee of liberalization, of course, but at least some people believe that this agreement offers the best chance of such an outcome. They may or may not be correct; it is impossible to say where Iran will be in 2030 or 2050—just as it is impossible to predict the future of Saudi Arabia or Syria, Iraq, and ISIS. Many critics of the JCPOA warn that as soon as the agreement and its extraordinary restrictions expire, Iran will make a sudden rush to a bomb. Some opponents of the agreement even go so far as to say that, in fact, the deal, which recognized Iran’s right to peaceful enrichment, ensures that Iran will get the a bomb. This view overlooks—or simply dismisses—the fact that, as part of the JCPOA, Iran will have ratified the Additional Protocol of the NPT, which means that it will be subject to inspection and oversight by the IAEA in perpetuity. No country that has accepted the Additional Protocol has ever launched a nuclear weapons program. There is a first time for everything, of course, but the best predictor of Iran’s future behavior is its past, specifically the past 15 years or so of our experience with Iran. And that brings us to the final generation worth reviewing. The critique of the agreement with Iran starts with the assumption that Iran is determined to get a nuclear weapon and that the only way it can be stopped is by depriving it of one key part of the nuclear cycle: enrichment. The only way do that, the argument goes, is to sharply increase sanctions, maximize pressure in all forms, and demonstrate a clear willingness to use force if necessary to force Tehran to submit. What the critics fail to mention is that this is precisely the policy that the United States pursued over the decade and a half in which Iran made most progress toward the bomb. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003, after U.S. President George Bush labeled Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil,” and with U.S. forces encircling Iran in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf, Iran made an offer that was not dissimilar to the starting point for the present agreement. The 2005 offer included what Iran called “concrete assurances” that Iran would not build a nuclear weapon, but it was far less detailed than the present agreement. The entire U.S. intelligence community later concluded with high certainty that at the time Iran made its move, it had already ceased any work that it might have been doing on nuclear weapons for two years. The offer was developed by Hassan Rouhani, who was then the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, and conveyed to the West by Javad Zarif, who was at that time the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations. It insisted that Iran should retain the right to a full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, although Tehran was willing to cap its centrifuges at only a few hundred. The Bush administration refused the offer on the grounds, as I was informed in a New York meeting with U.S. and British officials, that “even one centrifuge turning was one too many.”In subsequent years, the United States used all of its influence to bring maximum international pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear development. Eventually the United States was able to persuade its allies and others to impose sanctions on Iran to force it to cease its enrichment and other aspects of its nuclear program. This process reached its zenith under President Barack Obama, whose administration promoted and managed the most comprehensive array of sanctions ever imposed on any country that had not suffered a military defeat. At the same time, voices in Israel and the United States were calling for direct military action against Iran. While this was happening, Iran steadily ramped up its nuclear capacity. Between 2005 and 2013, Iran increased its number of centrifuges from near zero to approximately 20,000. Its stockpile of enriched uranium increased from zero to more than eight tons, including more than 200 kg (440 pounds) of uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent, which is within easy reach of the 90+ percent required for weapons grade. Under the relentless pressure of sanctions and threats of military attack, Iran became a latent nuclear power, a country that could potentially create enough fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons in less than a year. The dominant narrative in the United States is that U.S. sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. But, in private, Iranian negotiators claim that it was their determined drive to develop a nuclear capacity—at great cost—that brought the United States and others to the table. Both may be correct. Today the authors of Iran’s original offer to the Bush administration are the president and foreign minister of Iran. They have negotiated a historic agreement with the world’s great powers that severely constrains any possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon but which maintains the principle of Iran’s right to enrichment. Many of their own countrymen question the cost that was paid in the process. For their part, U.S. critics of the agreement must at least address the question of why Iran, when it was very close to having a nuclear weapons capability, chose instead to negotiate and to postpone any drive toward the bomb for at least a generation and probably forever. They should also ask why in 2030, absent a war, Iran would choose to go back to where it was . . . . . . The terms of the JCPOA and its proper enforcement provide a unique opportunity to break the cycle of defeat. Donald Trump will tell you that Professor Sick (White House aide for the Persian Gulf region from 1976-1981) is a stupid, stupid man (and freakishly short or tall or resembling one vegetable or another — I have no idea what he looks like) . . . and that Energy Secretary Moniz, the MIT nuclear physicist is a stupid, stupid man. And Trump aside, every Republican in the House and Senate — bar none — voted to blow up the deal. Had they prevailed, they’d have left the world to marvel at America’s dysfunction . . . China and Russia and the others to resume buying Iran’s oil . . . and Iran to keep adding to and enriching their stockpile of uranium. On the Republican side, there are no moderates, like Colin Powell or Richard Lugar or John Warner (who support the deal), left. What leadership. To receive Foreign Affairs updates click here.
The Emails . . . September 17, 2015September 16, 2015 Stuff like this gets little notice, but, per USA Today . . . The Justice Department said in a court filing this week that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was allowed to delete personal emails from her personal server. The Justice filing was in a lawsuit brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the Justice Department’s civil division attorneys wrote. . . . Justice also said Judicial Watch didn’t present any evidence Clinton had mistakenly or intentionally deleted government records instead of personal emails. Here‘s the entire Justice Department filing, if you’d like to read it. Meanwhile, she will be testifying to the (eighth) Republican-controlled Congressional investigation into Benghazi, the seventh having concluded: WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May. I’d love to tell you what I thought about the Republican debate last night, but as I write this, it hasn’t yet occurred.
Bernie At Liberty University September 16, 2015September 15, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3qT4qMeLxU Here’s the link, if the video’s not showing up in your browser or email. As I have written before, I am enthusiastically neutral among all our fine Democratic candidates — knowing that whichever one gets the nomination will be miles ahead (in my view) of the Republican. As noted a couple of weeks ago, that’s not blind partisanship; it’s recognition that their nominee would appoint Supreme Court justices like Bush 41 / 43 appointees Thomas, Roberts, and Alito; where ours would appoint justices like Clinton / Obama appointees Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. And that their nominee would favor the powerful and wealthy at a time when the pendulum has already swung too far their way. (See, for example, “Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan Is A Large Tax Cut For The Wealthiest.”) It’s also recognition that the stock market and the economy do better under Democrats than Republicans. During the 12 Bush years, net private-sector job creation totaled just 747,000 — versus 19.6 million during the Clinton years and 8.5 million so far under Obama — or 12.8 million if you don’t count the first few horrific months he inherited. So that’s: 747,000 jobs under the 12 most recent years of Republican leadership, as deficits ballooned*; 30 million under the 14.5 most recent years of Democratic leadership, as deficits were brought back under control.** Invested in the S&P 500 only during Republican administrations since 1929, and excluding dividends, $10,000 would have grown to only about $12,000 — versus about $600,000 if invested only during Democratic administrations. So if any of our candidates is unfairly characterized in one way or another (as I think Kerry was, when he was swift-boated or Gore was on multiple fronts), I’ll be eager to offer my two cents — or, as I posted previously, yours: Tom: “I worked for many years at Reader’s Digest, on the business side. In 2005, the CEO, who was my boss, decided to re-institute a longstanding tradition of inviting politicians to a lunch at our ‘guest house’ on the campus. And thus he invited Hillary Clinton, our senator at the time (and neighbor just down the road in Chappaqua). As I recall there were only eight of us including Hillary and one of her aides. She spent three full hours with us and was amazingly impressive. Her grasp of policy down to the detail (she had a better handle on New Orleans geography, in this post-Katrina time, than my boss, who was from Louisiana), her openness, her passion, her wisdom, were all on display as we moved from topic to topic, driven solely by our questions. And beyond that, she was very gracious, easy to share a laugh, relaxed, the whole bit. Of the six of us Readers Digest-types on the management team who were there, I believe four were Democrats and two Republicans. I’m not sure who was more impressed among us, but the GOP guys were raving about her after the lunch. Whenever I read stories about how Hillary’s closest friends ‘wish everyone knew Hillary as they did,’ I think of that lunch. Perhaps the punchline is, I wasn’t gaga from then on. I voted for Obama ultimately. I thought he was the more inspiring leader of the two. But I still think that Hillary has what it takes to be a great President, easily.” Totally. That said, being neutral, I’ve been looking for ways to give “equal time,” if you will, to all our great candidates — so I wanted to be sure you had that link to Bernie’s terrific speech and the Q&A that follows. The contrast between his message — the essence of which all our candidates basically share — and the Republican message is just so stark. And what a fascinating place to deliver it: Liberty University. So my message is: support whomever you want in the primary — I am enthusiastically neutral — but get engaged in the overall process to help turn out as many Democratic voters November 8, 2016, as we possibly can. We need to hold the White House and take back a great many legislative chambers.