Here's Obama at a White House reception for the LGBT community last week - the first time any President has given a white house address on LGBT issues, let alone an address in the White House to that audience.
I loved the deadpan understatement of this bit:
"We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Obviously, there are some noteworthy policy statements in this - his confirmation that he has instructed the Secretary of Defence to begin working on a plan implement the repeal of DADT. A repeated promise to overturn DOMA and to abolish the ban on HIV positive individuals entering the country.
But what I was struck by more than anything else was the body language. In recent weeks we've been hearing a lot about the tensions between the Obama White House and the Gay community, but in this speech even the preternaturally self assured President seemed really relaxed - comfortable, at home, and like he is genuinely in the company of some of his favorite people. Of course, to a large extent this is true - as he reminded us in the series of shout outs at the beginning, folks like campaigner Steve Hildebrand and John Berry at the Office of Personnel are quite literally and not just politically "old friends".
But notice the casual banter, for example at about 4 minutes 30 seconds in when he cracks up at someone's cell phone ring tone.
He seems here, dare I say it, a bit like how George W. Bush seemed when he spent time with the pro-life folks. There's a sense of, "These are my people."
Or maybe, to be cynical, he's adopting that attitude precisely because of the reported tensions from the community - a way of cooling them off. But if it were merely a performance, it would be masterful.
Either way, I believe him when he promises action. Any day now would be good.
I have nothing to add to the President's statement except my own respect and awe for the men and women who are still on the streets of Iran demanding democracy despite the blood on the streets. We're not worthy. No joke.
Please don't forget to join us tonight to hear legendary blogger and Middle East expert Juan Cole give his thoughts on the crisis, and more.
' First, I'd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost. I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place. The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose. The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing. This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard. Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets.While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history. As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."
When I wrote my post the other day saying that we have to keep pressing our leaders on gay rights isssues, this is the kind of thing I was hoping for - a statement issued today by Senator Chris Dodd:
I believe that effective leaders must be able and willing to grow and change over their service. I certainly have during mine – and so has the world. Thirty-five years ago, who could have imagined that we’d have an African-American President of the United States?
My young daughters are growing up in a different reality than I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.
But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.
And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.
I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage.
And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.
Good for him. It's always hard to admit that you have changed your mind, with the implicit suggestion that you were wrong before. There are good men and women - Democrats AND Republicans, who may be open to having thier minds changed on this issue, if we politely keep telling them the truth as we see it.
By the way - Senator Dodd is facing a tough re-election fight next year. Now might be a good time to send him some money to help keep his voice in the Senate. Hint, hint.
Last Friday, first Dad Barack hosted an event in celebration of Fathers Day and talked a little bit about the importance of fatherhood - something that sadly he himself learned about by its absence more than anything. For a man whose own father left him when he was 2 years old, it's good to see how much Barack seems to really love being a dad to Sasha and Malia.
And a belated happy Fathers' Day to all the dad's out there. Including mine (hi Dad!).
There has been much kerfuffle lately from unhappy gay rights activists who would like to see more and better activity from the Obama administration on their issues.
And fair enough, really. Gay men and women have made huge advances over the past two decades in cultural/social terms, in terms of local and state legal rights and in other countries (including here in the UK, where they benefit from a civil partnership law that includes immigration rights for foreign partners). But progress at the level of the US federal government has been epically slow. Bill Clinton famously crashed and burned badly in his efforts, very early in his first term, to allow gays to serve openly in the military - and instituted the Don't Ask Don't Tell "cure" that may be worse than the disease. Later on, facing massive Republican backlash and the loss of Democratic congressional control, he signed the so-called Defence of Marriage Act barring any recognition of same state-endorsed sex partnerships at a federal or interstate level. Then came the W. years, about which the less said the better.
So folks are antsy. Edgy. Angry, even, and feel like their rights are well past due.
In fact, what am I doing with the "they" - I'M antsy, edgy, angry. Even us straight folks can get pretty invested in civil rights for our gay friends and family, and frankly I'm well past ready for some action - this isn't an area where I feel like we can afford to compromise over the long term.
[Two incidents come to mind, as a sidebar: 2) I remember listening to a fellow DA activist talk at length about his brilliant strategy to win over Evangelical Christians, and at some point he said Democrats needed to get over our "obsession" with gay rights if we want to win. I told him if we sell out the gays I was leaving the party. There's such a thing as right and wrong.
2) During one of our monthly speakeasies there was a heated discussion underway about gay marriage, and one of our longstanding activists got very agitated saying she was angry that we were even discussing this "when there's a war on and we should be talking about important things." I told her, "what we're talking about is important to me, it's important to a lot of people in this room, and the civil rights of US citizens matters.")
So, yes, I would like to see Obama get moving on this. Not INSTEAD of what he's already doing - health care matters. A lot. Ending the war matters. Fixing the economy matters. But yes, so do the civil rights of gay men and women for whom they have been a long time comin'.
BUT - it's worth having a look a little bit more closely at Obama's real record so far on gay rights and what he says his agenda is here.
For starters, I think it's worth making a clear distinction between 1) advances in gay rights that are still on hold but where Obama is on record as in support and 2) areas where he has taken action that seems to contradict his promises.
Gays in the Military
Obama has said consistently that he supports ending the Don't ask Don't tell policy. In May, he sent this letter to discharged service member Sandy Tsao, promising to fulfil his commitment.
On the other hand, the policy remains in effect at this point, and ALSO in May Obama's military discharged a gay Arab linguist - clearly a vital combat personnel if ever there was one.
The reason Obama's people say that he hasn't yet moved is their belief that changing the policy would require congressional action. So, is there any plan to push for congressional action? Well, not so much.
It seems that Congress thinks it should be done by Presidential order.
Stalemate. Frustration. It's too early yet to declare this an intentional inaction by the White House - but frankly they could do more.
Federal Benefits
On the other hand, the administration HAS taken action on another area of gay rights within the President's discretion - providing some benefits to same sex partners of federal workers.
Do watch the President's very interesting statement on this:
Now, these benefits are not as broad as they might have been - the Defence of Marriage Act prohibits Obama from offering certain key benefits, most notably health care.
But this IS a step. It's something real that a gay couple has today that they didn't have yesterday. Advances in federal recognition of gay couples aren't so common that we can afford to ignore them when they do happen.
All the more so since this builds on an earlier announcement via the State Department that granted special rights to same sex partners of foreign service workers - critical for these workers, whose spouses are often shunted around the world relying only on the good will of the US government to keep them together.
That's also something very real - and in both cases, I think, these policies also make for good government: making federal employment a more attractive option for the best and the brightest among the gay community by starting to keep pace with benefits already offered by major private sector employers.
The fact that these most concreate advances from the administration are aimed at federal workers certainly is partly because this is where Obama has the most direct control. It may also have something to do with the fact that the most powerful openly gay person to serve in this (or any) White House is John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel and Management.
My verdict: A good start in this area.
Marriage
And this is where all the action is - after what was for many a heartbreaking loss for the movement last November when California's proposition 8 passed, banninggay marriage in California, same sex marriage has taken a surprising leap forward with legalisation in Iowa and Maine, recognition of out of state marriages in Washington DC, and marriage just on the brink of legality in New York.
The spread of legal gay marriage means that gay men and women are now chafing against the restrictions of the (Clinton signed) Defense of Marriage more strongly than ever before as many couples are now legally married in their home state but unable to have their marriages recognised should they move out of state.
Obama has stated his support for overturning DOMA - and he repeated it again in the video linked above:
That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.
No one could argue that those are weasel words.
And yet...
And yet, much of the anger in the LGBT community has precisely centered around doubts about the President's seriousness on DOMA. And many of those doubts were given expression over what some consider a needlessly insulting DEFENCE of DOMA in a brief from Obama's own Justice Department. Although the administration's position was that they were legally obligated to defend the current law, many gay (and straight) advcates for marriage equality felt that the specifics of the brief went too far in making those arguments. John Aravosis, of America Blog, is especially angry.
But, Representative Barney Frank - the first gay man ever elected to Congress and still the most pugnacious, cutting, brillant, crusading congressman around - says that on reading the brief it's actually... not that bad.
“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
"And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.”
OK. Interesting. So who to believe?
For what it's worth, I thought this blogger had the most useful analysis of this situation that I have read so far - one of those (not so rare) cases when it can be useful to hear from a lawyer.
Verdict: Unclear. Obama has clearly stated his desire to see DOMA overturned. It's not clear whether he had any choice other than to allow his Justice Department to write that brief.
What you believe about this incident - and about all of Obama's positions on gay rights probably depends on where you think his heart lies.
Is he a reluctant advocate for gay rights, lured on by the necessity of cozying up to this strong Democratic constituency?
Or his he an instinctive advocate - someone who deep down inside would like to be bolder on these issues but who is determined that it is more important to be sure of victory than to move too soon?
None of us can see inside anyone else's heart. And Our President is a pretty cool cat - he's not prone to displays of gushing emotion, so you probaby wouldn't catch him welling up over gay weddings. But I've been watching him pretty closely for a long time now, and I've never seen anything to suggest he is anything other than sincere in his desire not just to talk a good game for gay men and women, but to really deliver for them. He's a pragmatic operator, not a crusader.
In Summary: I believe Obama has already made some important strides for gay rights - and I think he has a lot more work to do. Fortunately, he's got more time to make it happen.
I think we need to keep pressing Obama on these issues. Not because we don't trust or believe him, but because it will actually be a lot easier (pragmatically) for him to get these things done if he can point to an undeniable push from those of us who care about this issue. We should do it politely, calmly, but firmly.
UPDATE: And, in timely fashion (clearly following my blog closely for hints of important issues) apparently the Obama administration has now scheduled a series of meetings with Gay rights groups next week. Good.
Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions takes Attorney General Eric Holder to task for releasing torture memos (cuz torture itself isn't offensive, apparently, but sharing legal memos that provided unconvincing legal rationales for torture is the end of the Republic. Or something. I'm still waiting for my Republican to English dictionary to arrive). In the course of it, he seems to forget for a moment that Holder is, in fact, in charge now. Holder sets him straight, but quick.
SESSIONS: Well it was disapproved by your predecessor, Judge Mukasey, and Mr. Hayden, the CIA, um, DIA [sic] director. They didn’t approve of that at all. … You were willing to release matters that the DNI and the Attorney General believe were damaging to our national security.
HOLDER: Well, one attorney general thought that. I am the Attorney General of the United States, and it is this attorney general’s view that the release of that information was appropriate, as well as the president of the United States. I respect their opinion, but I had to make the decision, holding the office that I now hold.
I don't usually repost the mass e-mails I receive from the Obama mailing list directly - figuring that most of you will get them anyway. But this one felt special. Here it is in entirety:
Karin --
Last year, millions of Americans came together for a great purpose.
Folks like you assembled a grassroots movement that shocked the political establishment and changed the course of our nation. When Washington insiders counted us out, we put it all on the line and changed our democracy from the bottom up. But that's not why we did it.
The pundits told us it was impossible -- that the donations working people could afford and the hours volunteers could give would never loosen the vise grip of big money and powerful special interests. We proved them wrong. But as important as that was, that's not why we did it.
Today, spiraling health care costs are pushing our families and businesses to the brink of ruin, while millions of Americans go without the care they desperately need. Fixing this broken system will be enormously difficult. But we can succeed. The chance to make fundamental change like this in people's daily lives -- that is why we did it.
The campaign to pass real health care reform in 2009 is the biggest test of our movement since the election. Once again, victory is far from certain. Our opposition will be fierce, and they have been down this road before. To prevail, we must once more build a coast-to-coast operation ready to knock on doors, deploy volunteers, get out the facts, and show the world how real change happens in America.
And just like before, I cannot do it without your support.
So I'm asking you to remember all that you gave over the last two years to get us here -- all the time, resources, and faith you invested as a down payment to earn us our place at this crossroads in history. All that you've done has led up to this -- and whether or not our country takes the next crucial step depends on what you do right now.
It doesn't matter how much you can give, as long as you give what you can. Millions of families on the brink are counting on us to do just that. I know we can deliver.
Thank you, so much, for getting us this far. And thank you for standing up once again to take us the rest of the way.
Sincerely,
President Barack Obama
This moment of opportunity may never come again - and if we miss it, future generations will pay the price of our failure. The stars are aligning to give us one chance to pass real healthcare reform this year. Please give whatever you can to make it happen.
In a strongly worded online column at the Washington Post, Conservative commentator William Kristol asks the White House to speak up in support of the protestors of the Iranian election.
After a boilerplate introduction in which (for the 37,000th time) Kristol insinuates that Obama is a Chamberlain style appeaser who would have let the Nazis conquer Manhattan before objecting, he goes on to write,
Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight. Really?
But Barack Obama is president. His statement wouldn’t be crafted by those dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves and deserved some modicum of U.S. support in that endeavor. It would be written by subtle liberal internationalists, who would get the pitch and tone just right. And the statement wouldn’t be delivered by the notorious George Bush (who did, however, weigh in usefully in somewhat similar situations in Ukraine and Lebanon). It would be delivered by the popular and credible speaker-to-the-Muslim-world, Barack Obama. Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?
OK, I'll bite.
YES. I do in fact, think that the protestors in Iran will be better off if President Obama sticks by his current position - which, by the way, is not silence but rather a steady position in support of the democratic process.
First of all, the glaring (practically blinding) error in Kristol's piece is his meditation on the "subtle liberal internationalists" who are expert in the region and who he imagines would be the ones to craft a White House statement. He appears either never to have considered or to have conveniently ignored the truth that these people are almost certainly the very ones advising Obama to shut the heck up. Precisely because they know that any appearance the protests are American led or supported would add instant credibility to Ahmadinezhad's rapidly unravelling support.
Obama did indeed speak up in a direct effort to inspire precisely this kind of constructive opposition in the Muslim world. If Kristol missed it, he might want to take another look at that Cairo speech.
Meanwhile, looking at it from the other side, it is unclear to me what could POSSIBLY be gained from any direct statement from the US administration at this point. Musavi's supporters are doing what needs to be done - they are taking to the street in direct opposition, by the tens and hundreds of thousands. Largely peacefully - in the face of intimidation and threats. They are getting the word out locally through every available communications method - in the face of increasingly futile efforts by the ruling regime to block the internet. Obama's careful statements in support of "debate" in Iran and calling for verification of the voting results have struck a useful balance - providing encouragement to the protestors, but depriving the Iranian leadership of any opportunity to claim American manipulation of the vote.
It may be hard for William Kristol to believe, but you know what?
THIS ISN'T ABOUT US.
The people of Iran are in the process of transforming their country. It may be that the outcome will be favourable to US interests. It may be that the outcome will be a setback for our interests. But either way, this is entirely an event about Iranians, by Iranians, for Iranians.
Obama could win some domestic political support by speaking out on this issue right now. But the brave people leading this movement deserve all the CONSTRUCTIVE support we can give them. And a carefully constructed silence actually is, right now, the very best way we can help.
The amazing stories coming out of Iran over the last few days have been a real education for me, I must say. First, I was inspired and cautiously optimistic to see real signs of a thriving Democracy in that much maligned country - with massive election rallies in support of a moderate reformist candidate.
Then on election night there was mass confusion as the Powers that Be in Iran declared a suspiciously overwhelming majority for the hard line incumbent. Rather then accepting this result, supporters of Musavi took to the streets, with hundreds of thousands or protestors - most peaceful, some violent - declaring their refusal to accept this result. Calls for an investigation into the dubious results are starting to be taken up even by some leading voices within the current adminisatration. So far the protestors show no sign of backing down, despite incidents in which riot police have fired into the crowds (killing some, injuring many).
In my earlier post, anticipating the election, I made an analogy between the Iranian campaigners and Obama for America campaigners like me. But I feel I should clarify: the Iranian student organisers who have been leading this campaign are currently on the run, staying one step ahead of arrest. When they go out to lead demonstrations and protests they are literally putting their lives on the line. Yesterday the Revolutionary Guard stormed the dormitories of Tehran University trying to track down the leaders of this movement.
My life and freedom was never for a second endangered by my work for Obama. It would be wrong to compare what was for me an unrelentingly positive and rewarding experience with these brave men and women who are staking everything they have on the possibility for democracy in their country.
May this situation be resolved quickly, peacefully and fairly.
Sources:
As usual, fivethirtyeight.com is an indispensible source of info on polling and the plausibility of the official figures.
Juan Cole's blog has been doing a great job of bringing his wealth of experience in the Middle East to bear on the context of these elections.
And the always unmissable Andrew Sullivan has been flooding the zone with direct reports from within Iran and the best of the Tweets - this is very much a Twitter event, as Iranian dissidents have found their blogs shut down, but the administration has been unable to block access to twitter for vital info sharing.
Obama writes an absence note for a 10 year old girl whose parents took her out of school to attend his Wisconsin town hall:
First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.
Does she need a note? Obama asked.
Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.
"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"
"Kennedy," Corpus replied.
"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.
"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."
Having worked so hard to register US voters living overseas to vote in our own Presidential election, I can't help but smile at this report of Iranians in the US voting from abroad for their own Presidential election:
Ain't Democracy grand?
Today's Iranian elections are just about the most interesting thing happening in the world right now, with incumbent President Ahmadinezhad (I'm going with Juan Cole's spelling on that one) facing an enthusiastic surge from supporters of his opponent Mir Hussain Musavi. Apparently, Musavi's campaign has been characterised by excitement among young people seeking change and feeling disgraced by their current leader. They've been taking to the streets in rallies of many thousands, and driving the campaign through innovative use of the Internet and neighborhood organising.
Sound familiar?
Musavi is a moderate in Iranian turns - not a flaming pro-American, but someone who has signalled an interest in taking up President Obama's offer of renewed negotiations between the two countries.
It is very difficult to determine what the likely outcome of this race will be - polls suggest it may be close, but they have been very sporadic and unpredictable.
The big question is what happens AFTER the result is announced. If it goes to Ahmadinezhad, will we be able to validate the integrity fo the voting process? Already there are scattered reports of extensive vote tampering.
If it goes to Musavi, will Ahmadinezhad's people allow the peaceful transfer of power?
IF all goes smoothly (a big if) this election could be long-term great news for Iran, no matter who wins. The Middle East is unused to the kind of intensely faught elections, but a demonstration that the nation can thrive while still allowing open political dissent, even if the reformers do not get their way, could be a great step forward.
Or not - Ahmadinezhad has hinted that if he wins narrowly he may make moves to declare himself "President for Life". Ah well. Democracy: easy come, easy go?
This past weekend, Organizing for America kicked off a massive public effort in support of health care reform. I had hoped to host an event in support of the Administration's important work here, but I was unable because (as you have learned in my last post) I was suffering from poor health. ("My name is Irony, king of kings. Look upon my works ye mighty and despair.")
Of course, were I in the US right now I would not have access to medical insurance. And I don't just mean that I would have to pay a lot for it (though I would) but that I could not get coverage at all - this isn't the first time my back has gone out, so any US insurer would consider this a pre-existing condition and my coverage would be denied. Since I took voluntary redundancy from my full time job back in February and started working free lance, I've been counting my blessings that I at least will never go bankrupt due to a health crisis.
But I wouldn't suggest that the US adopt a UK style National Health System - the NHS does provide universal coverage but hasn't been able to match other countries in terms of quality of care (although, the UK system does consistently beat the US one on most measures of health outcomes - at half the price! Bargain!).
Instead, I'd like to see a system that focusses heavily on reducing costs and achieving virtually if not completely universal access to health COVERAGE - who does delivery of care doesn't have to change at all.
Our for-profit health system has made care in the US more expensive than anywhere else in the world WITHOUT a compensating rise in quality (read this excellent Atul Gawande article in the New Yorker for a better perspective on how and why this is so).
And most Americans now agree that something fundamental has to change - this is a big change from the 1990's and means this is the best chance we've had to solve the problem in many a year.
I think it's pretty clear something is going to happen in this area. But in legislation, as in needlepoint, the devil is in the details.
The bulk of the shouting is likely to be around what is constantly referred to as "the public option." You may have heard this phrase bandied about and perhaps, like me, you had a vague sense what this was all about but were unsure specifically what it meant or how important it might be.
Well, as best I can figure out, the short version is this - healthcare reform has two basic goals:
1) Reducing costs. 2) Ensuring full universal (or near-universal) coverage.
Both are essential, and doing the former will not only greatly reduce the burden on those who currently have care, but will also make it much easier to achieve the latter.
Although the government could simply regulate strict conditions for existing private insurers (setting prices, for instance) this is a pretty market-unfriendly practice and may in fact ultimately result in not achieving the full measure of cost savings that would potentially be achievable. A better solution is to create market conditions that put strong pressure on private sector firms to be very innovative in finding cost savings as well as providing low cost and appealing options for those who are shut out of the private system.
That's what the inclusion of a public plan will do. Because a national public plan can negotiate lower prices with providers it has a big advantage in finding cost savings.
For most advocates, the purpose of a public option is to create an "ideal" health insurance plan that can experiment, can decide to pay doctors what it wants, can use what Rep. Henry Waxman has called "creative tension" to compete with private plans, and one that will ultimately serve as a mean toward which all the private plans move. A strong public plan would force private plans to negotiate lower rates with doctors and hospitals, which would reduce health care costs. A "weak" public plan would provide some competitive pressure, but would not be big enough to force the private plans to drastically change their models. Between these two ends, there are many options. Here are five:
Apologies for the blog silence for the last week and a bit. I think I might has well come clean and let you all know I've been having a bit of a mope. For nearly 3 months now I've been suffering from intermittently sever lower back pain that makes it hard for me to travel, to sit down, to stand still, or pretty much to do anything except lie on my back and occassionally walk slowly. I've had lots of very kind advice and recommendations from many folks about what might help, and I've tried almost all of them. But right now there's no relief in sight and... to be honest, it's been tough.
So I thought I ought to let you all know.
In my life outside this blog, I've been working as a free-lance consultant offering communications and campaigning advice as well as activist training to organisations here in the UK. I'm loving the work, and I'm meeting some wonderful people through it. But, again, my health issues are limiting the amount of time I can spend on it - and I can't sit through even a simple lunch meeting without a lot of pain. So obviously, developing my little business isn't going as well as it might if I were able to do exotic things like going to restaurants and typing at a desk. (Right now, as most of the time these days, I'm lying on the floor with my computer on my knees. It's not dignified, but my cats like it.)
I really love writing this blog. As you all have no doubt noticed, I'm sort of an opinionated person, and it's been really fun to get my thoughts out there in pretty close to real time for my small but loving group of readers. I'm not giving up on it, and hope to do more with it in the very near future. But for now, I can't promise the same level of frequency in the posting as I've been used to doing in the past. Que sera sera. I hope you'll stick with me for when the good times return.
Earlier today I was trying to remember when I started this blog - I went back and dug out the very first post, and it turns out it was a little over a year ago - May 18, 2008. So I missed my own first Blogiversary. Curses.
Here's a reminder of how this blog got started - from the very first post:
There is a longstanding tradition in online debates that as soon as one party in a discussion invokes the spectre of Nazi-ism, the discussion is over and the other party may claim victory.
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html So I am ready to claim victory over the Republicans today in the ongoing discussion about US foreign policy. In case you missed, it the double-act of George W. Bush and John McCain have this week decided that Barack Obama's foreign policy approach of active engagement withour enemies through robust diplomacy is somehow equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Uh huh.
How do we even begin to unpick the levels of nonsense in this thinking? (In this analogy, does W somehow fancy himself standing the place of Churchill? Because apart from the thousand other ways in which they differ, there's also the small point that Winston actuallywon his war.... But never mind.)
Happy belated Blogaversary to me. And many moooore...
Yesterday, Kansas doctor George Tiller was assasinated in his church, apparently by an anti-abortion activist offended that Tiller conducts late term abortions.
Tiller was shot while distributing the church bulletin at the 10AM Service he was attending with his wife. This was not the first time he has been attacked by abortion opponents - 16 years ago he was shot in both arms by another anti-abortion activist. His clinic has been the target of bomb threats, obstructive protest action (blocking the doors, clogging ventilation shafts etc.) and a series of lawsuits alleging illegal abortion (none of which have ever been found to have merit).
Dr. Tiller was the fourth abortion provider to be murdered since 1993, but the first since 1998.
I'm taking a deep breath now.
OK. A few facts that are worth bearing in mind.
1) George Tiller was one of only 3 doctors in all of the US who was still willing to perform late term abortions. Now there are 2. 2) Kansas (where Dr Tiller practiced) is the only state in which such procedures are legal. 3) Late term abortion is subject to far more restrictions than first or second trimester abortions, and are typically only granted if there is a serious threat to the life of the mother, or if the baby is very sick indeed. 4) Because of this, the profile of women who recieve late term abortions is very different than those receiving early pregnancy abortions - typically these babies were wanted and the parents who make the decision at this late stage suffer from enormous grief.
George Tiller's murderer must be a very disturbed person - and to their credit I think only a vanishingly small minority of anti-abortion activists would in any way condone his actions.
But I also think that an awful lot of anti-abortion activists do believe that George Tiller must have been a wicked man - a "baby killer" - whose determination to keep conducting late term abortions must, to them, seem like a perverse insistence upon evil.
To those who disagree with abortion, and those who are especially offended by late term abortions - I can understand their point of view. I really can. By 20 weeks, a fetus is nearly viable - a little person ready to grow - and it makes a lot of sense that you would have tremendous sympathy for that little person.
What I would ask you to consider, however, is that your sympathy for that baby is likely to be no less strong than that of the baby's mother - who most likely carried her child for months believing it to be healthy and excited about her pregnancy. That mother - and father - have most likely been decorating nurseries and picking out names.
I'd ask abortion opponents to believe that they don't have some special moral sympathy for these babies that their parents somehow lack. Instead, I'd ask them to consider the possibility that after agonising and suffering, these parents made a medical choice that they saw as a loving choice. If you find that hard to imagine or understand, try reading a few of these first hand accounts from women who have been through it.
And I would FURTHER like you to consider the possibility that those mothers, having been through 6 kinds of hell, often with their own health deteriorating, nevertheless firmly believing that the best thing they can do for their child is to spare its suffering, deserve a qualified medical professional who will respect their decision.
In all of the US there were only 3. Now there are 2.
You may think George Tiller was a monster. Some think he was a hero. I think he was a doctor. And from the sounds of it, a very brave one.
I rarely pay much attention to the pile of bile that is Right Wing radio host, Rush Limbaugh. For me, it s kinda like a boycott - his product is outrage therefore if I buy into his deliberately outrageous provocations I become his customer. I have no desire to buy anything from El Rushbo.
But sometimes, even the picketers outside the store have to tip their hat when a retailer stocks an especially remarkable bit of merchandise. And so, I feel force to break my self imposed discipline to report to you that apparently Republicans in America are being lynched by angry mobs of Democrats. Or something:
If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and Constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority. It knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges, it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party. It is afraid of the firehouses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority, they know their position, they know their place. They go to the back of the bus, they don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up.
Ah. Right, then. If EVER a civil rights movement were needed, claims Signor Rush, it is needed for the mildly mentally repressed Republican party. Certainly it was not needed for the group of people who were actually being forced to the back of the bus, treated as legally unequal, deprived of voting rights and violently murdered in appallingly high numbers by men in hoods.
Indeed no. For THAT, you see, was merely an example of the glories of our federalism in which we recognise the inalienable rights of the state.
Rather, we should have held fire at the time and saved our organising for the inevitable moment when, 40 or so years on the Republican party would peacefully lose an election because they have so badly screwed up the country that almost no one still agrees with them about anything. That, apparently, is what it means to be an oppressed minority.
Ya know, Rush, just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're being oppressed.
But furthermore - why is language like this allowed to persist? Slavery and the later civil rights abuses perpetrated against African Americans in this country were an American atrocity - an original sin of the nation that we have fortunately begun to overcome. I'm not saying that we should hang our heads every day for shame, or that those of us who were born after the worst moments of oppression had ended necessarily bear personal responsibility for it.
But surely, we owe more to those who were its victims than this kind of glib comparison, yes? People were rounded up by angry mobs by moonlight and beaten then cut, then hung and then set on fire. Thousands of them were. In living memory. Even generations after we had to fight a war to ensure their ancestors could no longer be enslaved.
When people make these kinds of facile comparisons between whatever is the current Outrage Du Jour and the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, the Anti-Defamation League has made it a habit to object in the strongest possible language, on the grounds that this cheapens the memory of the real victims. I can't see any reason why it should be acceptable to treat the real victims of the Jim Crow South with any less consideration. Even if you are a professional merchant of slime.
