Selective Hard Truths

If this were Jeopardy, E.J. Dionne would be king.  He asks the right question... then gives the wrong answer He is not, however, alone in saluting  FBI Director James B. Comey (photo by Cliff Owens/AP) for his recent speech at Georgetown University about race and the police.  Dionne, as well as this analyst in The New York Times board, this Daily Kos contributor, and others on the left, were quite impressed. The syndicated columnist, who actually struck a better balance than most other people, concluded by writing

It’s worth remembering that liberals were once attacked for being “root causers” trying to downplay the problem of criminality itself. But maybe it takes a cop’s grandson to prod us to act on both the problem of racism and the economic, social and familial challenges faced by young African-American men.

In this sense, Comey really is a subversive. He’s trying to subvert and thus transform a debate that leads us into ideological cul-de-sacs. He must stay at it.

Comey made several points in an apparent effort to evaluate and help close the divide between law enforcement and "young men of colored." (Fascinating how "colored people" once was properly viewed as a slur. Now progressives and poseurs say "people of color.") He noted

First, all of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty. At many points in American history, law enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups. It was unfair to the Healy siblings and to countless others like them. It was unfair to too many people...

A second hard truth: Much research points to the widespread existence of unconscious bias. Many people in our white-majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. In fact, we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us.

Progressive stuff that, public discussion of race by law enforcement is virtually always a positive, and one hopes he does stay at it.  Nearly orgasmic, the NYT editorial board contended the "remarks also went beyond what President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have said since an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, was killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., in August." More circumspect, Dionne noted

Let’s face it: If Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder had given the same speech (and they’ve said many of these things), the response would have been political and in some cases nasty. This only underscores why it was essential for the words to come from a white director of the FBI.

Dionne then asked the $69,000 question: "Was Comey trying to shift some of the heat away from police and toward society as a whole?"  Unfortunately, he answered "No, because he was clear on law enforcement’s need to examine and reform itself. But yes, he was trying to concentrate our energies on the root causes of crime, and good for him."

Comey did not completely ignore the root causes of crime. But as a law enforcement officer, his effort to shift some of the heat from police toward society, unnoticed by practically everyone including Dionne, is concerning.  Comey argued

A second hard truth: Much research points to the widespread existence of unconscious bias. Many people in our white-majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. In fact, we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us. I am reminded of the song from the Broadway hit, Avenue Q: “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Part of it goes like this:

Look around and you will find
No one’s really color blind.
Maybe it’s a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

You should be grateful I did not try to sing that....

But racial bias isn’t epidemic in law enforcement any more than it is epidemic in academia or the arts. In fact, I believe law enforcement overwhelmingly attracts people who want to do good for a living—people who risk their lives because they want to help other people. They don’t sign up to be cops in New York or Chicago or L.A. to help white people or black people or Hispanic people or Asian people. They sign up because they want to help all people. And they do some of the hardest, most dangerous policing to protect people of color.

Surely, Comey is directing heat from police toward society as he  argues that officers aren't racist and if they are, so are all of us, It may be true, as the FBI director maintains, that racial bias is no more common in law enforcement than in academia or the arts, though if he has the statistics, he ought to ante up. But signing up because they want to help all people (as is the motivation for many, but not all, men and women who apply to be police officers) is no guarantee of an absence of racial bias. And by the way: teachers, firefighters, members of the clergy, nurses, probation and parole officers, and members of a few other professions signed on in order to help people of all ethnic groups. It is no guarantee that none in their ranks harbors racial bias.

Most police officers aren't racist. Nonetheless, as The Atlantic's David A. Graham points out

The broader issues include the disparate arrest rates between whites and blacks for the same crime. One prime example is marijuana, where usage rates are comparable among whites and blacks, but blacks are four times more likely to be arrested. About 50 percent of officers on the beat for the NYPD are black, but that didn't prevent disparate racial demographics in stop-and-frisk incidents. In this way, racism isn't a piece of individual behavior or belief. It's a cultural behavior.

Give Comey points for not retreating to the "if we only hired more blacks" dodge, similar to the "if we only elected more women" dodge.  (At one time, we heard "if only there were more women in office, there would be fewer young men dying in wars." That may be another stereotype Hillary Clinton breaks.)  He points out that people in disadvantaged minority communities "too often inherit a legacy of crime and prison. And with that inheritance, they become part of a police officer’s life, and shape the way that officer—whether white or black—sees the world."   But take points away because he does not recommend the legalization of marijuana or termination of "broken windows" policing.

It's not surprising, though, that the FBI director would not criticize the broken windows concept, one which might be rational if there were enough police in urban areas to address relatively inconsequential infractions. Comey actually said this, and I'm not kidding:  "Let me be transparent about my affection for cops. When you dial 911, whether you are white or black, the cops come, and they come quickly, and they come quickly whether they are white or black. That’s what cops do, in addition to..."

Welcome to Planet Comey, in which a fabulously successful attorney is unable to grasp a basic reality for most people in communities across the U.S.A. that are not affluent.  In arguably most towns, response time of police far exceeds what the FBI director imagines. Rapid response often is beyond the control of individual police officers (let me, too, "be transparent about my affection for cops") due to circumstances such as work responsibilities or road/traffic conditions. Underprivileged communities typically are understaffed, a reality Comey seems blissfully unaware of.

Comey's major contribution might be a more practical one than joining the conversation on race and law enforcement.  He lamented incomplete reporting of  "demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings" and insufficient data about individuals who are arrested, obstacles to crime prevention given insufficient attention.  Nonetheless, he emphasized American society's legacy of racial discrimination and the impact that has had on relations between police and people "of color." His is an important contribution- but not a wholly positive one.

Share |

Imagine What Happens If Bruce Springsteen Retires

Despite being- no, because- he is an unabashed liberal, E.J. Dionne is typically fair-minded. After the "dueling stories" of Jon Stewart and Brian Williams hit recently, the columnist wrote

Be a media critic and ask: why did I put Steart first? Because he embodies so many of the changes I’m talking about. He is a gifted comedian, of course, but more than anything else, he is a media critic. He constantly upbraids journalists for how they’ve covered stories, and perhaps more significantly, what they’ve failed to report.

Dionne notes that  "Stewart's ridicule almost single-handedly killed CNN’s 'Crossfire' for a while" and was "a mistake" because "All the clever irony in the world can’t get us past the fact that passionate, if sometimes contrived, disagreement is an essential part of democracy."    (It should be seen as an even greater mistake given its eventual metamorphosis, since mercifully cancelled.) However, Dionne adds

Nonetheless, Stewart is more often right than wrong. He excels at poking at pomposity. What’s not to like about that? He explains complicated matters when regular journalism doesn’t. And he has drawn people into politics through the medium of laughter — a blessing when so much of our political discussion is grim and angry.

Never mind that Stewart, a skillful interviewer and prodigious reader, long ago ceased being amusing, except to viewers drawn to frequent contortions of the face and voice.  That escaped the attention of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which in its embarrassing idolatry neglected the complexity Dionne  recognized.  On Wednesday evening, it sent out an e-mail gushing

The Daily Show set the bar for making politics funny, combining hard-hitting news analysis with a large dose of humor. In his nearly two decades on the air, Jon has never been afraid to take hypocritical politicians and their outrageous agendas to task. We’ll miss looking forward to 11 p.m. on weeknights to see how he responds to the day’s news.

The DSCC added "Sign our card to thank Jon and wish him luck in whatever he does next- you can even add a personal note!"

Thanks, Jon, for making that sacrifice- and at only $25 million per year! You always will be our heartthrob.

Slate's Jamelle Bouie defends Stewart's temper tantrum on Crossfire but, more importantly, adds

Cable, however, isn’t the only forum for debate, and most political conversations aren’t as shallow as the ones you see on TV. On op-ed pages and around dinner tables, Americans have substantive conversations about politics. And while the facts aren’t always right, the discussion is often valuable. Stewart gives short shrift to that kind of talk. Instead, in the world of The Daily Show, the only politics is cable politics, where venality rules, serious disputes are obscured, and cynicism is the only response that works.

Then Bouie gets at the main problem with Stewart's approach- which, while the DSCC seems not to notice, characterizes the Republican-excusing mainstream media. Bouie adds

Not only does this discourage people who want to make a difference—like the earnest young viewers of Stewart’s audience—but it blurs the picture and makes it hard to see when those arguments really matter. It’s how we get the spectacle of Stewart’s rally, when tens of thousands of liberals gathered on the National Mall in Washington to hear an ode to civility—with an extended metaphor about the Lincoln Tunnel—as if Washington gridlock were a case of bad manners and not deep-seated ideological differences about government and its place in the world.

The DSCC plea highlights the caricature by conservative Republicans of  Democrats as captive to the entertainment industry.  Instead of sending a card to a near-billionaire who is positioned to make lots and lots more now, perhaps the DSCC ought to encourage supporters send condolences to the parents of this individual:

Share |

No Victory To Declare


Steve M. recognizes that E.J. Dionne (as is his habit) only means well when he writes

... the new militancy on the Democratic left is a consequence of a slowly building backlash against the skewed nature of our politics. A dramatic manifestation of this sentiment wasNew York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's unabashed attack on inequality in his inaugural address Wednesday....

Discussions about entitlements have revolved almost exclusively around the question of how much to cut them. By contrast, progressives such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) say we must begin dealing with a coming retirement crisis fostered by the near disappearance of traditional private pensions....

More generally, the Democratic left is animated by the battle against growing inequality and declining social mobility -- the idea, as Warren has said repeatedly, that "the system is rigged for powerful interests and against working families." ...

Dionne foresees the "re-emergence of the Democratic left," but Steve-O's optimism is far more cautious as he notes

In Dionne's column, the focus is on pols. Last fall's lefty superstar pol, Elizabeth Warren, gets two mentions, and the new star is Bill de Blasio. Did I use the word "celebrity" above? It wasn't chosen idly:

I feel as if I'm living through the optimism -- and personality cult-ism -- of the early days of the Obama presidency, up to and including the transformation of family members into boldface names outside the realm of politics. (Chiara is de Blasio's daughter.) Yes, I know that the celebrification of the Obamas helped them maintain the public's goodwill, and thus helped keep the GOP out of the White House. But it also meant that progressives let their guard down and waited for the superstar pol in the White House to make everything all better. (He didn't, and couldn't have.)

Or perhaps he never wanted to.  The danger of placing faith in individual personalities has been demonstrated by the lackluster performance of President Obama. "Personality cult-ism" is never goodand looms as a major danger, if not quite  and is nearly as likely now as it was in 2008.

Elizabeth Warren, at a conference in Washington in November, stated "I’ve been in the Senate for nearly a year and believe as strongly as ever that the system is rigged for powerful interests and against working families."  Defending the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau- to which she gave birth- she asked “You tell me: When was the last time you heard someone call for regulators to go easier on companies that want to use lead paint on our children’s toys or leave the safety switches off toasters?"

But Elizabeth Warren isn't running for president. Neither is Bill DeBlasio, overheard in his inauguration speech Wednesday declaring "When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it. And we will do it," vowing ."New Yorkers (willl) see our city not as the exclusive domain of the One Percent."

Fortunately, if Politico's Ben White and Maggie Haberman have it right

The worry on Wall Street is about how far to the left Clinton might have to drift to appease what’s been proclaimed the “Warren wing of the Democratic Party”—the vocal populists buoyed by Elizabeth Warren’s tough critiques of Wall Street greed, as well as by the recent election of liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio on their New York home turf. 

Unfortunately, if they have it right

According to people in Clinton’s extended circle, John Podesta—the former White House chief of staff under her husband who this week joined the Obama White House for a year-long stint—was poised to work with Hillary Clinton on her messaging on income inequality, a role he seems less likely to fill while he's in government. Still, some say fears that Clinton will end up alienating financial sector donors the way Obama has, even if she tacks left, are overblown. “Wall Street folks are so happy about [having Clinton run] that they won’t care what she says,” says one well-placed Democrat.

And if the banking class is delighted with Clinton lately, the feeling appears mutual. In Manhattan last week, Clinton sat down with the Carlyle Group’s David Rubenstein for their second question-and-answer session in the last two months. Unlike the first one, held for his private equity firm’s investor conference, this was a more public appearance, part of a program honoring the late diplomat Richard Holbrooke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Clinton easily regaled the well-heeled crowd with stories from her past before Rubenstein ended their half-hour chat with a joke about her future: Would she be interested in joining a private equity firm?

“Is that an offer?” Clinton asked, laughing as the audience knowingly joined in. She may soon need many things from the titans of finance, but a job is probably not one of them.

And they will want much in return from her. White/Haberman remark also

These Wall Street types prize personal relationships and ego stroking as much as they do any laundry list of policy initiatives. When we sought answers about the rift with the White House, many New York sources circled back to this; leaders in the finance industry, as in so many others, want to know they have friends and influence in high places

Somehow- despite record profits amid job cuts- this is "a feeling that’s not been forthcoming from the Obama administration," as reflected in Toles' cartoon (though from four years ago) below:

Dionne notes the "resurgent populists," the economic populists in the Democratic Party, "are battling a double standard."  At some point, unless they're willing to lose their soul, they probably will have to battle the party's presumptive presidential nominee, also.



Share |

Sidestepped By The Left, Encouraged By The Right

E.J. Dionne concedes hard-right GOP presidential hopeful (but I repeat myself) Rick Santorum" is broadly right" when he attributes a role to "the breakdown of the American family" to increasing poverty. He notes that, paradoxically,

one politician who agrees with Santorum is named Barack Obama. "We know that children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty," the president said at a Father's Day event last year. "They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. ... They're more likely to become teenage parents themselves." Growing up without a father, he added, "leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill."

How bold. Barack Obama believes children are better off with a father than without.

Dionne argues "Liberals should acknowledge, as Obama has, that strengthening the family is vital to economic justice. Conservatives should acknowledge that economic justice is vital to strengthening families." He has just the prescription: strengthen sick leave and family leave policies.

Santorum, on the contrary, believes the American family is threatened by gay marriage, a questionable proposition and one from which Dionne definitively dissents. Dionne argues "Rather than avoid the issue (a temptation for liberals) or pretend that public policy can do little about it (a temptation for conservatives), we need to make their plight a high national priority."

And then he proceeds to avoid the issue, supporting instead "a variety of work and education policies that could improve the economic situation of young men who are poor."

That will help and is an investment well worth making, though with the focus (pivoting somewhat, insufficiently, to job creation) in Washington on deficit reduction, it's unlikely that significant resources will be applied to improve the status of disadvantaged males. But there is a policy choice which, as Obama hopes for, would cut the number of children living in poverty, dropping out of school, winding up in prison, abusing drugs, and becoming teenage parents themselves.

E.J. Dionne prefers to avoid that issue, as he notes most liberals do, whether from a fear of being labeled "anti-family" or concern that minorities are singled out. Most cultural conservatives, probably including Rick Santorum, would enact policies exacerbating- probably intentionally- the problem. At last night's GOP presidential debate (transcript here), the former Pennsylvania senator and Virginia resident maintained

Ever since we’ve had the income tax in America, we’ve always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to — to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes — we gave some breaks for families. He doesn’t do that in this bill.

And we’re going to — we’ve seen that happen in Europe. And what happened? Boom, birth rates went into — into the basement. It’s a bad tax for — again, it’s bold. I give him credit for — for starting a debate, but it’s not good for families, and it’s not good for low-income…

Santorum, who usually attends a Latin mass near D.C., probably can afford to raise the seven children he and his wife have. But all across the United States, Republicans, backed by a Christian conservative movement initially fueled largely by evangelical Protestants, are attempting to roll back the clock on reproductive freedom. Eighteen states have enacted significant restrictions on the right of a woman to choose an abortion while several states have reduced access to family planning. This may stem from an anitpathy to personal freedom or to the rights of women, but more likely from a decidely pro-conception bias. Santorum merely verbalized what much of the conservative movement holds dear- the idea that birth rates must increase and parents must have children, whether they want them or can afford to raise them.

Everyone is entitled to his or her concept of the perfect family or of the perfect society. But if anyone tells you that limiting access to reproductive freedom does not increase the number of children who live in poverty, commit serious crimes, or have children out of wedlock- and does not increase the number of dysfunctional families- hold on to your wallet.

Share|

Politics, Politics Everywhere

A New Rule for Bill Maher: When slumming, don't draw attention to yourself.

Of course, then, there would be no purpose to slumming. But you know you're in trouble when a liberal columnist (little likelihood of this coming froma conservative) writes "Sometimes, there really are matters we agree on across partisan and ideological lines."

In his defense, E.J. Dionne was seduced by the holiday season (not, in this case, by the Christmas, or the New Years, season but by the "holiday season"). Dionne went to Hedgesville High School in West Virginia to see his son play in a high school basketball tournament and commended the townsfolk for the "beautiful gym" and the "lovely renovation" of the building.

Dionne continued:

I picked up a copy of The Journal, a daily newspaper based in Martinsburg, and turned to their lead editorial headlined: "Big Problem: West Virginians gain on the obesity ranking."

What struck me is that there was not a hint of politics in the piece -- no Michelle Obama or Sarah Palin. It was just a sensible, civic-minded plea to West Virginians to get into shape. The editorial also included some useful tips as to where they could turn for encouragement and advice. "Come on, West Virginians," it concluded, "it's time to get healthy."

Lord knows, as I have acknowledged before, I am perfectly capable of politicizing lots of things. But not everything should be politicized. Let's look at problems such as obesity not through the lenses of ideological combat but in the sensible way most Americans do, exemplified by that editorial in The Journal.

Your next door neighbor may not want to politicize food. Neither may my next door neighbor. But political commentary is Dionne's job. And this whole thing is political.

It was political when Michelle Obama announced creation of the vegetable garden on the White House's south lawn, which resulted in the lovely photo-op (here, from a Washington Post blog) shown below. And the politics was ramped up a notch when television personality Sarah Palin while making s'mores sneered "This is in honor of Michelle Obama who said the other day we should not have dessert." That was a month before she declared in a speech at a Pennsylvania private school "Who should be deciding what I eat? Should it be government or should it be parents? It should be the parents." That in turn was two months before talk-show host and Chamber of Commerce shill Glenn Beck wrote "Get away from my french fries, Mrs. Obama. First politician that comes up to me with a carrot stick, I've got a place for it. And it's not in my tummy."

So the politics are already there with M. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. The Journal in Martinsburg, West Virginia may ignore it and E.J. Dionne may ignore it, but it is the elephant in the room. The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, silly when he frets over how difficult it is to be a First Lady, nevertheless recognizes that it is

not surprising that a crusade seemingly beyond questioning would become a political battle. Interests that might feel threatened by Let's Move include the fast-food industry, agribusiness, soft-drink manufacturers, real estate developers (because suburban sprawl is implicated), broadcasters and their advertisers (of sugary cereals and the like), and the oil-and-gas and automotive sectors (because people ought to walk more and drive less).

It's a little disappointing to see Dionne, usually perceptive, surprised "problems such as obesity" are run "through the lenses of ideological combat." But if the effort to separate politics from principle is fruitless, separating politics from money is equally so.

Share|

Awaiting Wednesday- And Not Only For Health Care

You might think syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne is being cute, ironic, or hyperbolic when he calls President Obama's upcoming health care speech on September 9 "only the second most consequential political moment of the week."

If anything, however, Dionne is minimizing the importance of the arguments to be made on Wednesday before the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It all began when Citizens United wanted to slam a presidential candidate with "Hillary: The Movie," distribute it via OnDemand, and buy commercials promoting said documentary.

Not wishing to disclose the identity of the corporate contributors which were partially financing the film, the conservative group filed a suit to be exempt from the restrictions of the 2002 McCain Feingold campaign finance law. The case was first heard by the Supreme Court in March, 2009, whereupon, unusually, it ordered a new set of arguments and a new hearing, for September 9 to consider not only the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold but two other laws limiting campaign funding by corporations.

This is not good, not good at all. Dionne is right but unintentionally understated when he writes

The full impact of what the court could do in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has only begun to receive the attention it deserves. Even the word "radical" does not capture the extent to which the justices could turn our political system upside down. Will it use a case originally brought on a narrow issue to bring our politics back to the corruption of the Gilded Age?

Last week, Bill Moyers moderated a polite debate (transcript of program here; click here to view debate) between famous First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the lawyers who will be arguing for the plaintiff, and Trevor Potter, who helped create McCain-Feingold and has filed a friend-of-the-court brief. Abrams erroneously sees this as a free speech issue, but Potter sets out the differences between a corporation and an individual, first explaining

Now, you and I have never seen a corporation walking down the street and we haven't seen one in the voting booth. That's because corporations are creatures of the state. That sounds like some piece of law school mumbo jumbo, but it's not. Corporations exist, because government said, "We're going to give you limited liability for commercial, for economic purposes. We're going to take somebody who might have lost everything they invested and we're going to say you can limit your liability by having a corporate form. You only lose what you invest".... And that the notion that they have full First Amendment free speech rights, as well, doesn't make any sense for this artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes.

Corporations have not had, should not have, "full First Amendment free speech rights" as an "artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes," which

want, if they could get it out of government, monopolies. They want the ability to defeat their competitors. And if they can use government to do that, they will. Individuals have a whole range of interests. Individuals go to church, they care about religious and social issues, they care about the future of the country. They're voters.

So, they have a range of issues at stake that corporations don't have. Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere, when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy.

And this would put our democratic republic as we have known it in great jeopardy, at the mercy of corporations like Exxon Mobil, which

has a political action committee, which means voluntary contributions given by shareholders and executives, about 900 thousand dollars in the last cycle. It made last year 85 billion dollars.

Now, there's just a world of difference in the resources available if you say to a corporation, "You can spend money to defeat global-- candidates who are in favor of global warming legislation." If coal companies can go out and say, "If you don't sign our pledge to support coal we're going to defeat you. We're going to spend money against you." You take those enormous economic resources and you use them for something that we've never seen before. That I think is the radical nature.

Corporations clearly are not hamstrung now, given

the enormous amount of speech that exists in the current system, which is essentially full free speech for individuals; the ability of a corporation or a union to have a political action committee gather individual funds and spend that, the exemption that exists for the press; the commercial exemption that exists; the exemption that the Supreme Court created for nonprofit corporations, as long as they're not a conduit for corporate funds.

There is virtually full access to the political process, other than use of a for-profit corporation of shareholders' treasury funds. Odd (no, not really) that conservatives have been targeting McCain-Feingold (a major source of their distrust of the Arizona senator) when an activist Court would be striking a blow against the economic liberty of individuals (shareholders). Potter poses the questions of

whose money is this anyway? It is not the CEO's, who's making the decision. If you're going to say corporations should have speech, then you open the whole question of, "Well, who decides what that speech should be? Don't you consult the shareholders? Do you allow shareholders to opt out? The way you allow union members to opt out of having their money used?"

Potter concludes by summarizing:

So, we're not talking about political speech by people who care about their country, who are concerned about changes in society, who are dealing fairly with friends and neighbors and all the things that get involved in politics. We're talking about a potential spender here that has a single-minded purpose, which is to make more money, to maximize their value. And I think what we're looking at here is not a First Amendment speech right, because the individuals who head those corporations have that now, their PAC's have it now, their shareholders have it now. We're talking about using the funds that are amassed under the preferential corporate treatment, to go out and seek economic gain, what they call economic rents, through legislation, by electing people who will give the corporation what it wants, whether or not is in the greater good. And I don't think that's the essence of democracy. And I don't think it has been or should be the way the First Amendment is read.

The case against Citizens United and eviscerating a decades-long effort to limit the domination of big money in the political process is strong. The good news: E.J. Dionne believes that the swing vote belongs to a justice who has "spoken eloquently about the dangers of ignoring precedents." The bad news: that jurist is Chief Justice John Roberts. The strength of the democracy, and interests of the middle class, are in jeopardy.

Article Of The Week

Syndicated columnist and author E.J. Dionne asks a poignant question:

Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?

Dionne notes that Senator John Thune (R.-S.D.) barely failed to get the 60 votes he needed for approval of his amendment to mandate all states to allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a firearm into any state. And that NRA shills have pushed legislation to allow guns into taverns, colleges, and workplaces. And that legislation already has been approved legalizing firearms in national parks.

In support of his amendment, Thune claimed "The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed."

The logic, then, of permitting firearms in the Capitol building is inescapable. If felons are deterred by the fear that a law-abiding individual in a bar or at a college will be packing heat, won't there be even more certainty that a member of Congress will be in possession of a firearm- especially because that same Congress has approved the legislation authorizing carrying of the gun?

Congressional conservatives should demonstrate that they are willing to live under the same set of (Wild West) rules to which they're anxious to subject other Americans. Dionne is not offering his piece as a joke, as a humorous antidote to the serious business of reform of the health care industry, the financial sector, or of energy policy. Instead, he challenges them "to put up or shut up," an approach insufficiently displayed by House, Senate, and Oval Office Democrats these days.