Stumbling Into Democracy

A year ago, no one thought we would be here today – in a place where our democracy is being invigorated on a weekly basis by a still undecided presidential primary between two incredible, barrier-shattering candidates. For people of my generation, this is our first real glimpse of national democracy in America.

Beginning in 2000, it has been clear that only the votes of a handful of voters in a handful of states really matter in determining the president of all of the United States. In 2000 and 2004, we had a presumptive nominee for both parties after no more than five states had voted. The rest of the country would get to choose between those nominees at least.

Not exactly. In both 2000 and 2004, the election was not fought in California or Alabama or Massachusetts or Texas. It was fought in a handful of “battleground” or “swing” states. Ninety percent of the election was decided before the campaign even started.

Faced with these realities, it was perfectly reasonable for a citizen to become cynical about the value of voting and the likelihood that there voice could make any difference. In Texas in 2004, what was the point of a vote for John Kerry when all of that state’s electoral votes had already been tallied in permanent ink for George Bush?

Which brings us to the beauty of the primaries this year. Our democracy has been given a shot of Red Bull by a combination of three unexpected characteristics of the campaign that we ought to try to replicate in the future.

First, margins matter. The most intriguing thing about the Democratic delegate dash is that it does not just matter who wins a state, but by how much. The idea, solidified by the electoral college system, that a state that is decided 51% to 49% ought to apportion its influence (winner takes all) the same way that a state decided 80% to 20% is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the very concept of democracy.

Second, politics is local. The delegate rush has also forced the candidates to look not too closely at statewide numbers, but instead to focus on district-by-district results. Because there may be delegates to gain even in a state that is certain to be lost (and even more so because the number of delegates may depend upon margin of victory), candidates are wise to campaign everywhere. Sure, battleground states (or districts) will get more attention, but a system where a Republican candidate has no reason to campaign in California is surely a broken one. I witnessed this first hand in Memphis – although Barack Obama trailed significantly in statewide polls, he opened a Memphis campaign office, carried the county with 70% of the vote and picked up delegates.

Finally, democracy requires participation. The system we all know and loathe discourages participation. Because only votes in early primary and battleground states truly matter, what is the incentive for citizens to invest their votes and more importantly, their mental energy in a campaign? What is the point of even following politics or considering different positions on important issues when the direction of our leadership will be determined primarily by Iowans and Floridians? What the surprising length of the nominating contests has shown is that people will participate and will invest their minds in the political process when they perceive that their votes matter.

There is nothing more troubling to democracy than voter impotence because the (often correct) belief that a vote is meaningless encourages voter apathy and disengagement from governance. Our Constitution is clear that the government serves only at the pleasure of we, the people. Too often that seems to not be the case, but in the last eight weeks, we have gotten a glimpse of several characteristics that can improve our democratic process. Of course, all is not quite perfect – there remains the specter of superdelegates undoing all of the democratic enthusiasm generated by these primaries.

This year, we have stumbled upon a system of national democracy that is maintaining voter engagement across the country and for an extended period of time. As we look beyond November, the country would be well served by building upon this stumbled-upon blueprint to reimagine American democracy for the 21^st century.

What Is Possible

Four years ago, I slumbered through election season. In one party was the incumbent president, with whom I disagreed about nearly everything. In the other party was a campaign among a group of flawed candidates, the winner of which was apparently going to be among the least inspiring (if well qualified) candidates I could imagine. Regardless of John Kerry’s platform and ideas, he had a profound mobilization problem. I desperately wanted a change in the White House, yet I felt no inspiration to donate or volunteer to the Kerry campaign.

This time around, I am feeling plenty of inspiration. I was inspired first by the choice among three candidates I could get excited about (including the candidate I had supported in the 2004 primaries, John Edwards). I was inspired by the prospects for barriers to be broken. I was inspired by a sense that a real opportunity for a change in our national direction had arrived. But most of all, I was inspired by Barack Obama.

By now, we all know the biography, which is remarkable on its own. But it is the vision in our country born by Obama’s biography that really quickens my pulse. Obama is a walking example of the opportunity our country affords its citizens – as he has said, “in no other country is my story even possible.” Perhaps because of the long odds he has already overcome, Obama is inspiring many others to rethink what is possible. It is this ability to re-imagine what our country is and can be that draws me to Sen. Obama and inspires me to begin re-imagining these things for myself. He seems to have awakened a brand new universe of what is possible.

Ultimately, our president has two important and often contradictory duties. The first is to craft an agenda that can be enacted by public policy. This involves negotiation with parties of divergent values and views and can involve fighting to ensure that your own values and views are not compromised into oblivion. To perform this duty, it is conventional wisdom that you need a fighter who can withstand intense criticism to carry the day, but Barack Obama seems to be imagining a different way of doing business. He is imagining negotiation that is not of attrition, but of coalition.

Obama’s first instinct when confronted with an obstacle is not to fight, but to convert. His experience as a community organizer, concerned with tangible progress rather than loyalty to principle, only sharpened that instinct. History does not look kindly upon those who intentionally stand in the way of progress (George Wallace comes to mind) and Obama’s way of building movements rather than fighting battles has the effect of transforming his fiercest critics into mere impediments in the way of a better community. What Obama has imagined is a kind of nonviolent politics that he hopes will transform the nation’s psyche in the same way that the nonviolence of Martin Luther King once did.

The second duty of our president is to connect with citizens and provide a vision for what our nation can be. Under the fighting model of politics, this duty conflicts with the first. In a world where a policy that attracts support of fifty percent plus one is a success, it is inevitable that large segments of the population will be alienated. It is not possible to inspire a nation when you are fighting with half of it.

Performing this duty is where Barack Obama excels. I have had the opportunity to hear him speak in person on one occasion when he came to Memphis on behalf of a candidate for the Senate in 2006. I expected to be disappointed because there was no way he could be as good as I imagined. The candidate he was appearing on behalf of was about as well-liked as a politician could be in Memphis and is a formidable speaker in his own right. Obama was in another league. In an effortless way, he fed and fed off of the electricity in the room to create a belief that anything really was possible. But rhetorical talent is not enough – the vision that Obama tells us is possible is one that is true to our deepest ideals. It is a vision that rises above difference, whether they be racial, geographic, ideological, or otherwise. It is a vision that appeals to the better angels of our nature. But most of all, it is a vision that refuses to limit what is possible.

Barack Obama imagines the type of country I want to live in even if that country does not yet exist. That is the kind of president I can be inspired by.


(Click here to see what I had to say about Barack Obama this time last year)

Political Notebook - The Victim Olympics

I vividly remember a conversation with my father. I must have been on the cusp of adolescence, beginning to figure out how the world worked -- recognizing that my parents didn't know quite everything and that though my life had been charmed, it really may not be fair for everyone. I had figured out something in my head for the first time and I was about to speak it out loud so that my father could confirm its truth. I said something along the lines of, "I can never be the president, can I?"

"Why not?" my dad must have asked because no good father would allow his son's dreams to start being limited by reality even before reaching high school.

"Because were Jewish," I answered. For the first time in my life I began to understand that the things I had been taught to believe about my country and the world may not be as true as we all wished they were. I was deeply saddened, not because I had a particular interest in being president, but because I recognized for the first time that the American dream seemed to have limits, that sometimes reality got in the way of that dream.

Even as I've gotten older and have sadly grown accustomed to finding limits on the American dream, I retain a healthy sense of disappointment each time I realize that a particular person is being put at a disadvantage. And in our country's history, no traits have been more disadvantageous than being female, black, and/or poor. (my Judaism may have dashed any White House dreams, but it has hardly been a glass ceiling) As I watch the race for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, it is inspiring to me because each candidate is proving that even these most disadvantageous of traits can be overcome.

First, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses and sent a shockwave of hope through the country. For a moment, Obama reminded us of the possibilities our country can offer. However, as good as Obama's victory made me feel, I was troubled by the rush coronation of him as our national savior (I'm talking to you Chris Matthews) as well as the sense that his victory as an African American was the only way Iowa could have signaled a new page turned in our history. It was as if they had forgotten that an African American had won presidential primaries before (Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988), but a woman had not.

Hillary Clinton is blazing a trail no less important than the one being forged by Barack Obama. I am thrilled as a civil rights advocate to see Obama with a real shot at winning the nomination, but I am also overjoyed as the father of a daughter to see Hillary breaking her own ground. The shame of this primary is that I am being forced to choose between them -- only one page can be turned in 2008. And I am being asked to evaluate whether an African American or a woman in the White House would better represent national progress.

On this question, Hillary Clinton is at a disadvantage, not because she is a woman, but because she is a Clinton. Were Hillary Clinton any other woman, she probably would not be able to mount a viable campaign, for it is her last name and not her resume of decades confronting the status quo that seems to legitimize her candidacy.

In an excellent op-ed in the New York Times, Gloria Steinam wrote that a female with Barack Obama's biography would have no grounds for even running for the Senate, much less the White House. As I see it, the opposite is also true -- a male with Hillary Clintons biography would be so qualified for the White House that he would have run years ago. Looking at it this way, it is hard to dispute Steinam's assertion that, at least when it comes to leadership, the female glass ceiling is lower.

This all boils down to what some call the Victim Olympics -- which group has had it worse? There is no answer to this question and the very fact that two groups that have been historically disenfranchised and extraordinarily underrepresented in American political leadership are competing in this way demonstrates how distant racial and gender equity remains.

With this in mind, I was encouraged to see Hillary triumph in New Hampshire and lengthen the race so that more voters will have the opportunity to make their choice between two ground-breaking, convention-shattering, (insert your own cliche here) candidates that may have once questioned whether they could be barred from serving as president, but are now refusing to accept an American dream with limits.

Unity Strategy Requires Persuasion

The first time I came across a bumper sticker with the campaign slogan for mayoral candidate Herman Morris, I was impressed at the simple yet meaningful message: Together. For a change. There are two potential meanings, both appropriate for this moment in Memphis history: "We will do things together for a change," or "We will work for a change, together."

Fellow contender Carol Chumney is also sloganeering for change. Her campaign mantra (For the People, For a Change) seeks to tap into the same appetite for a new direction in city leadership, while the slogan on Mayor Willie Herenton's billboards and Web site (Continuing Progress) promises to build on the accomplishments of his previous terms. This election season, it has been the mayor's unofficial slogan (Shake the Haters Off) that has gotten the most attention, but it is Morris' theme of togetherness that I find most intriguing.

This column is not meant as an endorsement or rejection of any candidate -- there is far more to judge all three of these hopefuls on than their slogans. Instead, with the election just over two weeks away, I wonder whether a campaign based on togetherness, as Morris' campaign is, can succeed in Memphis.

Memphis has a history of electing candidates whose campaigns divide, rather than unite, the community, and much of that dividing occurs along racial lines. In 1967, Henry Loeb was elected with virtually no African-American support, a strategy that did not serve him well as the city encountered the sanitation workers' strike of 1968. More recently, Herenton was first elected in 1991 with little white support over incumbent Dick Hackett by a mere 142 votes.

In a book studying the 1991 election, "Racial Politics at the Crossroads," Rhodes College professors Marcus Pohlmann and Michael Kirby wrote that Memphis had reached a "point of racial reflexivity," where any crossover support for one candidate would dampen enthusiasm (and with it, potential voter turnout) in the candidate's own racial community. For candidate Herenton, therefore, any impression of white support was likely to diminish the crusade-like enthusiasm in the African-American community that ultimately made it possible for Memphis to elect its first black mayor. Indeed, Herenton received approximately 3 percent of the white vote, while Hackett received only 1 percent of the African-American vote in 1991.

If Herenton is to win a fifth term on Oct. 4, it appears that it will be won, just as his first election was, without substantial white support. In a July poll commissioned by The Commercial Appeal, only 4 percent of white respondents thought the mayor should be re-elected. In that sense, 2007 looks a lot like 1991.

Based on his slogan, Herman Morris is betting that Memphis has pulled back from the 1991 level of racial reflexivity and that an interracial coalition can sweep him into the mayor's office. His co-campaign manager John Ryder recently stated that Morris can win by getting 40 percent of the white vote along with 40 percent of the African-American vote. Whether Morris can garner that percentage in either community remains to be seen, but 16 years removed from the incredibly divided 1991 election, there is some evidence that a unifying candidate can succeed, regardless of that candidate's race.

Most significantly, Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton, former U.S. representative Harold Ford Jr. and Ford's successor, Rep. Steve Cohen, have enjoyed significant crossover voting, although in Cohen's case, his support in the African-American community was hard won and appears to be even harder kept. For his part, even Herenton has previously enjoyed substantial white support in rolling to his landslide elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003.

If Morris, or any candidate, is going to follow these examples of interracial coalitions, he will have to convince voters in diverse segments of the community that togetherness can and must work for Memphis to thrive going forward. As Herenton himself said after his historic first election in 1991: "As your new mayor, not just for a few, but for all Memphians, I envision a great and vital metropolis rushing excitedly towards the 21st century, a century which will feature a Memphis that proudly boasts equal opportunity and access, racial justice and peace, cultural unity and harmony -- for all."

That kind of interracial togetherness would be some progress worth continuing.

Leadership Across the Color Line

It has been nearly a century and a half since the peculiar institution that was slavery was outlawed in the United States, yet the legacy of racial issues born by slavery continues to affect modern politics and leadership. Just last week, we learned that the ancestors of a preeminent African American leader (Al Sharpton) were at one point owned by the ancestors of a preeminent segregationist politician (Strom Thurmond), and it turns out that ancestors of Barack Obama’s white mother once owned slaves.

Against the backdrop of these revelations, a bill was recently introduced in Congress seeking an apology on behalf of the United States government for slavery and the Jim Crow segregation that followed it. Although the bill raises all sorts of interesting questions on its own, one of the more noteworthy aspects of it is that it was offered by a white congressman.

Specifically, the bill was introduced by Steve Cohen, a freshman representative and the first white congressman from majority-black Memphis in three decades. Cohen arrived in Washington only after defeating more than a half dozen African American candidates in a primary where some of his opponents suggested that he was unqualified to represent Memphis because of his race. The consensus is that Cohen is likely to face an African American candidate in 2008 with more unified support, giving him two years to prove to any suspicious black constituents that he can vigorously represent this district despite the color of his skin.

Ultimately, those two years will provide Cohen’s answer to the question of how a white person can effectively represent a majority-black district. This question, however, is really part of a larger question about leadership in America. Do Americans want a leader who simply looks like them or one who is able to understand their concerns regardless of what that leader looks like? Will Americans tolerate a leader who is not personally appealing if that leader proves capable of delivering good results? There is no question that Cohen’s record as a state senator has proven him to be strong on core African American issues – perhaps even stronger than his African American predecessor, Harold Ford, Jr. However, there is also no question that Cohen’s tactics and demeanor – and for some, his race – do not always endear him to the African American community. Cohen believes that if he can prove that he both understands African American concerns and work diligently to address them, his race ought not matter. But, fairly or not, Cohen’s race does matter.

Effective leadership requires a combination of many abilities – the ability to connect with constituents, the ability to empathize with those constituents’ concerns, and the ability to work toward effective solutions to those concerns. Even today, each of these abilities is significantly impacted by what a leader looks like. In his first months, Cohen needs to overcome hurdles an African American representative would not have encountered by working to make connections with the majority of his constituents who do not look like him. The apology measure, along with a well-attended community event featuring African American congressman John Conyers, are clearly efforts by Cohen to prove himself capable of understanding and addressing African American concerns.

In our increasingly diverse nation, it will be impossible to find leaders who share a perspective will all of their constituents. What we should seek from those who represent us is a willingness to listen to our concerns and a passion for finding solutions to them. Whether that leader’s ancestors were slaves or slaveholders ought to matter less than how that leader confronts today’s problems, many of which find their origins in the era of slavery. Cohen’s apology bill will not solve any of those problems, but it is a first step toward convincing his constituents that he is up to the task of representing them effectively and it is a step Cohen has to take.

Disconnected in DC

It is a long way from Washington, D.C., to Baghdad. Over 6200 miles to be exact. But watching the events of the last week, it would be possible to think that the two were ever further apart. On different planets, perhaps.

On Friday, the House of Representatives, after over 45 hours of debate spread over 5 days, passed a measure formally disapproving of President Bush’s plan to send an additional 20,000 combat troops to Iraq. Over the course of the debate, 392 House members took their 5 minutes to passionately defend their positions in front of a largely empty chamber, speaking only into the air that is the C-SPAN viewership. The bill that passed, however, was really only a “nonbinding resolution.” From a policy perspective, this nonbinding resolution has exactly zero effect on the future direction of Iraq other than lobbing some harsh words at the Administration. So much for sticks and stones, eh?

The House’s expression of public outrage may not have been much, but it still bested the performance of the Senate. In a startling display of Congressional impotence, the Senate failed to even get to a debate on the resolution passed by the House thanks to procedural rules. This failure means that, for now, Senators – many of whom are running for president – will not engage in debate, much less put themselves on record, regarding a crucial issue in our nation’s life.

Meanwhile, President Bush seems content to run out the clock on his term so that he will never have to admit a mistake and can pass his fiasco on to the next president.

This entire scene unfolds amid a backdrop of increasing American casualties and downed helicopters and bombs that kill scores of Iraqis even as security forces crack down. The contrast between real lives being lost and symbolic resolutions being debated – or not even debated in the case of the Senate – vividly drives home the disconnect between the powers that be in Washington and the events of the real world. It is no wonder that both congressional and presidential approval ratings are at historic lows – neither Congress nor the President is responding effectively to an immense national problem.

The sad fact is that the decision makers in Washington are not leaders, but politicians. Even as they debate crucial issues, they keep an eye on partisan strategy and the next election. Questions that may be asked when a vote must be cast could be, in this order: Is it good for me? Is it good for my party? Is it good for the country? These are the priorities of politicians. I have no doubt that many start in politics for all the right reasons – to serve the public and improve the country – but years within the Beltway have a tendency to warp perspectives to the point that nonbinding resolutions pass for bold action.

The real power of Congress when it comes to foreign policy – the power of the purse – was explicitly not on the table during last week’s debate and non-debate. Why? Because forcing politicians to take a stand on such a politically-charged issue may put politicians in politically-uncomfortable situations. The result of this reticence, unfortunately, is that American troops and an entire nation of Iraqis are put in truly uncomfortable, even deadly, situations every day.

The Audacity of Hype

There is a tendency in this country to over-inflate the importance or impressiveness of everything from movies to the latest diet fads. Thanks to the capitalist need to sell, sell, sell, we are a nation of hype. For the next two weeks, we will endure the – pardon the metaphor – super bowl of hype, as we learn more than we ever needed to know about the teams, players, coaches, fans, owners, trainers, etc. involved in the Super Bowl itself.

Most Super Bowls, and indeed most anything that receives such extreme promotion, cannot live up to the hype. Expectations are set so high that it is nearly impossible to meet them. So when an event or individual delivers to meet towering expectations, it is truly remarkable. Barack Obama is a truly remarkable individual.

If you are paying attention, you know Barack Obama because he is currently riding one of the most extreme waves of hype a politician has ever ridden. He has appeared on Oprah and Monday Night Football. He has a new book (The Audacity of Hope) that is #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, and an old book (Dreams from my Father) that is also doing very well, thank you (#5 for paperback nonfiction). And, oh yeah, last week, Obama took the first steps toward running for president.

I remember the first time I heard of Barack Obama. In the summer of 2004, when Obama was just a law professor and Illinois state senator (I use “just” very respectfully), I read a magazine profile on him and thought to myself, “Wow! This guy, however you pronounce that name, says exactly what I would want a leader to say.” Several weeks later, even though I was taking the bar the next morning, I waited up to watch Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention. Honestly, I was expecting to be disappointed – there was no way he could deliver on the expectations I had for him after reading that article. Then I watched Obama deliver the most impressive and finely-presented speech I have ever seen live. Both the substance of what he said and the way in which he said it captured my precise feelings, a mixture of criticism of the present and hope for the future.

Over two years later, the hype that began the moment Obama finished that speech seems to know no bounds, yet Obama continues to deliver. Even as he seems to be everywhere, he has remained humble. Even as he works in a partisan Congress and has entered what will be a bruising campaign, he has remained convincingly positive and collegial. Even as the media compels sound bites over substance, he has remained thoughtful and rational. And even as his own previous performances demand consistently inspiring oration, he has consistently risen to the challenge.

For his own part, Obama has said he is “suspicious of hype.” (Of course, he said this at a press conference in New Hampshire where he was both promoting a book and feeding speculation about his presidential ambitions.) He explains his prolonged 15 minutes of fame as a result of Americans being “interested in being called to be part of something larger than the kind of small, petty, slash and burn politics that we’ve been seeing over the last several years. And to some degree, I think I’m a stand-in for that desire on the part of the country.” Thus, even as he feeds his own hype, Obama reminds himself and us that he is merely the vessel onto which many Americans have projected our hopes.

Barack Obama certainly will not be the most experienced candidate running for president. He is unlikely to be the best funded. At this point, it remains too early to tell if he is the best person for the job. But, more than any candidate I can remember, Obama has an opportunity to shift the way we do business in this country simply by having the audacity to be himself.

Modest Hopes for the New Congress

The political world is abuzz that the Democratic takeover of Congress signals the coming of a significant shift in Washington. Although I’d like to be hopeful, I recognize the many barriers to entrenched politicians acting too quickly or boldly. Still, I have a few modest hopes for the Democratic-led 110th Congress.

Perhaps the least tangible thing I’d like to see is a shift in the way business is done in Washington. I’d like to see a city where the main business is governing rather than merely politics. This means less focus on winning elections and more on seeking workable and moderate solutions to the country’s problems.

- As far as specific policies go, I’d like to see a shift in the government’s apparent priorities toward helping those who need help rather than protecting those who do not. This means a commitment to lifting the less fortunate to a more stable place. In the six years of Republican-monopoly government, increases in wages have not kept pace (not even close, really) with increased productivity, rendering moot the maxim that harder work can lift an individual or family. Meanwhile, a combination of tax cuts and salary increases has put the wealthiest even further into the economic stratosphere. I don’t really have a problem with some people being obscenely rich. What I have a problem with is some people getting obscenely rich thanks in part to government policies while others get stuck in a cycle of debt or poverty while the government does little to help. On this issue, I’ll be looking for a push on the minimum wage and a tax program that allows the government to provide effective programs to those who need help.

- Health care: Why are 47 million Americans – almost all of whom are the least equipped to cover medical costs – left to fend for themselves when it comes to health care? Although universal coverage could be something I would support, I recognize that such a drastic change isn’t likely in the next two years. Instead, I’d modestly like to see steps toward increased coverage, beginning with universal coverage for the most vulnerable – children.

- Education: This year, Congress will have the opportunity to re-authorize the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush’s signature education law. It has become somewhat fashionable to bash this law, but there are many good provisions within it and the law’s overall spirit – accountability for educational outcomes – is in the right place. I hope the Democrats on Capitol Hill will recognize the valuable parts of this law, such as measuring schools’ performance based on how each individual group (black, white, Hispanic, etc.) does, while adjusting the bad ones. This issue provides the greatest opportunity for bipartisan work toward a national goal. Both sides must seize it.

- Iraq: Even if continued chaos in Iraq may be good for Democrats, it is not good for the country. I hope the Democrats in Congress can find an appropriate balance between holding the Administration accountable for its mistakes and working with the Administration toward a resolution. Democrats must resist any temptation to exploit the current quagmire for political gain and engage in the type of intense problem solving Iraq requires. This means not dismissing outright Administration proposals simply because the Administration has made mistakes in the past, but also putting the Administration’s feet to the fire to come up with credible answers. I don’t think harping on the past few years’ errors (and there have been plenty to harp on) will be particularly useful. Rather, I’d like to see the Democrats use their newfound oversight and subpoena power to ensure that proposals for the future are well thought out, realistic, and effective.

The unifying theme of my modest hopes for this Congress is one of leadership for the nation rather than loyalty to a party. Unfortunately, such a strategy requires a willing partner from the other side of the aisle. If the Administration or congressional Republicans are unwilling to budge from their current agenda, it will be left to Democrats to assert their congressional power in a more partisan way. If that happens – and it is entirely possible, perhaps even likely – than it is unlikely any of my hopes for this new Congress will be realized.

Jon Stewart is Saving America

Last week as I watched election returns come in and prepared myself for the analysis, re-analysis, reverse analysis, and overanalysis of the evening’s results, I found myself drawn to one channel more than the others – Comedy Central?

I found that I cared more about what Jon Stewart had to say about the election than any of the talking heads on CNN or Fox News.

And I am not alone on this. In its 10 years on the air, The Daily Show has gone from an anonymous program to a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Much of that transformation is a direct result of the sharp wit and political commentary Jon Stewart brought when he took over the show in 1999. Today, 1.5 million viewers watch The Daily Show each night and even though the show touts itself as a “fake news” program, an increasing number of Americans – especially young ones – are getting real news from it.

The Daily Show’s impact can be seen in several ways. First, Stewart has made the mundane hip – a Daily Show viewer is likely to chuckle at a joke about social security privatization, a sign that the viewer is aware of and understands the unexciting issue being lampooned. Engaging young Americans in politics has always been difficult, but Stewart’s mix of substance and humor seems to be making a dent. But the real reason The Daily Show is so successful with young people is perhaps The Daily Show’s relentlessness in its exposure of hypocrisy and doublespeak in politics. In a field where too many people take themselves too seriously, Stewart does not hesitate to point out the sheer ridiculousness of some of our leaders. Idealistic young people respond to this unmasking as they recognize the shortcomings of their government.

Not everyone thinks this is all that funny. Both the Boston Globe and Washington Post have run op-ed columns in 2006 criticizing Stewart for stoking cynicism, pointing out that increased cynicism may ultimately lead to decreased voter participation. However, these criticisms are blaming the messenger: Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are merely highlighting the flaws in our government and the way the media covers it. If cynicism is being heightened by an increased awareness of flaws in the system, it is the system that is the problem, not the reporting.

While The Daily Show has been receiving critical acclaim for years, it is now starting to receive some scholarly attention as well. During the 2004 presidential campaign, the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted a survey on campaign knowledge with questions on topics such as – get your yawns ready – social security privatization. Among young people, those who watched The Daily Show scored higher than those who watched four or more days of network or cable news.

A clue as to why The Daily Show viewers are so knowledgeable can be found in the results of another study, this one done by Julia Fox at Indiana University. Fox and two IU grad students scrutinized the coverage of the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate on the national newscasts as compared to The Daily Show. The study concluded that the average amount of video and audio substance in the network news was not significantly different than the average amount of substance on The Daily Show. Doing a second-by-second analysis, the IU study found that The Daily Show had more humor than substance, but that the network coverage had more hype, such as references to polls or endorsements, than substance.

The fact that The Daily Show is becoming a legitimate alternative source for news says as much about traditional news sources as it does about The Daily Show. As the IU study concluded, neither of these sources is particularly substantive. But Stewart and The Daily Show are engaging young people in current political issues while exposing the hypocrisy that is responsible for so much dysfunction in Washington, while broadcast news offers no deeper substance and far less humor.

So maybe Jon Stewart isn’t quite saving America. At least he and The Daily Show are doing their part.

This Race Matters

One hundred fifty years ago, the South, including Tennessee, seceded from the United States in order to protect its right to maintain slavery.

Forty years ago, individuals seeking to register African Americans to vote in the South were abused, beaten, and killed.

The South’s racial history is well documented and not something to be proud of, to put it generously. Tomorrow, however, for the first time since Reconstruction, Southerners – in this case, Tennesseeans – have the opportunity to send an African American to the United States Senate. Even if it is a long overdue milestone, the potential election of Harold Ford, Jr., would be historic.

Ford is not a typical African American politician, nor is he a typical Democrat. He has run a center right campaign that has angered many on the left, but has brought him to election day in a winnable race. He has outworked and outperformed his opponent throughout the campaign and would be a dynamic leader for all Tennesseans.

Until recently, Harold Ford’s race would have been considered a major obstacle for his campaign to overcome. This campaign, however, has been less about race than one would have expected in the South. The one exception of course is the now infamous ad produced by the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee showing a bare-shouldered white playmate mouthing “Harold, call me,” in an allusion to traditional white Southern fears of interracial intimacy. Thought it would be naïve to believe the ad did not intentionally appeal to a racist sentiment, its impact has been largely overstated by a national media keen on making news, particularly news that makes the South look like a bunch of racists. Any Tennessean who would have been swayed to vote against Ford by the ad’s racial allusion would be unlikely to vote for an African American candidate in the first place.

“I’ve never thought about race,” Ford has said. “Don’t believe for one moment just because we’re in the South that we can’t look for what’s in our best interest, and look for the person who will best serve and represent us.” Southerners, Ford seems to be saying, aren’t as backward as you’d like to think.

Whether Tennesseans will elect Ford is a tossup,.but he is the better candidate for all Tennesseans regardless of party affiliation. He is by far the more passionate, energetic, and talented politician of the two candidates. In the dealmaking and publicity-seeking that makes a successful Senator, Ford will excel. Through Bill Frist’s ascendancy to Senate majority leader, Tennesseans have learned the local, on the ground benefits to be gained by having a visible and successful Senator. Where Ford’s energy and passion will make him stand out, his opponent will likely blend right in with the other older white males in the Washington.

For the independent, moderate voter, Harold Ford is an ideal candidate. He is a pragmatic politician who seeks consensus and moderation rather than division and ideology. He is unafraid of reaching across party lines to find sensible solutions, unlike his opponent, who is less likely to vote independent of his party.

Strangely, the loudest criticism of Ford often comes from the left. Even if Ford’s policies are more conservative than some Democrats are comfortable with (and I include myself in this group), he could be part of a larger Democratic Senate takeover that would help push the national agenda. Some of the greatest progressive legislation of the twentieth century was passed with a coalition of northern and western liberals and southern moderates. Ford’s election could help create a modern revival of that coalition.

And for those concerned with making history and reaching long overdue milestones, Harold Ford just might do that too.

Spin Zone

North Korea is in rarefied status among the world's evildoers these days. This is due to both the attention President Bush brought to North Korea in naming it among the axis of evil (a good thing) and the inattention President Bush gave to North Korea while concentrating all resources on Iraq (not a good thing). This month’s nuclear test revealed the result of the Bush Administration’s distraction: WMDs in North Korea. North Korea has gone from an isolated, hostile, dangerous country engaged in negotiations with the global community that helped prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon in 2000 to an isolated, hostile, dangerous country that has tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. The George W. Bush era, it would seem, has not been terribly unkind to North Korea.

Yet, to hear Bill O’Reilly tell it, North Korea is working feverishly to support the Democrats in the upcoming mid-term election. In his “no spin zone,” O'Reilly declared the North Korean nuclear test a calculated effort to influence the American election. Similarly, O’Reilly asserted that Iran is ramping up the violence in Iraq so Americans will turn against the Bush Administration. “Why does Iran want the Democrats to win in November?” O’Reilly asks. Iran, it seems, is pushing insurgents to increase the violence in Iraq not to crush Iraqi democracy, but to influence American democracy.

Normally, what Bill O’Reilly says is as meaningless as it sounds, but on this issue, it appears he is not alone in his thinking. Discussing the similarities between the recent spike in violence in Iraq and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, President Bush threw out the election card: “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election.” Lest anyone be confused as to what the President meant, Press Secretary Tony Snow explained that Bush “was making a point he’s made before, which is that terrorists try to exploit pictures and try to use the media as conduits for influencing public opinion in the United States.”

The O’Reilly/Bush argument goes something like this: North Korea/Iran/Iraqi insurgency are taking action aimed at helping Democrats win elections in the United States, so if you vote for the Democrats, you are actually helping the cause of North Korea/Iran/Iraqi insurgency.

But a look at American politics from the perspective of our enemies makes you wonder why these regimes would be so eager to end the Bush era. Assuming that the goal of American enemies is to weaken the United States, it seems that these regimes ought to be rooting for more of the same from the Bush Administration rather than working for a Democratic majority in Congress.

The Bush Administration has done more to weaken America’s standing in the world than any anti-American rhetoric from Tehran or nuclear test from Pyongyang. By thumbing its nose at international treaties, flouting international standards for the treatment of prisoners, and starting a war without an international mandate, the Bush Administration has put the U.S. in an increasingly isolated global position. That position is further weakened by the enormous commitment of resources to Iraq and the lack of short-term success there. Given the kind of bumbling they’ve seen from Bush Administration, why would North Korea or Iran really want change?

Neither O’Reilly nor Bush wants you to answer, or even ask that question. They are instead searching for any way possible to save the Republican majority by shifting the focus off the Bush administration’s record.

Given that record, Democrats do not need any help from America’s enemies to convince voters that change is necessary, no matter what Bill O’Reilly says.

The New Southern Democrat

After throwing his support behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson famously declared that his act had lost Democrats the South for a generation. Indeed, in Johnson’s beloved Senate, today only 4 of 22 Senators from the ex-Confederacy are Democrats. Yet, a generation has now passed and a new southern Democrat is emerging.

Representing a constituency with different values and ideals than Democrats from the Northeast or West Coast, the new southern Democrat is not a tree-hugging liberal. The new southern Democrat can be a fan of the Second Amendment. The new southern Democrat is not afraid to talk about faith and may not always endorse the full separation of church and state. The new southern Democrat is fiscally conservative, insisting on balanced budgets. The new southern Democrat understands that the majority of Americans would support bipartisan, moderate solutions to our nation’s problems, rather than extremist rhetoric from either side.

This election cycle, the new southern Democrat is embodied by Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., who is running to become the first Democratic Senator elected in Tennessee since Al Gore in 1990. With bounding energy and tireless work, Rep. Ford has turned what was once a double-digit deficit in a red state into an airtight race with several polls showing him leading Republican challenger Bob Corker. Unlike many national Democrats whose strategy has been to sit and wait for Republicans to screw up (with Republicans politely obliging), Ford has been proactive, asserting his positions in every county and striking a balance between his Democratic roots and the conservative leanings of his home state.

One would think Harold Ford’s surge would be cause for joy among Democrats seeking to reestablish themselves in the South. Instead, Ford has been consistently criticized from his left for being overly willing to take conservative positions in his effort to be elected. A group of local left-wing bloggers openly despise Ford, claiming he has abandoned his base and is no more than a Republican posing as a Democrat. What good is having a Democratic senator, these critics argue, when he acts just like a Republican?

These critics ignore the appeal and importance of the new southern Democrat. After all, it has been southern Democrats – Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton – who have led the only national Democratic victories since 1964.

Instead of welcoming a Democrat who is making connections with voters across the state and across the political spectrum, they would have a Democratic candidate who, unlike Ford, could pass their liberal-purity test. Unfortunately, that candidate could not be elected in Tennessee, providing Republicans an easy victory and a comfortable majority.

The Democratic party, including its most left-wing elements, should accept the reality of southern values and embrace pragmatic leaders, like Harold Ford, Jr., who are able to be both southerners and Democrats. The party is currently unable to compete in southern states, leaving Democrats at a major disadvantage in national elections. By enlarging the party to include the new southern Democrat rather than criticizing him for not being liberal enough, Democrats can shift not only the face of their party, but also the balance of power in the U.S. A strong coalition of conservative-leaning southern Democrats and more liberal Democrats from the Northeast and West Coast could reenergize a party still in search of direction.

The generation LBJ spoke of losing is now behind us and it is time for Democrats to get serious about competing in the South again. The future of the party – and the country – may depend on it.

Why Katrina Hurts

The past week has brought us countless stories on the state of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast one year after the most devastating natural disaster in American history. That superlative is not only appropriate based on the terrible loss of human life, displacement of entire communities and enormous damage to property, but also because with its blistering winds and unquenchable thirst for destruction, Hurricane Katrina bruised the American psyche in an unprecedented way.

Though certainly Katrina was a monster storm, it was not the first hurricane to bring extensive damage and death to American shores. The names Hugo and Andrew still make citizens in Charleston and Miami tremble. But Katrina and its aftermath cut deeper, affecting not only those along the Gulf Coast, but all Americans. Why does Katrina hurt so badly?

In one week, Hurricane Katrina exploded myths of American ingenuity and craftsmanship and exposed inequalities many of us willfully ignore, forcing us to confront the reality that we, as a country, are not exactly what we think ourselves to be.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Americans imagine our country to be one of boundless opportunity where everyone has the chance to hit the lottery. The gap between wealthy and poor, however, continues to expand and threatens to create a permanently impoverished and undereducated class of citizens with a very low ceiling on what they can achieve in the United States. Although most of the time, the elements of the community stuck in this rut are confined to certain parts of the city and heard from only on the local news when being interviewed regarding a neighborhood crime, after Katrina, all over the country Americans were forced to confront the poverty that our nation tolerates. For several weeks, the individuals our society does least to protect were brought out from the shadows and onto their rooftops with pleas for help.

The way Katrina's human toll cut along racial and economic lines exposed for all to see the second America that John Edwards so eloquently brought to life with his "Two Americas" speeches. During Katrina, the haves, the have-a-littles, and the have-a-whole-lots got a glimpse of the have-nots struggling to get by in this country. Katrina brought America face-to-face with its greatest vice, inequality, and many Americans were shocked and repulsed. In this land of supposedly boundless opportunity where anyone can make it through hard work, Katrina drove home the fact that some Americans have it a whole lot better than others.

In addition, the completely bungled response by all levels of government to the unfolding disaster exposed all that is wrong with a current leadership class that is focused more on elections than on governing, more on appearing to help than on actually helping. Such bogus leadership escapes unmasking until a moment of crisis comes along, at which point the empty heads and suits in leadership positions are reduced to impotent spectators. Katrina did a heckuva job of lifting the mask on all levels of government failure.

Add to the leadership vacuum Katrina exposed the extreme slowness and inability of the government to either protect or rescue citizens and you get a genuine national embarrassment. Here we were, the most powerful country on the planet, unable to reach our own citizens in a major city several days after the storm.

And then there was that group of citizens, themselves embarrassing the country by taking advantage of the anarchy of the times to rob, loot and threaten for their own pecuniary gain. They reflected a culture of selfish thuggery where crime is a badge of honor and laws and law-abiding citizens are inconveniences that would best be disposed of. They are not the majority of Americans, but they are part of the American underbelly exposed by Katrina.

Why does Katrina hurt? Because it slaps us in the face with the reality that we are not doing as well as a nation as we think we are. A year later, that reality still stings.

Race and Politics in Dixie

A few blocks from the heart of downtown Memphis sits the National Civil Rights Museum, one of the city's treasures. Situated at the Lorraine Motel, site of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, the Museum offers visitors the opportunity to relive civil rights history, including the chance to watch Dr. King's historic "I Have a Dream" speech in its entirety.

Exiting the Museum this election season, Memphians are being reminded both of the progress that has been made and of how far remains to go to fulfill Dr. King's dream, as two candidates from Memphis – one black and one white – seek to prove that race is no longer a bar to winning elections, even in the South.

Tennessee's ninth congressional district, of which Memphis is the majority, has been represented in Congress by an African American since 1975. This fall, the incumbent, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., is pursuing a seat in the U.S. Senate, leaving a slew of candidates – 20 in all – vying to replace him. Among them is state senator Steve Cohen, who stands out from the pack based simply on the fact that of the presumed frontrunners in next week's Democratic primary (from which the likely general election winner will come) Cohen is the only one who is white.

During the campaign, few rivals have questioned Cohen's qualifications or commitment to the constituents of the district. Instead, as recounted in this newspaper, several have explicitly or implicitly suggested that Cohen is unfit for the seat simply on the basis of his race. Often, such quips are prefaced with qualified praise like "Steve's a good guy, but…" The unspoken yet well understood "but" is that the ninth district, which is 60% African American, should not send a white representative to Congress, no matter how qualified. One candidate even sent an email to supporters laying out what he sees as the dire stakes, threatening that "For the first time in 30 years Memphis could be without African American representation."

Such efforts to make race a qualification (or disqualification) for office appeal to the basest instinct of American politics – the instinct to make important decisions based solely on race. Playing the race card in this way, these candidates seek to simplify an important and complex congressional race into, literally, a black and white choice.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ford, the man vacating the ninth district seat, is attempting to break a color line of his own as he seeks to become Tennessee's first African American Senator. In a state that is 80% white, there has been remarkably little talk about Ford's skin color as a potential disadvantage for him. There have certainly been no ominous "Tennessee might be without a white Senator" emails from Ford's opponents. Such tactics would be roundly – and rightfully – denounced, with the loudest denunciations coming from some of the same people pleading against electing Mr. Cohen on the basis of his skin color. And while it would be naïve to believe that the color of Ford's skin does not affect the way some individual voters think of him, it has been refreshing to see a campaign by an African American for statewide office in the ex-Confederacy that is not focused on race. Regardless of whether Ford wins in November, that is progress.

The candidacies of Rep. Ford and Mr. Cohen offer 21st-century illustrations of the centuries-old intersection of race and politics in America, an intersection whose continued relevance was affirmed by this month's reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The opposition to Cohen based on skin color rests on the assumption, despite Cohen's two-decade long record to the contrary, that a white person cannot effectively represent African American interests, and it comes even as Ford simultaneously seems to be disproving the converse assumption: that an African American cannot represent a majority white state.

Both Ford and Cohen – as well as several of Cohen's opponents – are distinguished and qualified candidates. Both have sought to rise above divisive racial politics by asking voters to judge them by their record rather than their race, or, stated more eloquently, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. This is what they and the citizens they seek to represent deserve and exactly what Dr. King dreamt of more than forty years ago.

Sit Down if You're Blocking the Vote

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson formed an alliance with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to craft and pass the Voting Rights Act. Developed in response to endless hurdles being thrown up to keep African Americans from registering to vote or voting, the Act established a nationwide prohibition against discrimination in voting. The necessity of the law despite the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee of the right to vote to all citizens, adopted nearly a century before, is a testament to the long and largely successful history of voting discrimination in the United States.

The Voting Rights Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation enacted during Johnson's presidency, but it was also political suicide. Knowing that support for the Act would hand the South to the Republican party, Johnson forged ahead anyway. Three years later, he stunningly withdrew from the presidential race and retired.

Voting remains a critical issue in America today. The last two presidential elections confirmed the importance of every single vote in determining the leadership and direction of this country. Yet, despite this importance (or perhaps because of it), lawmakers continue to take steps aimed at restricting the ability of Americans to vote, even threatening the future of the Voting Rights Act itself.

Although many portions of the Act are permanent law, other sections must be renewed from time to time. Several important sections are set to expire in 2007, including the requirement that states get clearance from the Justice Department before making changes in their voting procedures, such as redistricting, that could affect minority voters. Affirming the importance of these procedures to protecting voting rights, a bipartisan consensus in Congress had agreed to renew the provisions this summer. It was the type of broad support such an important law deserved. However, the expected vote was cancelled last week after several southern Republicans complained that the law unfairly targeted the South. Now, it is unknown when Congress will take up the issue or whether the Act will be renewed at all over these lawmakers' objections.

The recent efforts by lawmakers to delay renewal of the Voting Rights Act are the kind of partisan politics Lyndon Johnson, a Southerner himself, rose above in initially passing the bill. Unfortunately, efforts to delay renewal are part of a nationwide trend toward making voting more difficult for more people. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, several states including, of course, Florida and Ohio have recently passed restrictions on voter registration drives despite the fact that such drives have no correlation with voter fraud. These drives simply increase the numbers of registered voters and, consequently, the number of Americans who vote. Such efforts should be encouraged rather than restricted.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court produced a complicated decision on Wednesday regarding the recent redistricting effort in Texas. On one hand, the Court reaffirmed the continued need for provisions in the Voting Rights Act like those the rebelling lawmakers complain of, ruling that a redrawn district in southwest Texas unfairly diluted the votes of Latino voters. The Court ordered a new district drawn that would be more consistent with the tenets of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Court took no action to undo the highly-partisan redistricting that resulted in a net gain of four Republican seats in the Texas legislature, concluding that such gerrymandering of districts by party was constitutional.

The case in Texas is a mixed result that vividly illustrates both the continued necessity for protections like those found in the Voting Rights Act and the kinds of ways lawmakers continue to manipulate the election process.

In 2006, we look back at efforts such as poll taxes and literacy tests as blatant discrimination that ought to be condemned. Yet four decades after passage of the Voting Rights Act, lawmakers continue trying to manipulate the election process wherever they can find an opportunity, whether by campaign finance regulations, gerrymandered districts, restriction of voter registration drives, efforts to prevent ballots being available in foreign languages, expensive voter identification requirements, or even failing to renew some of the most important provisions of the legislation most useful in protecting Americans' right to vote. Such efforts taint our government, our elections, and our society and are no more acceptable today than they were in 1965.

Iraq and a Hard Place

Improbably, Iraq is once again emerging as a winner issue for Republicans for the fall elections.

Despite the fact that the majority of the American public believes it was a mistake to enter Iraq and despite the bungling by the Bush administration of nearly every aspect of the war, from the prewar intelligence on WMDs to the dismissal of estimates of required troop levels much higher than those actually deployed to the inadequate equipment for our soldiers to the infamously premature “Mission Accomplished” announcement to the similarly premature declaration that the insurgency was in its “last throes” and on and on and on…. Despite all of this evidence that Republicans have failed miserably in both rushing into a war and in executing it once there, Democrats continue to flounder and flail when attempting to present an alternative course for Iraq.

Some, like Senator John Kerry, are pressing for definite timetables to bring the troops home. While the wisdom of such a policy may be debatable, it is at least a coherent plan: The war is wrong. Bring the troops home.

Others are searching for a more compromised position, one that acknowledges both the perils of setting a fixed timetable and the need to begin transitioning American soldiers out of Iraq to grant the Iraqi government greater autonomy and responsibility. This policy better reflects the difficulties on the ground, but it is logically inconsistent. It requires a kind of doublethink – the war is wrong; don’t end the war – that does not easily capture many supporters.

Ever since many Senate Democrats supported the authorization to use force in Iraq, the party has been stuck trying to criticize a war it is at least partly responsible for getting us into. The results, unsurprisingly, have been less than stellar.

Meanwhile, Republicans happily step in and fill the vacuum with denunciations of plans like Mr. Kerry’s as “defeatism,” “surrender,” or “retreat.” Senator John McCain presents the options as a simple choice: “Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed.” Of course, this “choice” ignores that we have been committed for over three years and success remains elusive (unless of course one judges success by Republican electoral victories). No Republican policy more definite than “stay the course” has been proposed to give hope that continued commitment will ultimately bring more success than our previous commitment has.

Still, it is the Democrats who are on the defensive regarding the war, reacting to Swift Boat-ish questions of their patriotism and dismissive characterizations of their policies as “cutting and running.”

What is needed for Iraq is not partisan jockeying where “leaders” search for the policy that will get members of their party elected rather than the right policy. What is needed is a coherent, agreeable vision of what we would like to leave Iraq looking like and a realistic assessment of the national sacrifices in manpower and resources required to get there. If we are not willing to make those necessary sacrifices, the troops must be brought home quickly.

To this point, the Democrats appear to be reacting to the national mood – voting for authorization of the war in 2003, criticizing those, like Howard Dean and Russ Feingold, who called for troop withdrawals long ago, but now pushing for an end to the operation – rather than promoting an independent policy on Iraq. So long as they are reacting rather than leading, the Republicans will be able to successfully portray Democrats as wavering and without a workable plan.

The Democrats hoped to stick the Republicans with the Iraq albatross come November, but despite repeated and continued Republican failures on the war, for now at least, it is the Democrats who remain stuck.

What If....?

As President Bush slogs through this spring with historically low approval ratings and Rolling Stone openly wondering if we are enduring the worst president in history (their answer: maybe), I am struck by perhaps the most interesting historical question of the nascent 21st century: What if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election?

We can only speculate about whether a Gore presidency would have been better or worse, but we can say with certainty that it at least would have been different, despite what Ralph Nader would have you believe.

For starters, a President Gore would encounter an entirely different landscape in Washington. With a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Capitol Hill, Gore (and Republican leaders in Congress) would be forced to negotiate to find center ground on every issue, a balance that would more accurately reflect the evenly-split electorate than our current single-party government. In addition, the Republican Congress would provide the kind of presidential oversight President Bush has avoided thus far, limiting the likelihood that executive power would be abused without consequences.

In his first months, Gore would not have provided dual thumbs-in-the-eye to the international community by withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court. Further, Gore would not have rushed to squander the budget surpluses achieved by Bill Clinton on tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Thus, our standing with the international community and our record on fiscal responsibility would be in better shape.

But however Gore's presidency would have begun, there is no doubt it would have changed forever on September 11, 2001. The days immediately following the attacks, undoubtedly Bush's finest, would have tested Gore's ability to rally the nation's spirit and confront the evil of terrorism. Gore's military response in Afghanistan would probably have been similar to Bush's as the military plans for toppling the Taliban pre-dated the Bush administration. But the steps that would follow Afghanistan would best illustrate the two leaders' differences.

Gore, more respectful of international law and less willing to dismiss the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," appears less likely to condone the hands-off interrogation practices and constitutionally-questionable detentions that have brought the Bush administration embarrassment in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. But more importantly, it is unlikely that Gore would have so quickly shifted the country's focus off Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and onto Iraq. More likely, Gore would have continued the Clinton-era Iraq policy of containment, sanctions, and targeted military strikes that we now know had prevented Saddam Hussein from getting the WMDs President Bush went to war to rid him of.

Gore, or as he was dubbed by President Bush's father, "Ozone man," would have been particularly well suited to confront the current energy crisis, having long supported conservation, higher fuel-efficiency standards, and alternate fuel sources. It is difficult to take President Bush seriously when he asks us to conserve, especially since he apparently does not believe in global warming. Gore would be a far more effective leader in ending what President Bush calls our "addiction" to foreign oil.

Of course, a Gore presidency would suffer its fair share of failures, scandals and controversies. One can envision deadlocks with the Republican Congress and outright defeats on some of Gore's pet policies on the environment. There is no way to know how Gore would have handled Hurricane Katrina or even whether Gore would have been reelected at all. And although many may disagree with President Bush's tactics in handling the war on terror, his policies have at least been successful in avoiding another catastrophic attack on American soil. We'll never know if Gore would have achieved a similar success.

Currently, Al Gore is the walking embodiment of what might have been had the American electoral process not gotten in the way. We will never really know what a Gore administration would have delivered at the outset of the 21st century or whether his policies would have been any more successful, but with the current state of President Bush's agenda, it is hard to imagine Gore being in worse shape. Ah, what if?

Missed Opportunities on "Elections"

Once upon a time, Americans mocked the elections taking place in the single-party Soviet Union by referring to them as “elections,” rather than elections. The quotation marks implied that the removal of choice from an election stained such an election as inadequate or even fraudulent.

These days, even as we export democracy to Iraq and celebrate the elections taking place there, our own elections may not be quite adequate themselves. Nathanial Persity, an election law expert at Penn Law School, pointed out earlier this year that the turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives is actually lower than the turnover in the Soviet Politburo.

Indeed, according to the government reform group Common Cause, in 2004, only 7 of the 399 incumbents running for the House were defeated. That’s a 98.2% victory rate for incumbents, and 4 of the 7 who were defeated came from Texas where a supremely sketchy mid-decade Tom DeLay-inspired redistricting led to the ouster of Democrats. And the incumbents did not win competitively – 85% of them won by more than 60 points.

Shocking, isn’t it? Elections in the House, the body imagined to be closest and most accountable to the people, may be nothing more than “elections.” By removing the barrier of contested elections, an oligarchy of permanent politicians has taken an enormous bite out of government accountability. The result is greater concern for the donors who fill incumbents’ coffers to ensure that the next “election” will turn out exactly like the last. Given this situation, it should be no surprise that it is special interests and not voter interests that move the ball in Washington.

How did we get to this point? In 1812, Massachusetts Governor William Gerry transformed the Essex County district to a shape vaguely reminiscent of a salamander, birthing the term “gerrymandering,” and providing what would become the tool-of-choice for politicians to entrench themselves and their parties in office.

Although generally thought of in a negative light, gerrymandering has its upside. It can be an extremely useful method to maintain minority representation in government. In the South and Southwest, gerrymandered districts have been used to assure Black and Hispanic Americans a seat at the political table and to prevent minority interests from being ignored by the tyranny of the majority. However, more often, gerrymandering is used not to benefit the voters, but the politicians themselves. State legislatures are generally given the responsibility of drawing the very district lines they depend on for their positions. Leaving the inherently political task of redistricting to those with the most at stake in hope that they will not exploit that power defies centuries of human experience.

Voters this week in Ohio and California had the opportunity to consider reforms to redistricting, but the measures in neither state passed. The two plans were met with considerable disdain from both parties. Redistricting for selfish political gain, after all, is a nonpartisan issue – both parties gain from eliminating competitive elections.

In California, the measure was proposed by a Republican governor in an effort to break a Democratic lock on the state legislature. Governor Schwarzeneggar proposed that the task of redistricting be handed over to a panel of retired judges, but ran up against heavy Democratic opposition. The sides were reversed, but the result the same, in Ohio, where labor unions and moveon.org pushed for a measure creating an independent panel to redraw districts and break Republican control of the state assembly.

Both measures would have maintained the necessary human involvement in redistricting in order to keep the good of gerrymandering (minority representation), while eliminating the bad (partisan strangleholds). The defeats were a setback for the election reform movement, though the fight moves on to states like Florida and Massachusetts.

The self-dealing of redistricting is truly repugnant to most Americans. With voter accountability slowly being removed from the political process, referendums like those in Ohio and California provide the rare opportunity to halt partisan redistricting. Unfortunately, voters failed to capitalize on the opportunity this week and ensured that at least in two states, elections will be more like “elections.”

Activism Shmactivism

Hardly had the words “Samuel Alito” left President Bush’s lips before conservatives nationwide started gushing about Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy. President Bush insisted that Judge Alito had “a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lauded Judge Alito’s judicial restraint and his “respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench,” a compliment echoed by Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, who called Judge Alito a “strict constructioninst who will not legislate from the bench.”

Apparently, conservatives have a deep aversion to a judge legislating from the bench or imposing his preferences on the people. However, this is not entirely true. What conservatives – and all of us, actually – truly have a problem with are judges who make decisions they do not agree with. There is nothing inherently wrong with a little judicial activism, it seems, so long as it gets to the right result. Pun intended.

The knock against judicial activism is that by interpreting statutes and policies governing touchy social issues, unelected (and unaccountable) judges are able to make decisions that thwart the will of the majority. The fear is that regardless of how the democratically-elected branches craft laws, the judicial branch can step in and impose its own perspective as a sort of super-legislature.

To an extent, this criticism is true: judges do have the power to interpret laws enacted by the elected branches to ensure that such laws are consistent with the Constitution. However, it is precisely because judges are the furthest removed from the people that they are able to do their job without concern for their own popularity or the popularity of their opinions. Interpreting the Constitution, of course, is not a popularity contest but a process requiring much thought and careful consideration.

Were conservatives genuinely concerned with the prospect of a super-legislating judge imposing his will over the judgment of the elected branches, they would undoubtedly be dismayed by a judge who repeatedly declared congressionally-enacted laws invalid. Yet, the two justices conservatives hold up as pillars of judicial restraint – Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas – have voted most often to overturn congressional action, according to a study by Paul Gerwitz of Yale Law School. Justice Thomas was ready to throw out law passed by a democratically-elected Congress two-thirds of the time.

Likewise, Judge Alito himself is guilty of this strand of judicial activism, having repeatedly voted to overturn laws passed by legislatures, including portions of the Violence Against Women Act and a law restricting carrying firearms near schools. The decisions of the legislatures in these cases were thwarted because of Judge Alito’s interpretation of the Constitution.

What is more revealing, however, is that Judge Alito was not always so willing to disregard the decisions of the legislative branch. On that most touchy subject of all, abortion, Judge Alito showed great deference to the Pennsylvania legislature when he voted to uphold an abortion restriction requiring spousal consent. Conveniently, Judge Alito was willing to show deference when he agreed with the legislature, but was less willing to do so when he did not. The will of the people, it seems, receives greater weight when it is in line with Judge Alito’s own personal philosophy.

Not that this is unique to Judge Alito or disqualifies him from a seat on the Supreme Court. It simply disavows the notion that conservatives have anything more than their own self-interest in mind when they scream “Judicial Activism!” These days, it is liberals who are up in arms about judicial activism. Senator Charles Schumer, speaking about the Alito nomination, commented, “What would really bother me is somebody who would want to make law.” Where President Bush and fellow conservatives see a judge who “does not legislate from the bench,” Senator Schumer sees a judge who may want to make law. They are of course looking at the same record of the same person and trying to squeeze politics into what should be (but certainly is not) an apolitical job. Reducing a judicial philosophy to a sound byte is always a misleading oversimplification and serves only the person making such a comment. Judge Alito is obviously very intelligent and honest. It is a shame the conversation surrounding his nomination – from both sides – is not.

Tortured Response

As Washington buzzes with speculation about Plamegate and the Miers withdrawal, a truly reprehensible request by Vice-President Cheney is slipping under the radar. Last week, I applauded Senator John McCain for standing up in the face of a threatened White House veto and rallying the support of 90 Senators from both parties to attach a provision to a defense spending bill that would ban torture of any detainee held by the U.S.

Standing up against torture is a good thing, right?

Not according to the VP, apparently. Cheney, along with CIA Director Porter Goss, reportedly lobbied McCain to include a broad exception to the ban that would allow CIA agents acting abroad to continue with carte blanche interrogation. No more of the legal-speak about the torture convention or the Geneva accords or even the Constitution. The Administration’s policy is not disturbingly clear: We have a right to treat prisoners inhumanely. How’s that for moral values?

A stand like this by the Administration erases any doubt that it is the leaders at the highest echelons – and not the “bad apples” being punished – that created the detention culture that led to the disgrace of Abu Ghraib. Allowing the CIA to continue inhumane interrogation practices will only further that culture. But don’t trust me. Check out what the government’s own August 2004 report on Abu Ghraib concluded:

“CIA detention and interrogation practices led to a loss of accountability, abuse, reduced interagency cooperation, and an unhealthy mystique that further poisoned the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib. Speculation and resentment grew over the lack of personal responsibility, of some people being above the laws and regulations. The resentment contributed to the unhealthy environment that existed at Abu Ghraib.”

In the face of this, the Administration continues to insist that torture is a necessary, if repugnant, part of gathering intelligence in the war on terror. Yet, interrogation experts repeatedly assert that torture yields a high percentage of faulty intelligence as detainees say whatever comes to mind in order to end their suffering. This is why the McCain torture ban – authored, it should be noted, by a former POW who knows a bit more about sacrificing for his country than the Vice-President with “other priorities” – has the support of two dozen retired senior military officers, including Cheney’s everlasting thorn in the side, Colin Powell.

Torture and the outrage that accompanies its inevitable discovery actually undermines the war on terror far more than any intelligence gained through torture helps it. In other words, torture may put more American lives in danger than it protects. The imagery and resentment that emerge from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay fuel terrorist recruitment and anti-American sentiment among even the moderate Muslim community and erode any moral authority the US has in the rest of the world. Torture rallies our enemies and alienates are friends. It is not only illegal and generally immoral, but it is bad strategy.

Instead of undertaking the difficult work necessary to create global systems to gather good intelligence, the Administration continues to pursue a lazy strategy of torture. Unfortunately, this unwillingness to tackle difficult problems with thoughtful solutions is nothing new for this Administration or any other recent Administration. Politicians-in-chief look for easy solutions, like torture, rather than effective ones. Politicians, it seems, will always have other priorities.

Still, Senator McCain and his bipartisan Senate allies continue to stand firm on this issue in the face of a disgraceful and unwise, yet unsurprising proposal from Vice-President Cheney and the CIA. At least some in Washington still have their priorities right.