From the NYT: White House to begin push on immigration next year.

Snarky Me: I’m so glad they decided to wait on human/civil rights issues until before an election to reap the benefits.
Not Snarky Me: Yay. I’m so glad to talk about something interesting other than healthcare.

More on the Napolitano speech after the weekend.

Well you know we always give the Democrats credit for being a disorganized hot mess, but we don’t really give them enough credit for shrewd maneuvering.

Following up on some earlier reports about Lieberman and DADT repeal earlier, the Hill, Blade, and Advocate are all reporting on Representative Barney Frank’s assertion that a DADT repeal will be folded into next year’s defense reauthorization.

Frank said,

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

and

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

So there are a couple of optical things here that are worth commenting on. Namely, the most politically necessary quote in the article, “The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning,“

The White House needed this and it needed this now. After two years of campaigning, Team Obama went from fierce advocate for the gays to marginally better and slightly less insulting than the Bush team in about six-seven months. I think the lack of enthusiasm on the left has Democrats worried and, frankly, they need the gays. They need their money and their energy. So you can bet looking at 2010 and the immediately subsequent Presidential re-election campaign, this is the start of their “remind our constituencies why they need us/have supported us” campaign.

First stop, gays. I’d bet money that it’s a race to the environmental lobby and hispanics next. Throw in some anti-Wall street populism and the Democrats will be firing up their base by early next summer. The flip-side of this or its complimentary campaign is to convince people that the Republicans are scary and out to get them, which is basically the GOP playbook from 2002-2004, with some slight substitutions.

That said, a DADT repeal, domestic partner legislation, and ENDA will be an effective trifecta, throw in a gay marriage expansion in at least one state by 2011 and come re-election time, LGBT groups will affectionately love the Obamas the way African-Americans loved Bill Clinton in the 90’s. This, of course, assumes that Senate Democrats remember this is 2010 and not 1994.

The timing here is important for a reason beyond electoral proximity. There’s a wide, grey line between just what I needed and too little, too late. The carelessness of the administration’s treatment of gays and lesbians was running out the clock on gratefulness and approaching too little, too late. In fairness, they did inherit serious problems. However, that explanation only holds as long as people think you’re preoccupied. When less urgent issues find their way onto your docket and you actively insult a group, a perfectly valid explanation looks more and more like a poorly-crafted excuse.

Let me emphasize, I’m not concern trolling here, just highlighting that Barney Frank just did the administration a huge favor because the administration was having optical issues – many of their own making with gays despite the “everything’s fine” prostrations of HRC. Optically, the administration was headed towards less benefit from action rather than much. Politically, the sweet spot for DADT repeal passed and now the White House is going to have to wait till after this Afghanistan kerfuffle gets dealt with. So they get, Barney Frank to tell people that it will happen at a more opportune time and to reveal their secret plan.

Which is funny because there was no reason to make the plan secret in the first place.  None. The President and his staffers had made very clear, unspun commitments on this issue. Which makes me personally skeptical that there was some secret plan to repeal DADT in the first place.

I would guess that originally they wanted to do it at a time of benefit to themselves, probably in the summer or late spring. However, optically it would look radical right before pushing liberal healthcare reforms and the military was not on board. So they shelved it until gaining the respect of the military establishment and wrangling DoD into line. Smart.

As for disappointment, I only have two things. First, the likeliness that Democrats will throw something anathema to Republicans into the defense reauthorization so as to force the R’s to vote against repeal. It’s smart politics but I’d like to see an honest vote so we can really see how Congress would vote on this one issue. The second is that I think a separate bill for repeal is the stronger symbolic statement. There are plenty of executive and judicial rebukes of  discrimination. This would be a momentous legislative one. Not to mention it would open up the bill to restore benefits to those directly affected by the legislation. That said, I’ll be pleased when it passes. In this case the good is great and the perfect can wait.

In follow up to these two posts.

I spent the 1990’s as a quasi-military brat. My mother had been in the Navy during the 1980s but had left the service shortly after I was born. In the early nineties, she married an enlisted Navy man and so until the end of the decade, I grew up as a military brat. We didn’t live on base, but the apartments we lived in, indeed the town we lived in was basically a Navy town.

That experience has forever endeared me to the armed forces. It has also engendered a certain amount of respect for how different life in/with the military can be, how much harder it is and can be for those who serve, and the challenges for dependants and friends alongside the all-encompassing nature of military service.

That experience is why I regard Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell practically barbarian in its treatment of gays and lesbians in the military. Supporters of the policy contend that it doesn’t affect that many people or prevents homosexuals from flaunting their sexuality. Who do they think would be out in the military? Perez Hilton? What they blindly ignore is critical role that romantic partners and spouses play in the lives of those who serve. They also ignore the deleterious effects of lying about oneself and the atmosphere of fear and retribution that surrounds gay servicemen and lesbian servicewomen.

The family is more than support for active duty military personnel, they’re extensions of that person. The stresses of deployment and adjusting to return are well-documented not just for soldiers but also their family members. For closeted soldiers and their partners, they are alone. Alone in their stress, alone in their worry, alone in their grief. The supports the military has developed are partially inaccessible to soldiers, for whom certain topics simply cannot be discussed. Moreover, the behaviour of military children and the expectations placed on military girlfriends and wives are seen as reflections upon the soldier in question, particularly officers. Though the role for husbands of female soldiers is less defined, the minimized or complete lack of a role for gay and lesbian partners is hardly invisible.

Outside of the affected emotional bonds between soldiers and their families, financial ones matter as well. Military families are privy to any number of honors and benefits, that gay and lesbian soldiers lack. Scholarship opportunities for their children, or spouse’s children. Access to military discounts, base, and special offers make being gay in the military alienating and expensive. Though critics might argue that this amounts to gays and lesbians wanting special treatment or breaks. In this case, it’s important to recognize that these benefits are both a symbolic recognition of the hardships faced by soldiers and dependants and a substantive benefit meant to offset relatively low salaries for military officers.

Though hardly uniform or perfectly applied, the military’s culture of integrity and honor is something rare and impressive. Asking soldiers to simply not discuss their sexuality or sexual conduct sounds easy enough in practice. In reality however, particularly the realities of military culture, it’s much, much harder. In a culture that mocks and denigrates homosexuality, you’re asking people to subject themselves to mockery and antagonism while often misrepresenting themselves. In a culture that prides integrity, is there a more difficult or challenging request? In fact, by forcing soldiers to remain closeted, the military has pushed intra-service support networks underground in a way that arguably undermines rules against fraternization.

Finally, the threat of dishonorable discharge looms heavily soldiers for being themselves. Those dismissed under DADT lose more than their jobs. They lose pensions and benefits. The same pensions and benefits that would almost criminal to refuse soldiers for admitting they had a wife or husband and bringing them to a social function with other soldiers in attendance. This nation talks about the sacrifices of and debt owed our veterans and current soldiers. Those sacrifices and debts are no less recognizable with regards to gay and lesbian servicemembers. So not only should DADT be repealed but those discharged under it since its inception should be retroactively given their benefits. As a nation we must honor our commitments to those that serve us, to do otherwise is dishonorable and insulting.

In addition to the realities of lost benefits, the threat of discharge is just as foul and problematic. Soldiers outed by jilted romantic partners, angry colleagues, or anybody else whose actions fall into the category of revenge outing face enormous stresses in their personal and professional lives. They are living a nightmare of government sanctioned blackmail and insecurity. Gay servicemen who are the victims of abuse are left without recourse and sometimes without escape. For women, it is particularly noxious. There are reports that women in the armed forces are sexually assaulted and threatened with allegations of lesbianism. While hardly the rule, these odious behavioural exceptions remain invisible and unprosecuted because of a culture that wants gays and lesbians to remain silent and invisible. It also keeps them compromised and vulnerable.

The stories of servicemen and women who are gay and lesbian are moving and a window into the results of a barbaric and inhumane policy. However, what is just as moving is how many stories aren’t told and how many are left to tell. While there’s a point of enormous contrast between DADT and military desegregation, namely that gays are invisible in a way black soldiers weren’t. There is a comparison that I hope will become true when DADT is no longer law. After desegregation, the military -again imperfectly – spent decades working to eliminate racism within the armed forces. Given that military law is both farther reaching and more severe than civilian law, I hope in the wake of DADT repeal, the armed forces will again make such efforts and become a model employer of anti-homophobia (Amorism?).

To learn more, visit http://www.sldn.org/

Justin leans Democrat

Ezra leans Modified Reverse Lieberman

There seems to be a growing view that Madame Olympia has no future with the GOP.  I mean 2012 is a long way off and it’s definitely too early to tell, especially from within the haze of health care reform but when Senator Thune is talking about diversity within the ranks I think the future of the GOP, if not conservatism is still up for grabs.

Cross Posted @ The League of Ordinary Gentlemen:

If there’s one thing that most political commentators and Americans can agree upon, it’s that Congress is bad at its job. Presidential approval ratings go up and down, Congressional approval ratings pretty much stay down. These days, it’s become de rigueur to point to hyper-partisanship, legislative relics who’ve all but become permanent fixtures in both houses, the pervasive and harmful influence of special interests in the legislative and electoral process, and the regularity of ethical lapses and scandals.

The prevailing sentiment of the day seems to be “Congress is good, but the people in it are terrible,” and many of our attempts to address Congressional shortcomings stem from that mindset. Recent examples include campaign finance reform, lobbying disclosure requirements, hiring bans, transparency initiatives, and “the most ethical Congress in history.” These reforms aimed to keep bad people out of politics so good people could do good work.

This focus on bad actors; however, ignores the ways in which the system itself incentivizes bad actors. To run for Congress, stay in Congress, and pass legislation requires money, votes, influence, popularity, allies, and expert knowledge. Those requirements increase the value and leverage of organizations or individuals that can provide one or more of those to a significant degree, making those groups something of a super-constituent. These include donors, interest groups like the NRA or SEIU, think tanks like Brookings or Cato, fellow politicians, and the parties themselves.

Super-constituents distort representative government by creating incentives to value the priorities and contributions of a select few over those of a legislator’s constituents. Super-constituents also retain the power to punish elected officials more easily and more severely than regular constituents, by endorsing competitors, stripping legislators of seniority or committee membership, and cutting off access, particularly to donors. With this in mind, more significant reforms modifying the structure of the United States Congress or rather how it does business, not just who shows up to do it, need to be considered.

Broadly, we need reforms to accomplish more legislative/legislator independence, a better representation of people and collective interests, and a greater emphasis on work rather than optics and political gamesmanship.

More specifically, we would benefit from:

· More accurate representation of constituencies;
· Less partisanship;
· Incentives for legislative leadership;
· Breaking up entrenched power;
· Addressing the disproportionate influence of extra-legislative entrenched interests;

To accomplish some of those goals, or at least put us on the road to a less dysfunctional legislature, consider this slate of 8 reforms.

1.) Resolving the electoral status of D. C.

Any effort to make Congress more representative should start with ensuring that all citizens are represented. An American expat living in Paris has more congressional representation than an American living down the street from the Capitol and that’s not only a bizarre quirk of federal law, it’s also particularly un-American. Retrocession isn’t an option because – frankly – Maryland doesn’t want the district. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 is undistinguished partisan deal making and blatantly unconstitutional.

The best solution is simply to apportion the residents of the district to Maryland and allow them to vote accordingly. It was introduced in 2004 as the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, but used to be standard practice prior to the Organic Act of 1801. It’s constitutional, it’s fair, and it doesn’t involve some quid pro quo get congressional representation quick scheme. Apportioning the residents would also allow their representation in the House of Representatives to be population based, as it is with the states, and arguably should be. It’s also population based, which is kind of important in the house of Congress meant to be population based. Also, unlike the House Voting Rights Act, which gives 591,000 people only one seat in the House, this solution would give DC residents representation in the Senate, through Maryland.

2.) Discouraging Electoral Carpetbaggery

There’s an unsung principle at the heart of American democracy, the idea that those who make the laws should follow them; and conversely, those who are beholden to laws should have some say in creating or modifying them. It follows from that principle that people with no discernible stake in laws should have less of a say. As such, we ought to limit – to the best of our ability – what I call electoral carpetbaggery, the influence of outside persons and organizations in local elections.

States should establish content neutral laws that require funds spent on campaign broadcasts (radio and television ads) be raised by eligible voters or residents of the voting district, including corporate residents. The aim is to accomplish two effects, curtailing the unabated influence of monied interests and reducing the expenditure amounts required to run for public office. Moreover, candidates would be more dependent on local fundraising as opposed to national organizations and advocacy groups.

For example, in a gubernatorial or Senate race, only residents and businesses with locations in the state could contribute funds used to broadcast campaign materials. In a Congressional district, only personal and corporate residents of that district could contribute, but not residents of a neighboring district, even if they’re in the same state. Given the history of broadcasting regulation and its disparate effect on campaigning, it stands alone as a regulatory target. We also already itemize contributions from within the district. Print materials, canvassing, campaign travels, new media campaigning, and rallies would remain unaffected.

3.) A mechanism for automatic cloture in the Senate

The flaws of the filibuster are well known, but eliminating it outright seems certain to fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Moreover, it would effectively end any and all checks and balances on majority power in the Congress. To break the power of the filibuster without giving dual-branch majorities carte blanche, including the power to ram through war authorizations and such, the Senate should establish a new rule to limit consideration by allowing a majority vote to establish a maximum amount of time for debate of a bill above a standard minimum that can only be overridden by a 3/5 vote or amended upwards by another majority vote. This would allow the Senate to retain its prerogative for lengthy consideration and debate but allow the chamber to set some limits to get work done rather than the current options of none or cloture, which are dysfunctional to say the least. I envision the standard minimum as somewhere in the ballpark of 10-16 weeks, not including recesses for vacation.

4.) Eliminating anonymous holds

The Senate’s rules and quirks may be annoying but the anonymous holds are a blatant and opaque abuse of power. Good governance doesn’t stem from a vacuum of consequences. Constituents should know if their Senator is holding up legislation they want or an administration appointment, to better assess their job performance. The anonymity of holds is eroding but it should be eliminated outright, if not the hold system entirely.

5.) Increasing the size of both houses

Despite our general disdain for politicians we need more of them. Congress is too small.

In the House, the average size of Congressional districts is over 700,000, which vary from Montana’s at-large district with just over 960,000 people to Wyoming’s at-large district with just over 530,000 or either of Rhode Island’s half million large districts. Such large sized districts require money to campaign in them and a city sized number of votes to win, which places a premium on the organizations that can provide one, the other or both.

The relatively unobtrusive Wyoming Rule would increase the house to 592 members. If we were to reduce the average size to 500,000 per member, the house would be 616 members; both numbers – I’d like to point out – are well under the size of the House of Commons, which represents a population of just over 60 million with 646 members. The question of how much larger we ought to make the House is an open one, but we can’t reasonably expect members to effectively represent 700,000 people in a population this heterogeneous.

The Senate has to maintain equal suffrage and the constitutional article that says so isn’t easily amendable, if at all. However, we could increase the Senate to 150 members, allowing each state to elect a Senator every two years. This would have the effect of making the Senate more representative with more members. It would also make the Senate less of a lagging indicator when electoral shifts occur in the country.

The final effect of increasing the size of Congress is to make it more likely that the winner of the popular vote in Presidential contests will also win the Electoral College, which is overdue in presidential politics.

6.) Increasing the capacity and role of the Congressional Research Service

Yes, the CRS is large, expensive, and operates outside of the public purview. However, it is also an independent think tank that, like the CBO produces well-respected work to aid Congress in the work of legislating. Beyond the fancy lunches and campaign contributions associated with lobbying, information can be just as valuable a commodity for Congress and indeed the executive branch as well.

Some lobbyists are shameless power brokers but others are knowledgeable advocates whose assistance to legislators and role in crafting legislation is invaluable, which is why Congress needs to have more expertise on hand to provide an alternative source of reliable research. The CRS should also be required to publish issue briefs geared for public consumption on topics addressed by legislation given a CBO score.

Certainly this wouldn’t replace the role of advocacy groups and think tanks by any measure but it would enable Representatives and Senators to be less dependent on the expertise provided by extra-Congressional institutions. It would also provide the public with an apolitical avenue towards understanding the issues at hand while simultaneously giving less cover and credence to popularly repeated rumors, innuendo, and falsehoods.

7.) Restructuring the committee system

The real work of Congress is hashed out in committee. Committee assignments and sizes are determined by the parties, which gives party leaders more leverage to penalize members who don’t hold the party line making such actions less likely, even when in individual cases such actions might better reflect constituents and the country. The system prizes institutional seniority over ability, which in turn benefits constituencies that keep sending the same person to Congress over new constituencies and those electing new representatives.

Reducing the incentive for legislators to stick around and amass power as well as reducing the leverage parties wield over their members could be accomplished by reforming the committee system. The size of committees should be unrestricted and the leadership of each committee voted on by the full membership of the committee. However, limits restricting the number of committees on which members can sit should remain in place.

Members couldn’t stretch themselves too thinly by working on too many committees, but committee size would better reflect members’ interests. Self-directed leadership of committees would reflect ready-made legislative coalitions and create incentives for coalition building along bipartisan or issue focused lines, rather than discouraging the same. Incidentally this would make Congressional committees parliamentary in their governance. Chairs with initiative would reflect legislative coalitions rather than seniority in the party with most number of people, if Senator Baucus is any indication, these aren’t the same thing. Not only would chairs be more powerful (at the expense of party leaders) and better able to deliver on legislation but it would force opponents to develop alternative coalitions rather than riding a wave of dissatisfaction into the majority and eventually positions of Congressional leadership.

8.) Non-partisan elections

Finally, I think we should work to make Congressional races non-partisan elections. Nebraska’s legislature is uniquely non-partisan and its continued ability to function without explicit labels is certainly encouraging. My point, however, has less to do with the labeling than the structure of the elections themselves. In a partisan primary, candidates duke it out within their parties, open primaries and general election run offs excepted, and then most Americans are confronted with a choice between one Republican and one Democrat.

Thrilling.

Between the reductionist nature of our politics and gerrymandered districts that look designed by M.C. Escher, our system of government routinely leaves citizens out in the unrepresented cold.

With non-partisan elections; however, the top two vote getters in a primary move on to the general, opening the door for electoral choices more in-line with the district. Take for example a heavy Republican district, where a tough primary between a moderate Republican and a Conservative Republican ends in a relatively small victory for the Conservative (52.5%). The district’s 20% liberal democrats all vote for a liberal Democrat who hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The Conservative Republican goes on to win the general election despite only being the preferred choice of say 42% of the district.

The moderate Republicans split their differences with their new Representative and the Democrats get nada.

In a non-partisan election, the Democrat gets creamed early on, but the Democrats in the district get to choose between their district’s versions of James Inhofe and Olympia Snowe. This system would result in one more person who’s at least willing to negotiate and compromise on liberal issues and one less hyper-partisan conservative, who’s whose solid base of 42% means they can ignore or work counter to the interests of the remaining 58% of their district.

The creation of solid Democratic seats and solid Republican seats creates political monopolies that despite elections every few years attract many of the same problems and social costs associated with monopolistic behavior in an economic sense. Non-partisan elections would challenge these monopolies and make them more competitive, more responsive to citizens, and more in-line with constituent preferences.

A major focus of the last two reforms is challenging the power of the parties. Not to over-estimate the problem of partisanship but California’s cautionary tale, one of paralysis by partisanship, super-majority requirements, and term limits, makes an effective Ghost of Christmas National Partisan Gridlock Future. The political parties aren’t all bad, but increasingly they are distractions from actual governing and tackling the issues they’ve formed to address. Just look at the parties, today. The GOP is the New Coke of politics. And the Democrats…well let me ask: how many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? 60 Senators, 256 Congressmen, a President, and Olympia Snowe to lend them a ladder.

Maybe it’s not their fault, the parties can’t help but see everything in terms of score-keeping – after all politics is something of a game. However, it’s about time we treated Congress less like a field of competition and more like a workplace. That doesn’t require “taking on the big special interests,” as much as taking on the incentive structure that makes special interests valuable.

While no doubt incomplete, the reforms outlined above are a start, making it harder for individuals to engage in power plays for their own interests and making the system better suited for functional working without sacrificing checks and balances along the way.

I know this article is a month old but it’s just so amazingly well put, well said, and on point. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald on gay issues, the “fringe left” and the liberal veal pen.

Highlights:

The only thing remarkable about the comments Harwood passed on is that anyone would be surprised by them.  In that regard, the furor over Obama’s complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area — from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:

• Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;
• Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn’t possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can’t be capable of anything malicious or destructive — there’s a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals:  ”He’s your president, not your boyfriend”);
• Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,
• Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable — since they’re the ones who control the levers of government with huge majorities — rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

So Rod Dreher wrote on the need for mutual empathy on the issue of Gay Marriage in the Dallas Morning News last week. Considering my thoughts on the issue, clearly I agree.

I want to stress, as Dreher does, that this isn’t an endorsement of opposition to gay marriage or legitimizing some of the more questionable claims. However, it does highlight where opponents are coming from and that understanding is key to identifying impenetrable constituencies and softer ones. Sorting messages with a chance of success from those that don’t.

Frankly, Dreher is completely correct when he says,

It is rather to say that with gay marriage proponents racking up loss after loss in state balloting, they would do well to quit falling back on the self-serving “bigotry” excuse and do what they (quite justifiably) ask of their opponents: imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves.

I have friends that work very hard to fight for marriage equality so I wouldn’t call them lazy. I would describe the overall approach, however, as uninspired at best and rooted in self-flattery at worst.

I’m 100% for AMERICAblog’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign, especially after reading their why and examples list.

In general, I’m not one for protesting and what not. I’m almost certainly not one for single-issue voting/challenges. However, in this case, I think this is a community of the left that has long been taken for granted by Democrats and have little to show for it other than the unprovable counterfactual that things would be worse otherwise. Cold comfort doesn’t do it justice.

Personally, I’m incensed at the “internet left fringe” comment hurled at the NEM from a month ago.

I’d also be a bit more sympathetic to the political struggles of passing pro-gay legislation if, in fact, things other than gay marriage weren’t solidly supported.

Like really misses the point. She calls republican support for the Stupak Amendment hypocrisy because it doesn’t allow the free market to decide if women should have plans that pay for abortion.

Of course she might as well be saying Republicans are hypocritical because they back criminalizing murder as opposed to allowing the free market to punish it.

Whatever your personal feelings on abortion are, it’s clear that’s how the pro-life crowd feels about this and in context it’s neither confusing nor hypocritical.

So one of the things that riles me is the way the left doesn’t hold themselves to their own standards and values. I’m pretty sure the right doesn’t either but I spend more time with, around, and talking to left-of-center types so I have a bit more experience with it there.

Don’t get me wrong if a conservative speaks highly of family values and the sanctity of marriage then cheats on his or her spouse, that’s both disappointing and discrediting. When pro-lifers turn around and cheer on the death penalty, again disappointing and discrediting. It’s also a little bit revolting.

From the left, there’s such a constant narrative and self-identification of being thoughtful, good people. The left champions everyday, hard-working people. It champions the public interest and supports individual freedom and community support of needy-individuals. Yet, whenever liberal policies fail, undermine their goals, or create mixed results, any criticism or concern gets defensively deflected as though admitting any problems or any failure is tantamount to surrender. If someone says, I’m concerned about spending, the response – more often than not – is to blame Bush or the speaker for insincerity. Less common is owning the spending and explaining why it’s necessary. When I find it, and I do, I really do respect those liberal advocates so much more.

When the ACORN prostitute scandal broke, quite a few left of center voices decried a conservative conspiracy and took a “two dead bodies, everything’s fine” approach. Everything wasn’t fine. The Census and IRS had already been having issues with the organization and this was the latest in a string of questionable issues that warranted a deeper look at problems – including corruption – that had beset the organization. Whatever good ACORN was doing, whether ostensibly or actually, surely was not enough to warrant overlooking the problems of ACORN, yet for some it was.

With regards to SEIU-Tea Party violence, compare and contrast.

There seems to be this whole deflect and defend machine that surely does defend liberal organizations and individuals from unfair assaults. However, it seems just as clear that the machine protects some organizations and individuals from any meaningful oversight or even helpful criticism. I should think that would be dangerous enough for the integrity and success of the political left to warrant more speaking out that it does. There are all sorts of people willing to criticize members for being insufficiently committed to the cause but far fewer willing to criticize members for being corrupt. On the issue of taking responsibility or even encouraging people and organizations to take responsibility for their actions, there really is a conspiracy of silence on both sides.

I will say that I was really encouraged by how the Democrats and other liberal organizations handled and continue to handle the Roman Polanski arrest. Here’s an opportunity where vocal and influential liberal donors in Hollywood rallied to Polanski’s defense only to go nowhere and to be – at times – criticized for statements that excused or otherwise downplayed the criminal and abhorrent aspects of rape, statutory rape, and drugging a woman in order to do so.

I think the frankness of President Obama and Secretary Duncan on issues of education fit that mold as well.

In short, I think these are qualities that should be encouraged on the both sides, and given that the Democrats are the only game in town, the left in particular.

UPDATE: nice Democrats are more attractive than ones who gloss over a beating by blaming the implausible victim.