Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has taken a lot of flak for the slow sales of his book, Republican Rescue. During its first week in stores, it sold only 2,289 copies.

Even though Christie has been a long-time friend of Donald Trump and assisted him considerably during his campaigns and presidency, Christie generously criticizes Trump and his supporters for their penchant for falsehoods and conspiratorial thinking. He is well aware of the fact that Trump’s assertion that he won the 2020 presidential election, but it was stolen from him is clearly a Big Lie.

Christie believes that the Republican Party needs to separate itself from its right-wing extremists and revert to a conventional conservative platform based on ideas rather than myths, or simple opposition to whatever Democrats advocate.

He says,

“As Republicans, we need to free ourselves from the quicksand of endless grievances. We need to turn our attention to the future and quit wallowing in the past. We need to face the realities of the 2020 election and learn—not hide—from them. We need to discredit the extremists in our midst the way William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan once did. We need to renounce the conspiracy theorists and truth deniers, the ones who know better and the ones who are just plain nuts. We need to give our supporters facts that will help them put all those fantasies to rest so everyone can focus with clear minds on the issues that really matter. We need to quit wasting our time.”

Clearly not the word of a loyal Trumpster. Christie is not alone in asking Republicans to abandon Trump, the “Freedom Caucus” or Tucker Carlson and return to its core values of a generation ago. Georgia Lieutenant-Governor Geoff Duncan strongly critiqued his party in his book GOP 2.0. He was at Ground Zero for much of Trump’s efforts to unconstitutionally change the Georgia vote. Duncan is a solid conservative, but he believes that the party has been infected by extremism based on falsehoods tinged with absurd conspiracy theories. He stood by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and others who firmly opposed Trump’s efforts to “find nearly 12,000 votes for him” so that he could be declared the winner in Georgia.

In the wake of the poor opening sales of his book, many have said that while Christie’s ideas may be of value, he is seeking an audience that is far smaller than he anticipated. Democrats are not interested in rescuing the Republican Party and Trump supporters am not inclined to support traditional Republicans.

I would recommend Christie’s book for several reasons:

1. It provides further insight into one of the greatest mysteries for people who are not Republicans, and even some who are. I’m talking about the makeup of “the Republican Brain.” This is a phrase that became the title of Washington Post writer Chris Mooney’s 2012 book by the same name, The Republican Brain. The book is quite detailed and nuanced, but among the key points is that Republicans do not have the same level of empathy as others, nor do they engage in critical thinking the same way.
2. It is becoming more apparent that the number one challenge for Americans is preserving our democracy. This means that we should do all that we legally can do to restrain the extreme right. Progressives and other Democrats need to preserve and strengthen the traditional Republican Party, no matter how weak it might be now. Rather than mocking Christie, I think that it would be wise to support him in his party-building efforts, though not with most of his conservative social and economic policies.

Christie is interesting, because while he shows no mercy towards the Biden Administration, he supports numerous progressive ideas on community policing, eliminating debtors’ prisons, making school curricula more relevant, and providing improved and more accessible health care.

If we are going to preserve democracy, we need to be prepared to talk with the Chris Christies of the world.

The post Libs: Chris Christie’s New Book May Be Well Worth Checking Out appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Bob Dole did everything that he could to get his ninety-five-year-old war-ravaged body once again to the U.S. Capitol, this time to pay a final tribute to his friend and rival, George H.W. Bush. There once was a moment of testiness, in 1988 when both were running for the presidency at Dole said words to the effect that “I wish that he would stop being so mean.” What Dole really meant was that he wished that HW had not hired the likes of Roger Aisles and Lee Atwater to run his opponents into the gutter.

Bush won the presidency and Dole was Senate Minority Leader for those four years. Dole recently reflected upon those years, saying in an interview with CNN, saying that under Bush’s presidency, “three-fourths of Congress were veterans and we would stick together and work across the aisle. And President Bush was a bipartisan president. So, we got quite a lot done,” he said.

It is interesting how thirty years later in 2018, both parties tout how many veterans they have brought into their ranks and who have been elected to Congress. But to characterize today’s Congress as being bi-partisan would be false, even farcical.

Bush and Dole fought in World War II. They were in different theaters; Bush in the Pacific and Dole in Italy. But they had a common goal; to help the United States defeat fascism. Their purpose and the tenacity of their commitment ultimately resulted in victory for the United States, first in Europe in May 1945 and three months later against Japan. This was the group that became known as “The Greatest Generation” and truly had much of which to be proud. For the moment, we’ll overlook their omissions in areas of civil rights, poverty, and health care, but their signature achievement was far greater than that of any generation since. They had a bond without a swagger. There was a high degree of mutual respect, and that carried over into the U.S. Congress where Democrats and Republicans alike were able to work collaboratively, not always, but when necessary. That is a far cry from today.

The sense of pride in achievement that the likes of H.W. Bush and Dole had is missing among the men and women currently in Congress who have served in the military. Beginning with Vietnam, the United States has not had a war in which it can claim “victory” since World War II (with the possible exception of H.W.’s Desert Storm efforts in the Persian Gulf). Nothing could symbolize this difference than the varying military careers of H.W. and his son W. H.W. flew over fifty missions in the Pacific and did far more than his part in the U.S. effort in the Pacific. His son, W., was in the National Guard, but weaseled out of going to Vietnam or in any way placing himself in harm’s way. Current members of Congress who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly put themselves at risk, but they lack the sense of bond that comes from shared victory or purpose. This may well play a key role in the lack of unity in both the current Congress and the body politic at large.

A possible solution might be a new war similar in nature to World War II. But we all know that is not only impossible, it is absurd to make war the basis for building national unity. However, there are at least two things that we can do to try to restore the civility of the era of H.W. and Bob Dole:

First, let’s not get in any wars that are fruitless and not winnable (see Just War Theory). Second, let’s find a non-combative way of rebuilding national unity. How about something that should be as a-political as possible – rebuilding and refashioning our infrastructure. Not too long after World War II, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated with Congress the Interstate Highway System. Now we need something more diverse and comprehensive and forward-looking in nature. In the spirit of H.W. and Bob Dole, Congress could do the initial planning now, and in the post-Trumpian era, it could be implemented. Not a bad way to learn lessons from H.W. and Bob Dole, and to move on.

The post H.W. Bush & Bob Dole fought a “good war” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If I hadn’t been watching Jon Stewart to catch up on some outlier news, I would not have known that Republican John McCain and Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be BFFs. Stewart was “reporting” on the recent funeral of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In a “break in the action,” McCain and Pelosi were walking together and having a jolly good time. They were laughing and looking warmly at one another. They probably did not know that at least one camera was tracking their stroll down Memory Lane.

It got me thinking that international funerals could be a great way to break gridlock King Abdullah’s was a special one because he was so popular with American Republicans and Democrats. It may have been his winning personality; it may have been that he was “just ordinary folks” when everyone went casual, or it possibly could have been that American politicians of both major parties just seemed partial to the leader of a country with 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

America’s “who’s who of oil” scurried to Riyadh.They came from Capitol Hill, from ‘K’ Street, from downtown Houston, and just about any place where Oil is King. Their roles in the funeral were passive; it was not for them to pontificate or even officiate. About the only thing left to do was to stand around and look uncomfortable. It would have made a great setting for the cast of the political satire, Alpha House.

Awkward moments are the times when guards are let down as individuals look for allies who can assure them than they’re not doing anything wrong. When possible, it’s good to be in conversation so that you don’t stand out as misfit for the occasion. So if you happen to be next to someone of a different political party, it doesn’t matter. You just want someone with whom to talk and to pretend as if there is no one else with whom you would rather be.

President Obama was at King Abdullah’s funeral, but the identity of Republicans with whom he chatted apparently is not for public consumption. Another mystery is what Republicans, if any, flew on Air Force One with him. Remember the funeral of Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995? Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was delighted to be a passenger on President Bill Clinton’s plane, but then he was miffed because the President did not invite him to join the First Family in the front cabin. Maybe Clinton should have done some “bargain shopping” with the Speaker on the plane ride.

Most members of Congress are comfortable when they are inside their bubbles. That bubble usually includes their favorite places on Capitol Hill, the fanciest restaurants on or around ‘K’ Street, the nook where they incessantly make the annoying phone calls asking for money, and wherever friendly crowds assemble in their district. But if you put them in a place where they have to interact with people outside of their bubble, they are disarmed. This is particularly so if the occasion is characterized by the “fish out of water” feeling they inevitably get at a foreign dignitary’s funeral.

So, in an effort to promote bi-partisanship and possibly even actual governance, I propose that foreign leaders die on an intermittent schedule, no less than four weeks apart and no more than six weeks apart. No matter who the leader is or what country he or she ruled, the United States should spare no dignitaries to attend the funeral. If possible, they should all fly on Air Force One. The seating should be “Southwest-style,” take a number, please. No media allowed; cordial socializing required, and for those who cannot handle the rigors of bi-partisan conversation, one of the Air Force One restrooms will serve as a “time-out” room.

Upon returning to Washington, the Congress should form a Joint Committee on Future Funerals. That would be somewhat of a ruse; the main purpose would be to outline items due for bi-partisan consideration at the next funeral.

You might think that this proposed solution to gridlock is an act of desperation. Well you’re right; it is. But short of any better idea, I’ll look forward to the untimely demise of foreign leaders as our best call to bi-partisanship. Sorry, Joe Biden, you’ll have company at future funerals.

The post Funerals can break gridlock appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There are Democrats who feel that Barack Obama is not progressive enough. There are Republicans or Tea Party members who feel that Mitt Romney is not conservative enough. But even the moderate versions of both candidates stand vastly apart from one another. This makes it frustrating to understand how any voter could be undecided about the race. How could they not find one candidate or the other to hold views that are more congruent with their own?

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat describes it this way:

In public, the American political class makes idols of undecided voters. We put them in focus groups, we let them pose questions during debates, we interview them and pitch ads to them and fold them into elaborate theories about “soccer moms” and “Reagan Democrats.” Officially, their existence justifies everything that pundits and pollsters and consultants get paid to say and do.

In private, though — and, O.K., sometimes publicly as well — political insiders tend to discuss undecideds with a mix of exasperation, condescension and contempt. Especially at this point in the presidential season, after months of debates and ads and op-eds have made the case that “the choice is clear” in “the most important election of our lifetimes,” it can be hard to imagine how anyone with an ounce of savvy can still be on the fence.

Perhaps the reason is that these voters have either little interest in or minimal knowledge about the key issues of the campaign. Yet many are viewed as likely voters because they consider it their civic duty to vote, at least in a race as important as the presidential sweepstakes. They do not approach an election with a particular political philosophy.

This means that there are primarily two criteria by which they make their decision. First is whether or not the “like” the candidate. They don’t particularly listen to the rhetoric of the candidates. It’s more a question of do they like the cadence of the candidate’s voice, his or her hair, whether he or she smiles, the clothes he or she wears, and how comfortable he or she looks when on the stage or mingling with voters.

The second measure is the ads that the candidates run. Again, it’s not particularly about issues.  Most of all it’s a question of whether they are comfortable with the ratio of positive comments that the candidate makes about him or herself vs. the negative charges directed at the opponent. Some people prefer nothing but positive; others like the attack dog ads.

In all fairness, Douthat argues that there is a more group of more educated undecided voters. He says:

If you want to think well of swing voters, and imagine them as wise Athenians rather than a Colosseum-going mob, you could see the improving odds for what once seemed like an unlikely 2012 outcome — a Romney victory in which Democrats hold the Senate — as a nod to the necessity for bipartisanship, and an attempt to make a significant change in Washington while also forcing both parties back to the negotiating table.

Even if this well-informed voter makes his or her choices in a way that ensures bi-partisanship, it is strange to see how a voter does not embrace either the compassion of progressives or the meager empathy towards the less fortunate of the conservatives. Do they parent their children in a bi-partisan and inconsistent way, or do they have a clear philosophy of how one treats others? I suppose that because people’s views on various issues are distributed along a continuum that it is possible to constantly slide back and forth. But in 2012, we have a clear choice for President. Obama’s and Romney’s positions on issues are quite different. and one candidate–President Obama– is clearly more sensitive to the needs of the middle class and those who are poor. He also has more of a sense of integrity. All the same, President Obama, along with Mitt Romney, have to try to attract the votes of this strange breed called undecideds while they shore up their bases. Clearly. this is not an easy job.

The post Who are these undecided voters? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“We’re gonna have to have a president who can work across the aisle,” Romney said in his closing statement in the final presidential debate on foreign policy.

Given Romney’s many references to his “successful” governorship–the executive experience he never neglects to mention–you might think the former governor was a shining beacon for bipartisan leadership; a haven for right and leftwing moderates. As with many things he says, however, Romney and reality part ways on the issue of working across the aisle. As Sarah Jones with PoliticusUSA notes:

In 2006, his last year as Massachusetts’ Governor (in which he was absent more than half of the year), Romney issued 250 vetoes, all of which were overturned by what the Romney camp dubbed a “hostile” legislature. It’s not just Democrats who didn’t get along with Romney, though.

“I was in a state where my legislature was 87% Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle,” says Romney on national television, closing the debate. The reality?

A Republican state representative said that Romney had a tough time dealing with the legislature, especially in his first year, because he was used to giving orders as an executive, rather than working with people to reach a consensus. Republican George Peterson said, “He was used to being a top executive, ‘and this is where we’re going, and this is how we’re going to do it.’ And this animal [the state Legislature] doesn’t work that way. Not at all. Especially when it’s overwhelmingly ruled by one party.”

Romney had such a “tough time” during his four years as governor of Massachusetts that he vetoed more than 800 pieces of legislation during his tenure. 700 of those vetoes were overridden, some of them unanimously:

Vetoes don’t scream bipartisanship, and Romney had so many of them that it’s obvious he was on bad terms with the legislators from both parties as Governor. All told, Romney issued 800 vetoes in his one term as Governor. 800. Nearly all of them were overridden – 707 to be exact.

As we liberals are well aware, sometimes to our chagrin, the President has practically made a case study of reaching across the aisle. Contrast Romney’s record as governor with Obama’s as president: In nearly four years, the president has used two vetoes while congressional Republicans have broken filibuster records.

Since we can safely assume Romney does not indeed have a case of Romnesia and does clearly recall his four years as governor–or at least can read about it online like the rest of us–the only logical conclusion is that his insistence on an ability to compromise was an implicit endorsement of the only major candidate with experience doing so: President Barack Obama. Finally, Mr. Romney gets something right.

The post Romney endorses Obama for a 2nd term appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In response to the Virginia General Assembly’s legislative assault on women— “personhood” and mandatory ultrasound legislation—Republicans, Democrats and Independents have formed a PAC called the “Women’s Strike Force.” The creation of this PAC is encouraging and suggests movement conservative politicians—and the Republicans who have gotten in bed with them—will not only lose their war on women, they may lose their jobs. As its formidable name suggests, Women’s Strike Force is not messing around.

The Women’s Strike Force PAC will concentrate its efforts on recruiting and supporting candidates to oppose any elected official who supported the recent “personhood” or mandatory ultrasound legislation. Seven of the founding members of the PAC are retired women lawmakers. They will mentor and train candidates to run against VA legislators who have demonstrated, through their voting record, that they do not respect women’s right to control their own bodies. According to the PAC’s website, all funds raised for the Women’s Strike Force will be used to unseat every Virginia Legislator who voted in favor of HB1 (personhood law) or HB462/SB484 (mandatory ultrasound law)

The creation of this non-partisan PAC demonstrates that women (and men) across the political spectrum—when it comes to women’s reproductive rights—will not tolerate a return to the dark ages. They are demanding that abortion services be available without having to submit to forced ultrasounds or other punishing and restrictive measures, and, they are fighting the ludicrous law that a fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, is a person. The personhood law would expose a woman to prosecution under Virginia murder laws for “suspect” miscarriages, and for the use of IUDs and other forms of contraception, which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Radical conservatives treat both zygotes and corporations as persons but are quick to deny rights to actual human beings.

The event that sparked the founding of the PAC was Virginia Republican delegate Dave Albo taking to the floor of the Assembly to joke with his colleagues that his vote for the ultrasound bill caused his wife to deny him sex. If Women’s Strike Force is successful, he, and his friends who supported the bill, will be looking for a job.

Movement conservatives, who are noted for taking the long view, have worked for decades to infiltrate state legislatures. Now that they and their opportunistic Republican friends have won majorities, their perseverance is paying off  in the passage of laws designed to keep women barefoot, pregnant and home schooling. But, these days, to survive economically, most couples with kids need two adults working outside the home, as well as the ability to control the size of their family. Polls show that the electorate overwhelmingly supports birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act. For example, 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives, even though the church hierarchy forbids its use.

It’s impressive that the Women’s Strike Force PAC is a multi-party effort. It could serve as a model for moderate Republicans, progressive Democrats, and Independents in other states to join forces to unseat radical right wing politicians who have extreme views that are anti-woman and out of step with mainstream America.

The post Women’s Strike Force PAC fights back against legislative assault appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The word compromise is in the air quite a bit. As we approach three years of what may be President Barack Obama’s first term, we have learned that Republicans have very little interest in cooperating with Democrats.

Among the ideas that have been tossed around to deal with deficit and debt problems is the establishment of watchdog bi-partisan panels. Such panels have traditionally been an easy way to kick the can further down the road and to accomplish little.

However, there is now the danger that bi-partisan panels could reach accord and greatly influence policy. I say danger because what used to be bi-partisan panels of Republicans and Democrats have now become panels of Republicans and Republican-lites.

The so-called bi-partisan Gang of Six, which  was active in deficit discussions, consists of three Republicans [Saxby Chambliss (GA), Mike Crapo (ID), and Tom Coburn (OK)] and three Democrats [Kent Conrad (ND), Dick Durbin (IL), and Mark Warner (VA)].

Ratings by the progressive Americans for Democratic Action provides a single standard to measure the leanings of all six senators. The issues that they measure include:

A senator who is very liberal would receive a rating of 100%; one who is very conservative would receive a rating of 0%. Here’s how the six members rate:

These numbers are illustrative, though not necessarily startling. On the surface, the Democrats are eleven percentage points closer than the Republicans to what would be the dividing line between progressive and conservative.

However, as frequently is the case, the devil is in the details. Votes on twenty key measures are used to rate the senators. However, these can be misleading. Take health care. There was no up or down vote on the single-payer plan favored by Bernie Sanders and others. There was not even a vote on the proposed public option provision for health care. So while the three Democrats all voted for H.R. 4872. which became the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, none had to step up to the plate on real liberal provisions, such as single-payer or the public option. Yet the three Republicans all voted ‘No’ on a very milk-toast health care bill, because they saw it as too liberal.

Further evidence of the overall conservative leaning of the Senate is that in 2010, five senators had perfect 100% ratings using the ADA criteria. Nineteen had 0% ratings. In comparison, one year earlier (2009), sixteen senators had 100% ratings, and only one had a 0% rating.

The evidence demonstrates that it’s wise politics for Republicans to suggest bi-partisan panels because they will lean considerably more to the right than the left. Current behavior of Democrats, including the President, indicates that they will not even consider real progressive legislation, so we have no way of knowing how liberal they might be.

Until such point as Democrats show more of a spine in at least addressing progressive issues, we would do well to be very wary of any proposal from either Republicans or Democrats to create bi-partisan commissions.

The post Bi-partisan panels aren’t really bi-partisan appeared first on Occasional Planet.

HIV/AIDS. Removal and banning of landmines. Healthcare for children in developing nations. Clean water in sub-Saharan Africa. These are huge issues. They’re complicated. Politicians, philanthropists, and the scholarly sort ponder ways to fix them, or if they can even be fixed. That’s why I’m happy to report that the problems above have already been dealt with. Or at least were under serious consideration and debated upon. I know what you’re thinking. “If these things were taken care of, why didn’t I hear about it in the news?” Well, truth be told they were dealt with by the United Nations. A Model United Nations anyway, and the results only lasted for the morning. But it still counts for something. It may not mean much for child soldiers in Liberia, or climate refugees in Bangladesh, but for the 800 middle schoolers in St. Louis who participated in the Model United Nations, it meant solving global problems. It was progress.

Compromise, not competition. That’s one of the main ideas behind the local Model United Nations sessions run by Civitas (the local St. Louis non-profit for which I work) Every year around 800 sixth, seventh and eighth graders research countries, brush up on their diplomacy, and pretend to be delegates to the U.N. There are no awards, no prizes for best delegate. Instead they focus on working together with other delegations to find solutions in a civil fashion.

Being a pretend diplomat isn’t very glamorous. The sessions take place in a local government center that can hold around 160 people maximum, not some swanky hotel or conference center. The dress code is pretty lax. Some students dress up in suits, some find clothing native to the country they’re representing, some wear school uniforms, and some just wear…well whatever. And other than a free snack, there are no job benefits. But still students show up and do what they can to pass U.N.-style resolutions.

Which is, hands-down, the best part of the program. These students have to look beyond their backyard, their school district, their city, even their country, and find someone else who needs their help. Then they have to explain to other delegates why this issue is important and why it deserves the U.N.’s attention. Each year we get around 30 resolutions that address global problems. Many of them are creative and filled with the sort of optimistic goodwill that adults could benefit from. For example we looked at:

• Women’s rights
• Corrupt officials
• Human trafficking
• Homelessness in Haiti
• Terrorism
• Child labor

To be debated by the General Assembly of the U.N., each resolution had to not only state a problem, but have a reasonable solution. Most of the solutions involved funding and utilizing NGOs. Or having developed nations step up and help take care of poorer nations. Once again, the answers were earnest and optimistic. Students have a very clear definition of fairness and are ok making countries that would normally shirk responsibility shoulder their fair share. Which is refreshing to see. I would love to live in the world where Saudi Arabia voted to increase rights for women. Even if it’s just for one morning. I sincerely hope that the students participating in Civitas’s Model United Nations program can hold on to those principles much longer than when the session dismisses. They are the future voters and policy makers of this country. Although they’re not aware of it, child soldiers in Liberia and climate refugees in Bangladesh share this hope too. It is progress.

The post We solved illiteracy, malaria, & human trafficking. What did you do this morning? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“We all do better, when we all do better.” These were some of the opening remarks at the January 14-16, 2011 session of Camp Wellstone in Madison, Wisconsin. They served a dual purpose; One being they were a quote from the late Paul Wellstone. It’s always good to remember your roots. Secondly, they were principles for us to keep in mind throughout the weekend. And I say us because the Occasional Planet sent me to blog the events of Camp Wellstone from the perspective of a participant. So from Friday on, we were all in it together.

As described in an earlier Occasional Planet post, Wellstone Action is geared toward getting people involved in progressive politics. They have three different classes at every camp session: activist, campaign worker, and candidate. I chose the activist track. The description said the activist track was “for people interested in citizen lobbying, issue advocacy, and community organizing, this track provides skills in how to win on issues.” It’s a wonderful idea, but what does it really mean? And what does it mean to progressives? And so I found myself in Madison, Wisconsin in the middle of winter with thirty other brave souls for a weekend of discovering just that. (To clarify, there were more than 30 people at the camp. I’m not sure how many other participants were in the other two tracks. The 30 just refers to the activist group.)

From the beginning the focus was on action. It was assumed that if you were there, you were progressive. Which in my group was true. We had people from unions, boards of education, senate aides, green energy organizations; everyone in the room was already aligned with a cause. The goal was to make us more effective at what we were already doing. Which in essence they did. The agenda covered recruiting volunteers, properly utilizing them, creating a message, communicating that message to people in positions of power, finding leaders, using media, and lobbying. It was a lot of ground to cover in one weekend.

Highlights of what I learned:

• Friday night started with what our instructors fondly referred to as one-on-ones. A one-on-one is just a conversation between you and a potential volunteer. The point is identifying people who share your goal and finding a way to move them to action. This was the cornerstone for the rest of our weekend. Everything boiled down to one-on-ones. What good is an organization if it doesn’t have quality people? This was probably my favorite activity. It showcased listening, building common ground between you and whoever you were talking to, and finding ways to work together.
• The other attendees to the activist track were all proud Wisconsinites. They gave me a crash course on local politics & used bootcamp as a chance to network with other like-minded progressives. Before the weekend was over someone had started grassroots organizing opposition to the upcoming voter identification law.
• Saturday evening we talked about what made a good leader, the different types of leaders, and how to find them. (Which included using one-on-ones and training suitable volunteers in your organization to fill the role) The whole purpose was to point out that no one had all the good qualities of a leader and in fact you needed a team of leaders. Which sounds hokey but when was the last time you elected someone and they did everything you wanted them to? Ideally the leader would be able to surround themselves with good co-leaders to fill in the gaps where they’re lacking skills.
• We talked about using media and new media on Sunday. I was enthused because this is my bailiwick. It was surprising because everyone in the room had a Facebook account. But not everyone in the room was using new media (like Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, etc.) for their causes. I’m not saying the internet is going to be the savior of grassroots organizing, but the instructors did a fine job of explaining what a handy tool it is. (After you make the connection to volunteers with one-on-ones, of course.)

Do I think that attending the Wellstone activist bootcamp was worth it? Absolutely. It was a positive way to connect with people who really cared about issues and wanted to change politics for the better. In the closing remarks they said that the three goals for the weekend that we were expected to carry with us were:
1. Continue expanding the base.
2. Make good public policy.
3. Keep developing positive messages.
Those are great concrete goals regardless of what issue/campaign/candidate you’re working for.

Was it perfect? No. Sometimes in groups we’d get bogged down in silly hypotheticals or the activities were a bit childish feeling. But this is the sort of program that’s needed right now. Something to rally people to take an interest in local politics. And maybe rally is the wrong choice of words, maybe it should be empower people in local politics.  Not because it’s going to immediately change the world, but because it can improve the quality of life in their community now. As  a politician once said, “We all do better, when we all do better.”

The post Camp Wellstone: I’m an activist bootcamp survivor appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right-wing Republicans showed their muscle in the 2010 mid-term elections, and are effectively turning the phrase “moderate Republican” into an oxymoron. But, although it may be hard to believe, there once was a progressive presence in the the Republican party.

Conservative leaders don’t want you to know about their progressive predecessors, because their existence would reflect how extreme they are today, even in the context of being Republicans.

Recently a network called Progressive Republicans started a web site in an attempt to preserve the heritage of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and others who have worked from the GOP side of the aisle to promote social justice and economic fairness. Unfortunately, clicking on their link takes you to a dead website, further underscoring the demise of even a glimmer of moderation in the Republican realm.

It wasn’t that long ago that liberal Republicans from the Northeast were in the vanguard of the civil rights movement.  By all rights, Jacob Javits should have been a Democrat, but he wasn’t.  He grew up in New York, in a teeming Lower East Side tenement.  His father was a janitor, and his mother sold dry goods from a cart.  He worked hard, graduated from George Washington High School in New York, and took night classes at Columbia University while working a variety of jobs during the day.  He later received a law degree from NYU.

In his youth Javits had watched his father work as a ward heeler for Tammany Hall and experienced firsthand the corruption and graft associated with that notorious political machine. Tammany’s operations repulsed Javits so much that he forever rejected the city’s Democratic party, and in the early 1930s joined the Republican-Fusion party, which was supporting the mayoral campaigns of Fiorello H. La Guardia.

This was in an era when, if you were a person of compassion and found the local Democratic Party to be too corrupt for your taste, you had a choice.  Not only could you join the Republican Party; you were courted to do so.

After serving terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and as Attorney-General of the state of New York, Jacob Javits ran for U.S. Senator in 1956.  He won by nearly a half million votes and began a twenty-four year career as not only a progressive Republican but as one of the most liberal voices in the Senate.

He was an early supporter of civil rights legislation, including Dwight Eisenhower’s bill in 1957.  It provided only limited voting protection for minorities, but it began an eleven year run of civil rights legislation that expanded rights for minorities in the areas of public accommodations, employment, voting, and housing.  Perhaps most importantly, enforcement agencies were established to guarantee rights.  Special attention was paid to ensuring voting rights in southern states.

Like many liberal senators, Jacob Javits initially supported Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War; he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.  However he was part of the rising tide of individuals and legislators who came to oppose the war in late 1967.  He reversed himself by voting to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and voted against sending troops to Cambodia.

While he was not a major player in the Senate’s efforts to unravel the Watergate fiasco, after winning election to his fourth (and final) term in 1974, he took an increasing role in foreign affairs.  Working with Jimmy Carter, he journeyed to Israel and Egypt to facilitate discussions that led to the 1978 Camp David Agreement.

In 1979, both his health and his political fortunes declined.  He was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease, but tried to run for a fifth term in 1980.  He was defeated twice; once in the Republican primary and then in November while running on the Liberal party ticket.

If we focus and Jacob Javits’ first and last political acts, we can truly appreciate how unique he was and how distant today’s Republicans are from his legacy.  First he joined the Republican Party because he didn’t want to get involved in the corruption of the Democratic Party.  Obviously, Democratic corruption still exists, so avoiding that could be a motivator for other “natural Democrats” to consider running as Republicans.  Finally, he left the Republican Party when he was defeated in a primary by the very conservative Alfonse D’Amato.  He then joined a party that wanted him, the Liberal Party.

Jacob Javits’ legacy stands on its own and it can be a model for humanizing the Republican Party and repositioning its “tent.”  First, it should be a home for honest and public-oriented Democrats who feel uncomfortable with their local Democratic Party.  Second, the Republican should learn that the door swings both ways.  If individual Republicans are stifled by near-totalitarian rule within the party (are you listening Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?), they can bolt and join the Democrats.  Anyway, it’s a much more enjoyable “club.” With whom would you rather have dinner, Al Franken or Mitch McConnell?  Thank you, Mr. Javits.

Note: Considerable historical information in this article is from a well-documented article in Wikipedia.  The paragraphs that primarily include Wikipedia information are indented.

[This article was first published in Occasional Planet in March 2010. After seeing the results of the November 2, 2010 elections, we thought it merited a second look.]

The post Progressive Republicans: extinct in 2010, but not forgotten appeared first on Occasional Planet.