Please take a moment to remember that 42 years ago today [June 17], a security guard named Frank Wills called the police when he found tape over a door lock. What unraveled after that was surely the most incredible series of events in American governmental history.

“Interviewed by The Washington Star-News on the day Nixon resigned, Mr. Wills said, ‘We treat the president like a king, when he should be a man for all the people.’

“He complained that in Nixon’s resignation speech the night before, the president failed to describe his role in the cover-up. ‘I think he should have been a little more specific,’ Mr. Wills said.”

Mr. Wills, who played himself in the movie, “All the President’s Men,” died broke and largely forgotten, of a brain tumor at the age of 52 in South Carolina, where he had moved to take care of his mother. They lived off of her social security, and he couldn’t afford to bury his mother when she died. At the time he passed away, his house had no electricity because he couldn’t afford the bill.

Said the New York Times, “Representative James Mann of South Carolina, a Democrat casting a difficult vote for impeachment on the House Judiciary Committee, said on July 29, 1974: ”If there is no accountability, another president will feel free to do as he chooses. But the next time there may be no watchman in the night.’ ”

The post Frank Wills: Watergate watchman appeared first on Occasional Planet.

First we heard James Carville, one of President Clinton’s closest political advisors, who said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Now, with a clearer vision of what Richard Nixon did during Watergate, we can say, “It’s always the cover up.” That’s what happened to Nixon in Watergate, to Clinton with Monica Lewinski, to General David Patraeus, to countless other public figures throughout the nation’s history. The initial act or even “crime” may be bad, but that malfeasance is always compounded by the effort to cover it up.

If Richard Nixon had admitted to commissioning “the White House plumbers” to instigate a host of pranks against Democrats, he might have survived. After all, he had a tremendous electoral lead over his opponent, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD). Similarly, Christie had a tremendous lead over his 2013 Democratic opponent for governor, State Senator Barbara Buono.

Nixon held the country in suspense for over two years by not taking responsibility for his transgressions. Rather, he was firing attorneys-general, special prosecutors, or top White House aides, all the while trying to shift the blame. Without Watergate, he might now be viewed as a decent president who actually continued or strengthened numerous Great Society programs and also opened the door to China. His greatest mistake would have been his failure to get America out of Vietnam in a timely fashion. This certainly would have hurt his reputation, but not as much as mishandling Vietnam and then compounded by Watergate.

Who knows what lies ahead for Chris Christie? In all likelihood he will either be caught lying (did he possibly have a tape-recording system in his office)? If it’s not lying, then either his judgment of the character of his top aides was terrible or he was simply a careless manager of his staff. He has already been mimicking Nixon by firing aides, in his case with the crassness to not even meet with them face-to-face.

At this point, his best strategy might be to (1) admit what really happened, (2) resign, and (3) join a host of former politicians who wrote the book The Recovering Politician’s Twelve Step to Survive Crisis. He could give his honest assessment of what happened and then write a book about it, including advice to other politicians suggesting ways in which they can limit the damage when the do something wrong. It’s not the best place to be, but it’s about as good as it gets after the initial demise. I seriously doubt that he will take this approach, but when he likely resigns in full disgrace, he may have wished that he took this route.

Considering Christie’s hubris, I doubt that he will relent on the fight. Perhaps what we as citizens can do is to continue to be skeptical of politicians who are in the middle of bizarre incidents and plead for us to believe them and extend special forgiveness. It doesn’t pass the giggle test.

The post Advice to Christie: It’s always the cover-up appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Before dawn on a wickedly cold and rainy Thursday morning, fast food workers in black hoodies and t-shirts gathered on a parking lot on Lindell Blvd in St. Louis. They planned to have a peaceful pubic protest to call for a living wage for their labor. Also there: a crowd of people, including me, oft denigrated as “activists.” We marched to – and through – a McDonalds, heard prayers and short speeches in front of Dominos, Rally’s and Arby’s, then visited a Jack In The Box where the agitated manager locked the doors rather than have the crowd walk through.

Among the activists were several of us who in previous days had been to a “table talk” conducted by Senator Claire McCaskill’s office, visited Senator Roy Blunt’s Clayton office to talk hunger and food stamps, and attended a program on immigration reform.

Astrophysicists are working towards a Grand Unifying Theory, the next step past the Standard Model, to explain how interactions among electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces can be reliably described in terms of coupling constants. After that work is done, add-in gravity’s role and the elusive Theory Of Everything should come into focus.  In other words, the GUT leads to the TOE.

Fortunately, a small portion of this community keeps pushing for a Grand Unifying Theory of societal action. We firmly believe that everyone is better off if all are treated fairly.  All spheres – government, education, religion, employers and employees included – need to conduct themselves for the good of all. We’re well aware that Missouri’s motto “The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law” is more than gold lettering in the walls of the Capitol.  It is a statement of principle codified many generations ago by people (well, middle aged and old white men) determined to structure a state where every person was treated fairly, giving them an opportunity to earn success.

Supporting pantries which feed the hungry is a vital activity, and working for better pay and more job opportunities so most don’t need free food is the critical next step.

Despite noise and misgivings from Republicans, the New Deal and the War on Poverty made life better for Americans. Wires to provide electric and phone service reached remote farm families.  Factory owners had to follow rules on hours and wages. The old and disabled received a bit of help. Struggling families got food, access to medical care and other basic help. For an entire political generation, from the 1930’s through the 1960’s, the United States government and state governments (mostly using federal funds) made determined efforts to make life better for everyone. They carried out that quest despite economic hardship, the greatest war in human history, two other major military conflicts and a costly Cold War against the Soviet Union. Yes, government got bigger but life got better.  Poverty retreated from the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Not everyone liked that success, however.

While today’s Republicans revere Ronald Reagan as their risen savior, the man who started putting government back in its small place, I think credit or, more correctly, blame ought to go to Richard M. Nixon.

Nixon came of age during that great era of government working to help Americans. He had seen at point blank range the positive impact of Interstate Highways, Social Security and other ‘big government’ activities. Yet, he knew that a portion of the population – a shadowy sliver – hated the good that government did and the people helped. Nixon courted the Tea Party’s grandfathers, especially in the South. Note that despite the presence of George Wallace on the ballot, Nixon carried both Carolinas, Kentucky and Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri in 1968.

Rather than promote consensus, Nixon’s administration encouraged division. From Vice President Spiro Agnew:

There are some people in our society who should be separated and discarded…and we’re always going to have a certain number of people

in our community who have no desire to achieve or even to even fit in in an amicable way with the rest of society.  And these people should

be separated from the community, not in a callous way but they should be separated as far as any idea that their opinions shall have any

effect on the course we follow.  [Washington Post 7-2-70 & other sources]

In other words, if you’re not like “us,” we won’t listen to you.

Country club Republicans, cordial GOP leaders like Ike, were moving off the stage. Despite the service of people with honor and principles (such as Missouri’s John Danforth,) the party moved to placate John Wayne and other members of the John Birch Society.

Ronald Reagan put a friendly face on the new philosophy but he did his best to widen the crack. He had learned (as have other Republicans) that the trick was to appeal to that radical right, then soften the message just enough so that minivan drivers didn’t feel guilty voting Republican.

Many of us active in the non-profit world remember the early 1980’s. Not fondly. During Reagan’s first term we had to form the food pantry association to assist those creating hundreds of new pantries about the region. No one wanted to open a food pantry but they realized their neighborhood suddenly needed one. Community action agencies found their money coming from state-administered block grants. The first thing Missouri did, as did most states, was carve a big chunk off the top for administration. To save oversight costs, Metroplex (where I worked for six years) got paid by the state for “registering” poor people – getting their basic information on a signed form – rather than for actually delivering needed services.

During Reagan’s second term, funding for HUD was chopped by 40%. As a result of that cut and subsequent neglect, each year fewer Americans live in affordable housing.

Both of the tag team Bush followed Dutch Reagan’s lead. The one time George H.W. Bush dared to compromise, with a very mild tax increase,  he soon had plenty of time to skydive and do other things in his retirement.

Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert and now John Boehner work hard to exploit the divide Nixon opened up. The irony, of course, is that once you cater to the radical fringe you’re stuck with them as they keep moving the agenda further and further right.

Note that Grover Norquist and his “never never” tax hike pledge once represented the ideological edge of the right. Today he’s mainstream.

It’s become hard to find the place on the map where political ideas become even too far out for the modern Republican.  Here in Missouri our legislature actually passed a law making it a crime for federal law enforcement personnel to do their job. Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Louis Gohmert, both from Texas, routinely say things to reporters (for example, Gohmert implied that Senator John McCain had terrorist links) that even make many in the Tea Party cringe. Yet, Speaker Boehner gave Gohmert a half hour of precious House floor time to say Americans would be better off without health insurance. Then, when we went into the hospital through the emergency room, before treatment we could negotiate an inclusive price for our care and sign a promissory note: if we couldn’t agree on a price, we could go to the next hospital and strike a deal with them.  [CSpan1, 3:30 p.m. 12/11/14] Meanwhile, Cruz was on Fox News.

I don’t believe even as calculating an SOB as Nixon could have seen how his plan is destroying America’s middle class.

A member of the Missouri Secretary of State’s office recently told me that up to 40 initiative petitions may wind up getting approved for circulation this year. {Disclosure: I am a board member of the Missouri Association for Social Welfare which has filed suit over the condensed wording of one petition, to add a 1¢ per dollar sales tax for transportation. We’re not pro-pot hole, we are against regressive sales taxes.}  Besides calling for a sales tax for roads, there are already proposals to slash taxes on businesses and upper-income people, repeal limits on concealed guns, turn Missouri into a “right to work” state and other controversial topics working their way through the Secretary’s office. Without a Democratic governor, all those ideas would be one afternoon’s work for the current membership of the Missouri Legislature.

So, it’s time for a gut check.

You can join those of us working hard on many topics towards restoring the state motto and fighting Washington efforts to hurt our neighbors.  You can join those who want to create a state and a nation where the lucky and the rich thrive by kicking everyone else out of their privileged way. Or, like most people, you can sit back and complain but do nothing.

Choose wisely.

The post The “Grand Unifying Theory” and the case for societal action appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Remember the great Democratic southern politicians like Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina and Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas? If you are a progressive and don’t remember them, it’s only because you are too young. These were giants of the 1960s and 1970s, and while their records were tainted by their lack of support for civil rights legislation, their principled and effective stands on other issues made them leaders of the nation and true partners with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

It’s hard to imagine one of today’s southern Republicans working to promote honesty, transparency, and reason. South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham tries to act as a person of reason, but ideas like boycotting the 2014 winter Olympics in Russia reveal how radical he really is.

Sam Ervin fit in that category of politicians who were “too nice to be Republican.” He opposed civil rights actions, particularly the Warren Court’s Brown v Board of Education decision opposing segregation in public schools. But he also minimized demagoguery, not feeling it appropriate for him to stir up race relations in his state or the country. He called himself a “simple country lawyer.”

Ervin made a deep impact on American history through his work on two separate committees that were critical in bringing down two powerful opponents: Senator Joe McCarthy in 1954 and President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Ironically, then-Vice President Richard Nixon appointed Ervin in 1954 to a committee formed to investigate whether McCarthy should be censured by the Senate. Ervin’s second select committee assignment was investigating Watergate and related travesties during the Nixon Administration.

Ervin was an outstanding appointee to the special committees investigating the protection of civil liberties. In his own mind he was a “strict Constitutionalist,” and his vision of that meant protecting individuals from excessive transgressions on the part of government. For this reason, he was comfortable investigating both McCarthy and Nixon. Ervin had a very folksy demeanor, and even when he was being tough, he did so in a friendly, even syrupy way that often left his opponents speechless.

William Fulbright (after whom the Fulbright Scholarships are named) was best known for being an internationalist. It is difficult to imagine any of today’s southern Republican senators as strong supporters of the creation of the United Nations, as Fulbright was. Fulbright’s foreign affairs expertise led him to become chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that position, he was a strong, consistent opponent of the U.S. War in Vietnam. In 1966, his committee held several series of investigations into the Vietnam War. He greatly widened the national and international audiences who were aware of the inconsistencies and fallacies in the U.S. policy towards Vietnam. Fulbright’s hearings were so widely anticipated that they were nationally televised in their entirety – this being in the pre-C-SPAN era. He held further hearings in 1971 that included the riveting testimony of Vietnam Veterans for Peace spokesman John Kerry, who later became a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.

In the eyes of many northerners, representatives from the South were somewhat “tainted” because of the segregationist history of their region. When Senators Ervin and Fulbright came along, it had special meaning because it was somewhat unexpected. But both were intellectual giants and, with the exception of race, had strong ethical beliefs on how the United States should conduct itself. It’s possible to even forgive them for their views on race, for without them they would never have been elected or reelected.

It shouldn’t surprise us that our southern Republican representatives tend to collectively be known as “Dr. No.” When President Lyndon B. Johnson lost the South in 1964, it should not have been a surprise that a Republican dynasty would move us further back to the past. Regrettably, that also included the virtual elimination of any chance of having a true American statesman once again rise from the South.

The post There used to be great southern Democrats; not so with southern Republicans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As we approach the lame duck session of the 111^th Congress, we can learn a lot from how previous Congresses dealt with this challenging task.  In an earlier post we discussed lame duck history sessions from 1940 – 1970. It’s important to look at more recent ones, particularly with the challenges that face the current Congress.  The biggest issue facing the 111^th is the so-called “fiscal cliff” or “driveway slope” that challenges members of the present Congress to address a previous deal,  in which they delayed addressing the national debt.  If nothing new is done, the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded for all, including those for the middle class, and there will be another two trillion dollar cut from expenditures, including half from the military budget.

Here’s what happened in some recent lame-duck sessions:

Post-impeachment, 1974

Going back thirty-eight years, the 1974 lame duck was unique because, over the previous two years, both the House and the Senate had been consumed with impeachment charges against President Richard M. Nixon.  The most important measure was to confirm new President Gerald R. Ford’s nomination of Nelson Rockefeller to replace him as Vice-President.  That went smoothly but only a few of the ten other proposals that Ford submitted were passed.

Filibuster, gridlock

It was eight years, 1982, until the next lame duck session.  President Ronald Reagan expressed concern that only three of 13 appropriation bills had been cleared for his signature.  Congress promised to pass nine of the ten, but in reality only four passed for FY 1983.  With serious concern about a recession, five bills were delayed to be dealt with the second year of the Congress in 1984.  The lame duck session was particularly acrimonious, because the Senate held many filibusters.  We now call this tactic gridlock.

Impeachment, again

In the 104^thCongress,  impeachment once again consumed Congress.  This time the target was President Bill Clinton. While there were no charges for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, it was Clinton’s unwillingness to tell the truth and his proclivity to obstruct justice that caused Congress to have another lame duck session. Two charges against President Clinton passed by margins of 228-206 and 228-190.  This lead to a Senate trial on the impeachment charges in the second session of the 104^th Congress. Clinton was acquitted.

Expanding the power of the executive branch

The issue of unfunded appropriations once again came to the fore in the 107^th Congress, 2nd Session in 2002.  President George W. Bush had an agenda that included establishing the Department of Homeland Security. This plan was quite controversial, because it involved a major consolidation of separate bureaus, including the F.B.I., C.I.A, National Security Council, and FEMA.  Finally, both the House and the Senate agreed to the proposal on November 22.  The result was that Bush expanded the power of the executive branch,  in the wake of the terrorist attack on the United States on 9-11-2001.

Be careful what you wish for

Two years later the 108^th Congress, 2^nd Session, had a lame duck session because the uncertainty of the 2004 election resulted in many appropriation bills left unfunded.  Once Bush had won reelection, Congress agreed to most of his proposals.  Congress also followed up its approval of the Department of Homeland Security with the establishment of a September 11 Commission that had the power to thoroughly investigate the causes of and the follow up to the 9-11 attack.  This became a commission that was quite critical of the Bush administration, but the administration was able to block most of the recommendations.

2010, not very lame at all

The most recent and memorable lame duck session was two years ago, in 2010.  The battle royale between President Obama and the Congress, in which Republicans had the power to filibuster in the Senate, resulted in a strange set of fiscal and monetary policies.

President Obama wanted the Bush taxes for the wealthy (net income over $250,000) to expire, but Republicans argued that these cuts were essential to stimulating the economy.  Previous tax cuts for the wealthy amounted to mere 10%, from 39.6% to 36%.  If the cuts for the wealthy were to be rescinded, the result would have been billions of dollars for the federal government. To address the middle class, the payroll tax was reduced by 2%.  This move provided more disposable money all workers who were paying the payroll tax, but it also reduced revenue for the underfunded Social Security and Medicare programs.  Some felt that President Obama conceded on this issue too easily, without a strong push from Republicans to do so.Congress passed a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” measure that banned openly gay and lesbian soldiers in the military.  Now there would be no discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed forces.

Congress also passed a bill to provide medical treatment and compensation to first responders of the September 11 attack.  However there was a major omission in the bill because it did not cover most forms of cancer, one of the primary maladies suffered by the first responders.

Congress also passed an extension of the START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) with Russia.  Several Republican Senators joined with all Democrats to make this possible.

Perpetual can-kicking

The second session of the 110^th Congress will go down in history as refusing to finish appropriation bills submitted by President Obama and an unwillingness to reform the tax code, particularly with regard to the taxes levied on the wealthy.

Most of these issues have been delayed for two years until the upcoming lame duck session.  House Speaker John Boehner has already indicated that he won’t compromise on restoring the income tax on the wealthy to their Clinton levels. It’s possible that, once again,even as the  so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches, Congress will delay again.  Whether it’s a lame duck or a regular session of Congress, this is a deplorable way for our primary legislative body to operate.

The post Lame-duck history, Part 2: 1974 – 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With the presidential election over and quite satisfying results for most progressives, the next step in our political process is for the present (111^th) Congress to address a multitude of issues. Only a fraction of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget has been approved. The most important issue emanates from Congress’ decision to set an “over the cliff” date for both revenue and expenditure cuts. It’s essentially a 50-50 deal in which revenue would be enhanced approximately two trillion dollars and spending would be cut by a similar amount. The revenue enhancement would come from repealing the Bush tax cuts, ones that not only effected the wealthy but virtually all tax payers. The expenditure cuts would be evenly split between domestic programs and military projects.

What will undoubtedly happen is a lame duck session of the 111^th Congress. A lame duck session is one that comes after a semiannual election (held in even number years) and before the swearing in of all members of Congress for the next session (held on January 3 of odd numbered years). The natural time period for lame duck sessions is in November and December. Since 1940, there have been sixteen lame duck sessions of Congress.

Some sessions have not been particularly productive, doing nothing more than postponing legislation until the next Congress begins. Others have been quite fruitful, particularly in times of national emergency. By necessity, this year’s lame duck session will require strong action to keep the federal government running properly. or at least in a way that makes it safe to kick the can further down the road.

A do-nothing lame-duck session

After the first session of the 76^th Congress in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called Congress into an extraordinary session before the election, in September, to deal with the threat of war in Europe. The Congress declined to send major new proposals such as aid to Britain, to raise new taxes, and to increase the debt limit. This was a clear example of a “do nothing” lame duck session. Even with his power and strong political support, FDR was not able to get Congress off dead center.

Getting ready for a post-War world

In 1944, Congress dealt with some pretty heavy issues including questions of peacetime universal military training extension. They saw World War II coming to an end and wanted to be prepared for any future wars.  This was the genesis of compulsory military registration for males at the age of 18. At first it was just a nuisance, and then during the Vietnam War it became a hot political issue. The 76^th Congress also agreed to increase Social Security taxes, something that would seem to be close to impossible now, even though Social Security and Medicare are in much more need of revenue enhancement than was the case in the 1940.

Contemplating nuclear war

It was six years until the next Lame Duck session. The Korean War caused Congress to reconvene. In 1950, one of the main topics of discussion was the possibility of using nuclear weapons, especially since Chinese troops had become involved in the conflict. Congress did not take any action on this proposal, one that properly was in the hands of the executive branch and President Truman. He had already addressed this issue to end World War II in the Pacific theater. However, Congress did approve supplemental appropriations for defense and atomic energy. President Truman asked the Congress to take action on statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, but neither territory was admitted as a state to the union until the Eisenhower years.

Dealing with Joseph McCarthy

1954 was one of the most important lame duck sessions, particularly for the Senate. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had been terrorizing the Senate and numerous individuals (named and unnamed) with accusations of being Communists. In almost all cases he was wrong. The Senate select committee submitted its censure resolution on November 9, 1954. By December 2, the final action was completed. This “long national nightmare” was over as McCarthy and his charges were over as he was stripped of his committee chairmanship. It lifted a tremendous burden off hundreds of people who were under accusation as well as millions of Americans who considered McCarthy’s actions to be a serious threat to their basic human and civil rights.

One step forward, two steps back

There was a twenty year hiatus of lame duck sessions until 1970. Seven key issues were brought before the Congress: electoral reform (as we can now tell, little was done), occupational safety and health, equal rights for women, manpower training, funds for the supersonic transport plane (which still has not been built in the United States), and the Clean Air Act (which Congress passed). Congress did complete work on two of the seven proposals. In all, President Nixon vetoed four measures that were passed during the lame duck. Congress did not override any of these measures. Even though this seemed to be the “liberal, or at least moderate and reasonable, Nixon was not able to generate the kind of support that he sought from the lame duck Congress.

Delay, kick, repeat

Through 1970, Congress has done very little in lame duck sessions except when emergencies forced them to do so. The question is whether the “over the cliff crisis” that we will face between now and December 31, 2012 will be considered a serious enough threat to the country that it will demand action. At this point, a new (but really old) solution is being proposed: kick the can further down the road. The present policies on revenue enhancement and expenditure cuts could be delayed another year “to give Congress more time to consider the options.” In fact that may be the best idea because a 2012 lame duck session may be too short for a thoughtful solution to be developed. Of course, if action is postponed long enough, the issue may become one that the next lame duck session will have to consider in 2014.

The post Lame-duck history, Part 1: 1940-1970 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republicans have made an art form of trying to turn back the clock. I can’t help but wonder what’s next on their agenda.

Could it be that cigarette smoking is actually good for your health and second-hand smoke adds to the longevity of those who are in the presence of smokers?

How long will it be before Republicans are saying that while government has every right to be in your bedroom, it has no right to be in your mouth? If people want to smoke, they should be able to. If there is any scientific evidence indicating health hazards related to smoking, it probably comes from those wacko leftists who try to hoodwink the American people into believing that something called climate change is actually happening in our very country.

Even if the pseudo-scientists on the left are right and smoking causes health issues, who cares? Such a development would reduce the pressure to raise taxes from the left. If people die younger from cigarette smoking that translates into fewer years in which they will be drawing funds from Social Security and Medicare and thus taxes can be further reduced. Additionally, a disproportionate number of smokers are poor; so the GOP can launch its own “War on Poverty” by encouraging more smoking among those who can least afford it.

Years ago, the intrusive federal government mandated a warning on cigarette packs, “The Surgeon General has determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health.” That was just another case of leftists telling the public how to live their lives, particularly what goes in one’s mouth. It’s as insidious as First Lady Michelle Obama suggesting that obesity can be bad for one’s health and children should eat more fruits and vegetables and less sweets.

Many Republicans (and more than a handful of Democrats) prefer to not be confused by the facts. So when Republicans initiate their war on cigarette restrictions, you can befuddle them by reminding them that the first Surgeon General’s warning was signed into law in 1970. Hmmmm; I wonder who was president then who signed the bill? Oh yes, it was Richard Nixon, one-time darling of the Republican Party. Oh, that can’t be true. Someone from the Democratic National Committee must have snuck into the White House and forged his signature.

The idea of Republicans wanting to “lighten up” on cigarette smoking may seem facetious, but can you think of any other area of civil rights, economic security, labor protection, and consumer safety where the GOP has not tried to turn back the clock since the Progressive Era (which by the way began under a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt)?

Contemporary progressives have been slow to learn that conservatives long ago learned that there is no such thing as a victory in advancing human rights. There are only ebbs and flow. Beginning with the progressive era of Theodore Roosevelt; followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, we have extended basic liberties and economic opportunities to people who previously had no safety net.

Whether it’s contraceptives, civil rights, or health care, the rights for workers to organize, protection from predators, Republicans ardently try to undo progress that has been made. Not too long ago, progressives thought that the feminist movement reached a solid plateau which while not achieving gender equality, at least had raised the glass ceiling. But Republicans continue to work in obvious and hidden ways to undermine the rights of women.

A frequent target for Republicans is the Environmental Protection Agency. They seem to follow the thinking of Nixon’s Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, who said, “If you’ve seen one tree, you’ve seen them all.” Of course, this negates the fact it was Nixon himself who in 1970 signed the act authorizing the E.P.A.

It seems that progressives feel that the battles that they won are now engraved in stone and permanently inked in our history textbooks. Conservatives often see yesterday’s battles as just that, a skirmish that is but a part of an ongoing war. They live to fight another day. All too often progressives have been asleep at the switch as conservatives work to undo the progress of the past.

I don’t know what’s next, but as the great philosopher Roseanne Roseannadanna, said, “It’s always something.” It could be cigarette smoking; it could be something else. In any event, progressives need to be vigilant to see how conservatives try to undo the well-earned progress of recent years.

The post Coming next from Republicans: Cigarette smoking is good for your health appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Attention, lefties over the age of 50: The Republican we all loved to hate in the 1960s and 70s, the President we reviled for his intransigence on Viet Nam, the guy who blatantly broke the law by authorizing the Watergate break-in and the ransacking of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, the President who was “not a crook,” whom we scorned for telling us that “if the President does it, it’s not illegal, “ the anti-Semite who pandered to fear and racism, whose impeachment we reveled in—yeah, Richard Milhaus Nixon—it turns out that, by comparison to today’s radical-right, Republican political terrorists, he’s practically a liberal icon. In retrospect, he governed farther to the left than any president after him. In an op-ed in The New York Times, entitled “The Madman Theory,” guest editorialist Kurt Andersen [host of public radio’s “Studio 360”] lays it all out:

The overreaching Euro-socialist nanny state that today’s Republicans despise? That blossomed in the Nixon administration. Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision. Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam. And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president.

It helped—a lot—that, during the Nixon years, Democrats held the majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, Andersen points out. But facts are facts. I don’t like them They violate my long-held stereotypes and liberal dogma.  I never thought I’d post an image of Nixon on this progressive blog. But I guess we oldsters will just have buck up, adjust our thinking and live with the painful reality that even Richard Nixon—Nixon!—was better than the Republicans we have today.     [Image credit: Wikimedia Commons/Public domain]

The post Sad state of affairs: Richard Nixon now qualifies as a reasonable Republican appeared first on Occasional Planet.

NOTE: Today, June 17, 2010, is the thirty-eighth anniversary of the Watergate break-in.

We have to give Richard Nixon some credit; his disregard for the Constitution and outrageous behavior during the Watergate era opened the door to fame for some rather remarkable Americans.  The list runs the gamut from a key source of information with an intense penchant for secrecy and anonymity (Mark Felt – aka Deep Throat) to a 6’6″ Republican senator who loved the limelight and showed that he was no lackey for the leaders of his party.  Lowell Weicker of Connecticut had little patience for dishonesty and duplicity; he did not let the ‘R’ to the right of his name inhibit him from turning  up the heat on the leader of his own party.

How atypical of a Republican was Weicker?  Enough to cause him to bolt the party in 1990 and become one of the few independents to be elected governor of his state in modern times.  Enough to support Democratic New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley for president in 2000.  Enough to support fellow New Englander Howard Dean for president in 2004.  Enough to endorse Barack Obama for president in 2008.

But Weicker is most often associated with Watergate.  Perhaps the ranking minority member on the committee, Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, uttered the most lasting question of the hearings, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”  This phrase almost became a mantra for all senators with all witnesses.  But Weicker was the steam that turned the turbine of Republican intensity to get to the bottom of the story, even if the culprits were members of his own party.

Richard J. McGowan reported in an article entitled “Watergate Revisited” in The Barnes Review.org the following about Weicker and the committee:

“Miraculously, the Senate Watergate Committee did play a pivotal role and ironically, the select committee would have collapsed from inertia and internal bloodletting had not the least likely junior senator from Connecticut, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., personally taken charge. This is the untold story of how the leftist oaf Weicker became the White Knight of Watergate, however briefly. It was his shining moment in a checkered career in politics. Here is an insider’s account of his and the committee’s performance in that political soap opera about national betrayal.

If one had searched for the most incompetent group of politicians—politically biased in every way—you might have come up with the cast for the Senate Watergate Committee, more formally known as the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.

And then there was Weicker—all 6’ 6” of him—the bull in the china shop, the Jolly Green Maverick who had no love for Nixon and Chuck Colson in particular. Weicker’s father, who was then with the tariff-concerned Textile Conference, had been contacted at some point by Colson. The White House underling told the senior Weicker that the administration would appreciate junior’s pro-vote on the controversial anti-ballistic missile system. It was not exactly a bribe offer, but when Weicker heard about it from his father he rushed down to the White House and blasted the ears off Colson.

Colson never seemed to learn. He approached Weicker in his office during the hearings to plead his case. Before he opened his mouth, Weicker went ballistic, and a shaken Colson fled the office. The run-in made headlines.

Like no other member of the committee, Weicker was prepared. Before the panel was even formally announced, Weicker had formed his own investigative unit that interviewed scores of former and current White House employees and campaign officials. Weicker was astutely aware that there were bigger culprits out there than G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord. He zeroed in on Nixon’s chief-of-staff Bob Haldeman.

So make your list of “stars of Watergate.”  Besides Deep Throat, you naturally have Woodward and Bernstein, who tenaciously followed the story in spite of repeated and largely hollow challenges to their work.  Ben Bradlee and other editors from the Post provided backing to the reporters that would seem impossible today (e.g., CBS and Dan Rather).  White House Counsel John Dean may have demonstrated the most remarkable memory of any witness to testify before Congress in recent years.  Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District court for the District of Columbia would not be bullied.  Rather, along with Leslie Stahl and Daniel Schorr, carried on the best tradition of Edward R. Murrow at CBS

news.  Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield told of the presence of a White House taping system, perhaps the most important revelation of the Watergate hearings.  But don’t forget the “little guys” like minority counsel Donald Sanders who asked Butterfield the question about the taping system.  And then there’s the man without whose vigilance the break-in might have succeeded, Frank Wills the security guard at the Watergate on the fateful evening of June 17, 1973.

But Weicker’s role was crucial.  The Senate hearings were the only part of the process of unraveling the Watergate mysteries that were public and in “real time.”  While there were other Republicans on the committee who tried to defend Nixon at all costs, Weicker brought credibility to himself, his party, and the committee by being relentless in his pursuit of the truth.  He didn’t shy away from attacking other members of his own party.  Contrast this with the way in which Arlen Specter, when a Republican senator, interrogated an innocent Anita Hill without mercy during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

Weicker is from Connecticut, and few states match it in producing household names for political junkies.  Just look at those who preceded and succeeded Weicker in office as well at those against whom he ran.  Prior to Weicker’s election to the Senate in 1970, the seat was held by one Thomas Dodd.  If that doesn’t ring a bell, then perhaps his son, Chris Dodd – a current Senator from Connecticut, will.  And when Weicker lost his bid for a fourth term in 1988, who ousted him?  None other than Joe Lieberman, the other current senator.  And if we’re looking for parallels, Lieberman now considers himself an Independent (an act of expediency after he lost the 2006 Democratic primary to Ned LaMont).   This race would have been even more interesting had Weicker done more than flirt with the possibility of running against Lieberman again.  Wicker strongly opposed Lieberman’s support of the war in Iraq.

And if you’re looking for another connection between Weicker and another political independent, travel west to Minnesota.  What does former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura have in common with Weicker?  Wrestling.  Ventura did it and Weicker keeps it going as a member of the Board of directors for World Wrestling Entertainment since 1999.

With the Republican party being so lock-step in nature, it is indeed refreshing to remind ourselves that there have been and even are Republicans who have let conviction supersede loyalty.  If it has meant bolting the party, so be it; we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

The post Progressive Republican’s key role in Watergate probe appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Okay, you hear Scranton, Pennsylvania and what do you think?  In contemporary America, most think of a branch office of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company and its quirky branch supervisor Michael Scott (played by Steve Carell).  But one of the descendants of the founders of the city, steel moguls Selden and George Scranton, was William Scranton III, the progressive (or at least moderate) Republican governor of the state from 1963-1967.

No sooner had he been inaugurated as governor than a “draft Scranton for president” movement began.  This might not have happened in ordinary times, but in early 1963, it was becoming clear that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona would be a serious Republican candidate for president in 1964.  An affable fellow whom John F. Kennedy liked and hoped would win the nomination so that they could have a traveling debate show, Goldwater was a serious threat to the moderate-to-progressive wing of the Republican Party.  This included Senator Jacob Javits about whom I have previously written.  Richard Nixon was about as conservative as moderate members of the GOP could tolerate; Goldwater was considered beyond the pale.

In 1963, Nixon was “between comebacks” and not available to challenge Goldwater.  Moderate Republicans, mostly from the Northeast, looked for “one of their own” to challenge Goldwater.  William Scranton had all the credentials — coming from a prominent family, a graduate of Yale and Yale Law School, a Presbyterian, and attorney by profession.  He had served a term in the House of Representatives and had some foreign policy experience, having served as a special assistant to U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.  While his resume was not full of accomplishments, the key to his viability was that he was “clean, good-looking, and calm in demeanor.”

But Goldwater had learned a lot from his friend across the aisle, Kennedy, and he put together a juggernaut campaign in 1964, staffed by young, energetic, passionate, and resourceful individuals.  Kennedy was going to be tough to defeat, and after Kennedy’s tragic assassination, Lyndon Johnson had the strength of the nation’s sympathy, so mainstream Republicans largely left the path to their nomination open for Goldwater.  Scranton never declared himself as a candidate to oppose Goldwater; he just didn’t resist the “Draft Scranton” campaign initiated by his fellow northeastern Republicans.

Scranton served the entirety of his term as governor from 1963 – 1967.  He focused on the state’s educational needs, pushing through legislation creating the state’s community college system and a Higher Education Assistance Agency.  Nothing earth-shattering, at least for the times, but unlike many of today’s Republican governors, he did not try to dismantle what was there.  Under Pennsylvania law he was limited to one term, and when Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, on the wave of one of his numerous comebacks, Scranton accepted a position as a special envoy to the Middle East.  He favored an “even-handed” policy in the Middle East, meaning that he endured some enmity from the American Jewish community.

When Gerald Ford assumed the presidency following another Nixon demise (his resignation), the new president asked Scranton to become United States ambassador to the United Nations.  Scranton accepted the short-term appointment and focused on human rights; again a strategy rather foreign to recent Republican ambassadors to the U.N.

Also to Scranton’s credit is that he assumed a very difficult task following the Kent State shootings in 1970.  He was chairperson of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest.  The “Scranton Report” called the Kent State shootings “unjustified” and acknowledged that the ebb and flow of campus unrest was directly related to U.S. escalation in Vietnam and Cambodia.

As we write this, Scranton is 92 years old.  His name has long since drifted from the headlines.  His record includes accomplishments in the fields of education, human rights, and international cooperation.  In light of the positions and demeanor of today’s Republican Party, his greatest accomplishments may lie in what he did not do.  He did not seek to fragment; he did not demonize; he did not participate in the dismantling of government that Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan advocated during the time that Scranton was active.

If he were in the U.S. Senate now, would Scranton collaborate with Democrats?  This falls into the world of conjecture, but it’s likely that he would keep his distance from the likes of Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.  That would be a first step for today’s Republicans; to have the temerity to “just say no” to the bullying of its leaders in Congress and most virulent supporters in the populace.  Of course this all begs the question of whether he could be elected today.  It will be a fine day for the country when a William Scranton can be present and accepted in the tent known as the Republican Party.

The post Another (possibly) progressive Republican appeared first on Occasional Planet.