US Elections

Since watching Hillary Clinton's Remarks on Internet Freedom earlier this year, I've long wondered how the United States' commitment to internet freedom is reconcilable with the Senator Conroy's proposed Internet Filter, know as "the clean feed".  The proposed mandatory, ISP-level filter would give the government the capacity to censor and block sites in Australia, and the list of what was to be blocked is to be confidential.

Last week, I read that State Department officials had expressed concern over the filter, so figured I'd take the opportunity to submit a question on it's implications for Australian- US relations.  I asked:

"Given the United States' commitment to internet freedom, articulated by Hilary Clinton in January, does Australia's proposed internet filter threaten our relationship in any way? Can the US continue to pressure Iran and China about internet freedom if they don't similarly pressure Australia?"

The Ambassador replied:

I didn’t think I could - you know, I went to the dentist today, so I thought I had already done this but my - well, look, on the issue of the internet, we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free. It needs to be free of the way the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They have to be shared. They’re shared resources of all of the people of the world. To the extent that there are disagreements and trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends and so we’ve been working with Australia on this issue. We’ve had healthy discussions and we’re - I’m sure we’ll be able to find a path forward.

The discussion then followed, with a number of Australian political figures who were on the panel weighing in their their views.  The video and the transcript are available here.  The Ambassador's response generated a bit of press coverage, with the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age and The Australian both reporting on his answer.

After I got home, in my own vanity, I read a lot of the reactions people had to the conversation, and I found it fascinating that many kept suggesting that the United States should mind its own business.  Aside from being a really naive approach to international relations, such suggestions ignored the second part of my questions as, I should point out, did the panel.

With the US's commitment to encouraging democracy around the world, the powers of the internet as a means to politically organise can't be overlooked.  During the Iranian elections last year, the internet was a key means by which information was spread.  Protecting free internet is an important political task, and one that fits very well with the United States' foreign policy.

In order to ensure the US had the moral authority to encourage internet freedom, it must do so consistently.  It cannot ignore internet censorship in Australia- and make no mistake, that is what a filter is- while putting pressure on other countries to ensure their internet is free.  The United States needs to be consistent in this.

Hide

The timing of the announcement is interesting: the confirmation process will now stretch toward the midterms, and provide each party with the opportunity to control and change the narrative.  If they nominate a liberal justice, will the Democrats be able to paint Republicans as obstructionist and unwilling to govern?  They've had some trouble gaining traction with this narrative before, but in this case, it may just work.  But similarly, the Republicans could use the nomination of a liberal justice to say the Democrats have been overly partisan in the 111th Congress and worked against the will of the populace.

I think the Democrats best hope is to use the Citizens United decision to sell the need for a liberal justice.  The simple fact is that that decision is woefully unpopular, and the court was split between conservative and liberal justices.  Use Citizens United. Warn the public that the Republicans have picked justices who are beholden to big business, and that we need liberal justices to fight this.  Yes, the balance of the court won't shift, but we need to hold the left flank to ever have any hope of preventing more decisions like Citizens United.

The balance of the court has undoubtedly shifted to the right over the last 30 years, and the court has lacked for a new, truly liberal fighter for a long while.  After Bush's very conservative nominations, a strong liberal voice is all the more necessary.  The questions remains, though, that after a frustrating, though ultimately successful, battle over health care, does the Obama administration have another fight like that in them?

I hope so.

Should the President decide to go with a truly liberal justice, there are plenty of amply suitable candidates.  We at the USSC will undoubtedly offer our own analysis and opinions as the nomination battle continues.  But as to my personal preferred pick?  I'm very fond of Harold Koh, and would love to see him nominated.

Hide

There’s a lovely quote about Lincoln from W. E. B. Dubois which, I think, beautifully captures what made him great:

“I love him, not because he was perfect, but because he was not perfect, yet triumphed. There was something left so that at the crisis, he was big enough to be inconsistent.”

To which Blight added:

“I’d argue that the most important thing you can understand about Abraham Lincoln is tat he had the capacity for growth.” 

Big enough to be inconsistent. A leader who owned his mistakes, who bided his time, who changed his mind.  A leader who acted on principle, but could be convinced.  A leader who put his conviction about what was the right thing to do ahead of his own political fate.

Later in the lecture series, Blight tells the story of when Abraham Lincoln called Frederick Douglass to the White House, a few months ahead of the 1864 election.  With the war dragging on, and that summer’s crucial victories yet to swing the momentum, Lincoln was genuinely concerned- in fact, genuinely believed- he would lose the presidency, and that his successor would make a treaty with the Confederacy.  So he called Douglass to the White House, and asked him if he would lead an effort to smuggle as many enslaved persons from the South to protection behind Union lines, ahead of the election. Douglass returned to his home, flabbergasted, and began to make plans and ask advice on how he might begin such an endeavour. 

Union victories soon rendered the plans redundant, but the story illustrates the greatness of Lincoln.  When his defeat seemed likely, he wanted not to protect act in a manner that would sure up electoral success, but to ensure that what he had fought for would be preserved. He was a pragmatist, a realist, yet at the same time one who pursued high ideals.  He was a real politician who governed in the real world he faced, at the same time he sought to change it.

On Saturday, Barack Obama addressed the House Democratic caucus, and he quoted Lincoln:

"I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

How very appropriate for that sentiment to have echoed with the Obama, for the nature of his approach to leadership, more closely than any President since, resembles Lincoln’s own.  He too demonstrates an understanding for the need to carefully balance one’s sense of duty with political realities. Obama’s patience- his powerful patience- is much like Lincoln’s own.  Both waited to act, thought over what they were doing, and took the long, difficult road, rather than acting impulsively.

Obama’s thoughtfulness is also much like Lincoln’s.  Unlike so many other leaders, he is both open to being convinced by good ideas, and willing to admit his own error.  There was a powerful moment, during the health care summit, when John McCain brought up the Florida Medicare Advantage deal, claiming it was unfair.  Yes, Obama admitted, it was, and he’d prefer to see it gone.  There was no attempt to justify it, or deny that McCain had a point.  For Obama, the right thing was to simply acknowledge the truth.

And it is, in part, by emulating the best of Lincoln that Obama was able, with obvious help, to usher this health care bill through.  After 100 years of trying, the United States has universal health care.  And it took a leader with statesmanship much like Lincoln’s to get it done.

And Obama’s own oratory sometimes even broaches the soaring height’s of Lincoln’s own. I am certain some of yesterday’s remarks after the bill passed will be quoted for generations:

In the end, what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. We did not avoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. We did not fear our future -- we shaped it.

*Again, I cannot recommend this lecture series more highly.  It has enhanced my understanding of the United States in a way I can hardly articulate.  Understanding the American Civil War only serves to enhance your understanding of every aspect of American life: politics, culture, inequality, religion. And beyond that, Blight, who visited the USSC last year, is simply a phenomenal lecturer.  The entire series- 26 hour-long lectures- is available entirely free of charge online at the Open Yale site or through iTunes U.  Download a few and take a listen. I challenge you not to be blown away.

Hide

It's looking increasingly likely that the bill will go through (InTrade has it at 95 at this point).

This is the vote that had the potential to change everything.  It will change the narrative on Obama's first term: he'll go from being presented as moderately successful, with one major failure, to having one of the most successful first two years of any Presidency.  The momentum is very likely to shift as we start to reflect on all that Obama has achieved in the last 14 months.

And the bill's passage will have a significant influence on the Democratic base. It'll placate, excite and mobilize the base ahead of the 2010 election.  Add in comprehensive immigration reform, which is looking increasingly likely as the next major move the Democrats will make, and a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and you have a seriously impressive array of legislative tasks that will help get out the vote in the midterms.

But beyond the politics, this is a bill that will make really crucial and important changes to the way health insurance works. Young adults who don't yet have a job that provides insurance will be able to stay on their parents' plan. Insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Small businesses will be given tax credits for providing insurance. Lifetime caps will be removed- meaning that people who have lengthy, expensive treatments will no longer be denied access to care after a period of time.  The "donut hole"- a gap in coverage for medicine for seniors- will be closed. These are major, important changes.

And 35 million uninsured people will get access to affordable insurance coverage.  

You know what? That's change I can believe in.

Hide

While I did, in my time in the US, have the considerable pleasure of spending much time with Republican friends- both new and old- I also have the wisdom not to extrapolate data from anecdotes. Instead, I've been looking at polling, which shows a story far more complex than either Morrow or the mainstream media will allow.

When the bill is actually broken down into its component parts and explained to people who respond to surveys, it proves quite popular A Newsweek poll from late February actually broke down individual components of the bill and polled voters on each of them.  The poll found:

The NEWSWEEK Poll asked respondents about eight health-care-reform provisions that Obama and many Democrats in Congress have generally supported. It found that the majority of Americans supported five of those provisions, three by particularly large margins. Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange, for individual subscribers to compare plans and buy insurance at a competitive rate. Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions; and 75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

It's a credit to the Republican messaging strategy that they've managed to make popular reforms so unpopular.  Unfortunately, though, it might be difficult to maintain the "socialist takeover of medicine" when middle Americans start receiving the considerable real benefits of the bill.

One point in my original post certainly warrants clarification: when I say Republicans are afraid of the bill, I mean Republican legislators. Because the if the bill passes and those popular components of the bill come into effect, the Democrats could well be the beneficiaries of a substantial momentum shift. 

Hide

He wrote:

Without going into the Parliamentary mechanics of it, the House is looking to “deem” the Senate version of the bill as “passed” -- without the straight up-and-down vote on the legislation that the President promised and that sticklers for the Constitution (especially Article I, Section 7) insist upon.

Actually, a bit of Parliamentary mechanics is rather important to understand why this is an option, and the fact there will, in fact, still be an up-or-down vote.  Byron Tau in The New Republic has a good article explaining "deem and pass" that is well worth checking out.

There will absolutely still be a vote on the bill.  Nancy Pelosi will still need to find the votes. The difference is that the House will pass the Senate bill and the sidecar bill with the fixes at the same time.  It will vote to deem the Senate bill passed at the same time it votes on the rule.  It's not a way to avoid a vote- not by any means.  Instead, it's a way to try to avoid passing the Senate bill without the fixes, largely because the house doesn't trust the Senate to pass the sidecar legislation.

As for Morrow's absurd rumour about the bill costing a trillion dollars, he'd be well advised to check out current CBO estimates that have the Senate bill reducing the deficit within a decade.  REDUCING the deficit. And that's even without the sidecar bill, which will strip out costly provisions (Nebraska, anyone?).  There's a reason Republicans are so scared about this bill passing: because as soon as it does and the advantages start to be felt by middle class Americans, they'll realise Republican fear-mongering was all just a ploy to get more votes.

Hide