Keeping track of political news developments as the Nov. 2 elections approach has been alternately amusing and depressing.
At home, the lunatic vote threatens to prevail because the looniest collection of candidates for congressional and governor races are actually being taken seriously by voters.
Foreign tyrants who are not tied down by trivial things such as a system of checks and balances persist in murdering, torturing and jailing their own citizens.
Two episodes, foreign and domestic, left me with a smile. First, a brave, earnest Chinese scholar named Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, Oct. 8. Chinese rulers were, to say the least, upset.
In California, a federal judge ordered our government to immediately end its witch hunts that would finish with the expulsion of military servicepersons because they are homosexuals.
The oppression that is routine fare in Iran, China and elsewhere should offer stark contrast to the liberty we enjoy here, but oppression has always existed in the United States. It is a matter of degree.
America’s system of government debuted as a bad bargain when the first post-Constitution Congress convened on March 4, 1789, at New York’s then-City Hall across a narrow street from what is now the New York Stock Exchange. George Washington, who owned slaves on his plantation outside Alexandria, Va., was inaugurated as our first president on April 30.
The continuation of slavery was the worst element of the bad bargain, but it was not the only flawed feature. The electoral college which selected the president made sense for its time, but now it is anachronistic and plainly a form of tyranny. The amendment process renders the system nearly impervious to substantial progress.
The second worst was the system of representation. While the House of Representatives is based on proportional representation, the Senate allows equal representation for every state at two senators each. This political arrangement has obstructed progress and maintained a massive system of institutional racism.
Cities like New York City and Los Angeles, populated by masses of vulnerable people, were shortchanged because they are part of large states which have limited clout in the Senate, since they have no more voting power than states with far smaller populations.
Institutional racism is really a flawed term, as “racism” could generically encompass the full range of prejudices. That would include homophobia.
Judge Virginia A. Phillips left me with reason to smile after the Federal District judge on Oct. 12 ordered the Pentagon to cease and desist from administering the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that bars openly gay citizens from serving in the military.
The 17-year-old law prohibits the military from asking members of the service if they are gay, but these service members will risk expulsion if they disclose their sexual orientation. That improves on the longterm policy of banning military service for gays altogether.
Yet even “don’t ask, don’t tell” violates the civil rights of fellow Americans who are willing to risk their lives for the rest of us.
Phillips, whose court is located in Riverside, Calif., wrote almost exactly that. She said the policy “infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members” and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech, The New York Times reported.
She was telling it straight, no pun intended. They are citizens who have all the rights of heterosexuals.
This law also infringes on all our lives since millions of our tax dollars are spent to train service members. Veteran nurses have been expelled as have students at a language school in Monterey, Calif. The Times reports that 12,500 homosexuals have been discharged under the law since 1993.
President Obama’s reaction has been bizarre. He opposes this law and wants Congress to repeal it. Sen. John McCain said the Republicans will filibuster any repeal at this time. The GOP is in the minority and yet they are authorized to block legislation supported by the Senate majority.
Obama’s people persist in appealing the judge’s ruling to a higher court. They claim they are duty bound to defend laws enacted by Congress.
What will happen if the White House drops the case? Will Congress impeach him? Of course, the Democrats would never impeach Obama and the Republicans would find any excuse to impeach him if they retake control of Congress.
In another strange twist, the Pentagon announced that it will accept applications from openly gay recruits.
How does this work? The courts have begun the process of moving back and forth between suspending and enforcing the law. If a recruit joins the service now, making it known that s/he is gay, then the next day they can be discharged if the law is in effect.
The president predicts that the law will be repealed “on my watch.” How? Ultimately, the Supreme Court could rule in favor of keeping the law, so we cannot count on them.
If Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress, they will be positioned to change the Senate rules to ensure that the filibuster does not threaten the majority vote. Of course, the Republicans may wish to end the filibuster because it threatens their policies.
The twists never end, do they?
No comments:
Post a Comment