Month: April 2013

by

An Inconvenience too Far

More than usual, Congress has flamed with hypocrisy over the past two weeks. With decisive votes they have demonstrated that austerity is something you inflict on others, not something you and your kind should endure.  The notion that the nation shares equally in the pain of budget cuts has been utterly incinerated.

First there was the catastrophe of eliminating Saturday postal deliveries. The bankrupted U.S. Postal Service was driven to desperation in proposing that Saturday delivery would be eliminated as a necessary step toward preserving its viability.  It was clearly an unpopular move that would affect most every citizen adversely.

But we know U.S. citizens will suffer whatever hardship is necessary to avoid deficits, don’t we?  We realize that we can’t spend money we don’t have, or so the deficit hawks remind us.  But no, this was an inconvenience too far! Rural voters were outraged by this threat to their six-day-mail-delivery way of life. Congress heard their cry and thwarted the economy measure proposed by the Postal Service.  Saturday mail delivery must stand, deficits or no!

Then there were the air traffic controller furloughs forced by the dreaded sequester. Suddenly the lack of substitute controllers was slowing down air traffic. The nation was experiencing flight delays. Business traffic was impeded, and citizens who could afford regular air travel were inconvenienced.

Turns out it was a problem easily solved by voting to allow money to be transferred from one account to another. Congress was happy to oblige before departing for a well-earned Spring Break.  Voters were mollified to see their representatives respond quickly to their needs.

Of course we know that this is just the beginning of crises engendered by the mindless sequester, budget slashing on the mere principle of promoting austerity.  We know that programs for education and health care are threatened. But who will speak for those who benefit from these programs and who will listen?  Is pre-school education as important as timely air traffic flow or Saturday mail delivery?

It goes back to the biblical principle, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). We have seen how our treasured six-day-mail-delivery and timely air travel can move Congress to action. What can we expect for services to the poor and the unemployed? Can we afford services that help a minority of citizens, even a substantial minority?  Or will we return to the tarnished principle of not spending what we don’t have?

The deficit mantra is sounding more and more hollow, as Congress springs to action to provide for those that provide for them.  The notion of what the federal budget can afford is driven entirely by the self-interest of the budget-makers.  Those who can not afford the lobbyists or lack electoral potency will suffer on the false principle of austerity.

What treasure we have in this country has been devoted to an extra day of mail delivery and the conviction that our flights must leave on time.

by

Desperation: Not a Winning Strategy

When a teenager reacts to a new curfew accusing parents of being “Nazi dictators,” parents smile at the comparison. Sometimes kids have a hyperbolic way of arguing that reflects their desperation to have it their way. That same desperate voice comes from many gun rights activists. But on Wednesday the parents, uh rather the U.S. Senate, caved on the curfew, uh rather the background checks for gun buyers.

Every law passed in this land could be defeated if legislators listened to arguments about extreme outcomes, the so-called “slippery slope.”  Background checks lead to a gun registry. A gun registry leads to confiscation. Confiscation leads to law-abiding citizens being attacked in their own homes. Suddenly the mere screening of gun buyers has created a reign of terror in America, with innocent citizens threatened.  Why aren’t we smiling at these nightmare scenarios, instead of taking them seriously?

Somehow the scenario of millions of desperate gun owners sitting at home, ready to blow away anyone who touches their weapons scares me more than background checks.  Certainly there are plenty of gun owners who do not stay up at night worrying about someone coming to their house to take their weapons, and many of those pressed for background checks this past month. But there are apparently too many who live with their guns cocked and ready for action, those who shoot first and ask questions later.

In fact, background checks would probably allow most of the hair-trigger gun owners to keep their guns at the ready to defend their rights or perceived intrusion on their rights.  They will still have the power to intimidate anyone who suggests they are the least bit paranoid. They still have the right to threaten their elected representatives with loss of funding or support.  Background checks would not change any of that.

Extreme defensiveness and unwillingness to compromise are not the hallmarks of survival in this country. Notice the fate of Prohibition, which gripped our country for a less than a decade.  Learn a lesson from the labor movement, which became too greedy in the latter twentieth century.  Or watch what happens to politicians who have fought immigration reform in the twenty-first century. Those who “evolved” lived to fight another battle.  Those who made a Constitutional issue over the slightest gesture of reform have become irrelevant.

So today a desperate minority has been allowed to make the rules or rather, to dismiss the rules.  But adult restraint is coming, and those who shout for their rights, will soon be grounded or at least put on a curfew. Because shouting “Nazi dictator” does not make it so.

 

by

Politicians Behaving Well

The peril of the “Background Checks” gun bill is featured in the New York Times, today, April 15.  While the uncertain passage of the bill alarms reformers laying siege to the Capital, the “deep divisions” within both parties deserves an historical footnote in this debate.  U.S. Senators are planning to vote for a bill on its merits.

Probably it would be overstating to say that all  of the U.S. Senators are voting their convictions or even to fairly represent their constituents.  Many remain beholden or in craven fear of the National Rifle Association and will do what it takes to maintain their sacred NRA rating.  These are not the politicians behaving well.

But the mere evidence of shattered party loyalty proves that the ruthless anti-Obama coalition or even the Democratic majority are not dictating how Senators vote on this bill. We are witnessing a debate on the merits of gun control in this bill, a debate that reflects real divisions among regions and interests in the country.

Some Senators are responding to the groundswell of public opinion and the heart-rending stories of the Newton parents. Susan Collins and John McCain have already spoken in favor of the bill despite the strong opposition they face in their home states.  Both Senators are not known for slavish party loyalty, but both deserve credit for bucking a strong pro-gun voting bloc in their states.  Their early commitment to the bill could cost them their re-election.

Other Senators take their representation of a gun rights constituency seriously, such as Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieux.  She frankly admits her vote will be dictated by a strong majority in her state. Although voting your conscience has a little more glamor, the vote to represent those who elected you is a credible motive.  We like to think our representatives will express our values in Congress even to the subordination of their own.

Regardless of which side of the aisle you cross from, the crossing involves a moral choice, a choice dictated by conviction of the merits of the bill under consideration, not the pressure of lobbies or of party fidelity.  It is an inspiring trend, even if it is fleeting.

Regardless on which side of the issue you stand, you have to enjoy this moment, this historical interlude when Washington is bristling with real debate instead of horse-trading and political threats.  These are the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” moments we learned about in U.S. History, the struggle for consensus amid honest differences.

Eventually there will be arm-twisting and surreptitious trading of gun votes for immigration votes.  The old sausage grinder will turn out the final votes for passage or defeat.  The winners will crow and losers will carp and the parties will position themselves for the next vote.

Let’s not forget this fine moment when Senators behaved as our elected representatives and cracked the dubious coalitions forged by their parties.  Like a wayward child, the Senate should be praised for the moments it takes its responsibilities seriously and votes with conviction. What a country!

 

by

The NRA: Defensive and Distraught

There’s something scary about armed citizens who will not negotiate.  Even armies occasionally meet in the middle of a battlefield to consider their losses and make treaties.  This has never been the NRA’s way. It has always been “Taking my gun from my cold dead hands,” as Charlton Heston famously declared.

Rhetorically struggling, the NRA continues to hold its ground in Washington.  Even the once-favored universal background check  is losing currency in Congress.  How is this possible, when NRA’s  public defense of Second Amendment rights has declined to an adolescent protest that we can’t enforce the gun control laws we want to pass?

Is this really a legitimate argument against passing a law: that crimes will still be committed and enforcement will be problematic?  Isn’t this an argument against laws enforcing seat belt use, or proscribing pornography or marijuana? You can’t control it, so why bother making laws against it?  It’s almost like wishing the offenders of the law “good luck,” because we don’t like the law either.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The NRA is losing the public battle against reasonable gun control legislation, so its Congressional attack dogs, like Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Oklahoma Senator Darrel Imhof labor over the enforcement issue. Criminals will continue to find guns. Straw purchases will continue.  God-fearing gun owners will face confiscation.  What proposed law would take guns from legitimate gun owners? It is not these laws, but any laws that the NRA resists.

This is why the NRA can not earn my respect. Every gun control law comes down to whether you can defend your home against lawlessness or government intrusion. Every gun control law trespasses on the Second Amendment.  Every law compromises your freedom.  In the realm of gun control, the NRA is no different than anarchists.

The NRA’s rhetorical stand against gun control legislation has lost its potency. Public polling continues to favor universal background checks and limits on gun magazines.  The proscription of certain assault weapons lag a little behind in the polling. But gun control advocates would still bring it all to a vote. Let’s see who will go on record against these measures.

Sunday night Sixty Minutes brought seven victimized families from Newtown, CT back into the public spotlight. They showed them passing out literature prior to the Connecticut’s passing of the country’s strictest gun control law. They documented the grim resolve of each family to make this cause a life commitment.  The victimized mothers and fathers argued persuasively that a smaller gun magazine would have saved some children’s lives on December 14, 2012.  None of them asserted radical positions on gun control. Some even defended the legality of some assault weapons.

That is the difference between the NRA and its opponents. The NRA does not know the meaning of “concession” or “compromise.”  It fights behind a battle front that never moves or regroups.

Eventually this rhetorical strategy will stumble, because the United States is not a “take-no-prisoners” society.  Battle fronts in Congress move every month on matters like immigration and education.  Gun control will be no different. The whimper and the bluster will eventually give way to reason, because we will not forget Rep. Gabby Giffords, Aurora or Newtown.  The rhetorical battle is already won, and the political battle is ripe for negotiation.

 

by

Stifling Conscience

The firing of Rutgers’ basketball coach Mike Rice for his verbal and physical abuse of the players has overshadowed the university’s prior offense of firing the whistle blower Eric Murdock, who made the incriminating video of the abuse last summer.  It is questionable what is more egregious: the bullying of college athletes or the vindictive firing of the director of player personnel, without whom the abuse might have gone unchecked.

Perhaps there were extenuating circumstances that merited the firing of Murdock, but it usually turns out that whistle blowers have a tenacious and  independent streak that make them less than model employees.  Regardless of Mr. Murdock’s personnel record, the fact that his firing assisted the cover-up of Rice’s abuse of student athletes shows the depravity of college administrators when large sums of money are at stake.

The large sums of money would have resulted from Rutgers being invited to join the Big Ten, the nation’s most prestigious athletic conference. Murdock’s sacrifice on the altar of academic greed exposes a contempt for ethics and casts a dark shadow on public university administration.

The public university deserves the reputation of bringing first generation college students into the middle and upper-middle class through affordable tuition, financial aid, and flexible academic policies.  Arguably it is one of the most potent democratizing forces in the United States, and it has struggled in this millenium from depletion of state support.  It has done more with less better than many well-toned corporations.

But the pressure to compete with its peers and the temptation of the media gravy train may compromise the mission of the public university.  In Rutger’s case the seeds of corruption were already sown with the hiring of Tim Pernetti, a former TV executive with no athletic credentials, as the athletic administrator. In retrospect this looks like enlisting the fox to guard the chicken coop.

Clearly this fox did not have the psychological health of undergraduates among his priorities. Pernetti’s decision to keep the video from the university president or any public exposure and to fire the video-maker, Eric Murdock, shows his contempt for student athletes.  The ultimate firing of Coach Rice after the video went viral proves that the cover-up through the firing of Murdock was the only reason the coach was allowed to keep his job.

Greed in public education is reprehensible, but more appalling is the stifling of conscience.  We can understand the economic pressures that compromise the mission of the public university, but to deliberately suppress an ethical stand against such abuse shows a callous cynicism  that has no place in any university, public or otherwise.

The roles of the athletic director and the university president in the firing of Eric Murdock should be carefully scrutinized to determine what was intentionally stifled– the bad publicity or the voice of conscience.  It is too late to salvage reputation, but the right to speak against abuse on a college campus can still be defended.