05.04.09 Seventh-Inning Stretch Gone Bad (or Why My Deity Hates Baseball)

Little affronts to freedom of conscience are steps down a slippery slope to fascism and theocracy.

Back when I used to go to Baltimore Orioles games (before Peter Angelos’s misrule and disgusting politics soured me on the team), I used to get upset every time 7th inning rolled around.  Everyone’s favorite baseball song, “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” lasted all of about 45 seconds and was immediately followed by John Denver’s (ah-hem) classic “Thank God I’m a Country Boy,” which seemed to go on forever.  Not only is it an awful song, but what the hell does being a country boy have to do with downtown Baltimore?

Now I long for the days of simply hating a baseball team’s taste in music.

Following the horror of 9-11, Major League Baseball ordered all teams to play “God Bless America” during the 7th-Inning Stretch, because – evidently – it wasn’t enough to sing the national anthem at the beginning of the game.  Those were the days of Freedom Fries and “if you’re not with us, you’re against us,” when national paranoia could only be combatted by US military aggression and nose-thumbing at the Geneva Convention.  Invoking God’s special love for the Best Country Ever fit right into the ethos of the time.

Even the superpatriots of MLB backed off a bit the next season, requiring teams to play the hymn just on Sundays and holidays, a rule which is still in effect.  By 2007, only the New York Yankees – under the enlightened leadership of George Steinbrenner – saw fit to subject their fans to enforced religious patriotism at every single game. 

So, you want to quibble with “enforced,” do you?  After all, there were no brown-shirts or Iranian-style morals police punishing nonbelievers and non-nationalists, right?  Wrong!

Beginning in late 1991, Steinbrenner hired off-duty NYC cops to restrict fan movement during the “Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America.”  Mean stares from the cops were not enough, though, so the team actually has ushers stand holding chains to block aisles and prevent fans from leaving their seats!  (Eight other teams – the Astros, Athletics, Marlins, Padres, Phillies, Rangers, Red Sox, and Twins  – also have ushers restrict movement during Moments of Enforced Religious Patriotism, but they don’t use cops or chains.)

According to the Yankees, they have never gotten any complaints about their ongoing exercise in compulsive observance.  And the ACLU, while warning against “enforced cultural conformity and the use of a ballgame to impose political correctness on a captive audience,” said that the Yanks apparently were free to do as they wished, since they are a private entity.

That changed when the Yanks decided last August 27 to arrest someone for going to take a pee while he should have been standing still and pondering how perfect our country is and how much the Judeo-Christian deity loves it.  Yep, Bradford Campeau-Laurion (note the French name!), of Astoria, Queens committed the crime of daring to walk past a police officer during a Religiously Patriotic Moment and got his sorry ass thrown out of Yankee Stadium.  Now, he and the ACLU are suing on the grounds that forcing everyone to think and act exactly the same might not be the greatest embodiment of freedom (and might not be constitutional, either).

Having recently read about that incident, I trotted out to a Washington Nationals game last Thursday evening (note: not a Sunday or holiday).  I was enjoying a pleasant evening with friends, in a gorgeous new stadium, watching the Worst Team in Baseball prepare to drop yet another one when BOOM!  God Bless America came blaring out of every loudspeaker in the stadium and everyone around me – folks who moments earlier were thinking for themselves and holding various opinions about various things – stood bolt upright and all thanked God for His love of Our Special Country.

What’s my problem, you ask (apart from my little constitutional quibbles).

Well, for one thing, I don’t believe in God.  (I write this with a capital “G,” because it is the name of one religious tradition’s top being.)  No less a figure than the president of the United States grudgingly accepts my right to live here and have rights and everything, even though I don’t buy the whole thing about some white dude up in the sky who made everything and decides everything.  So, I also don’t feel like I have to listen to songs about deities, unless I’m going to an event (a Christmas concert, say) where that is the purpose.

I also don’t believe that deities should be in the business of determining which teams win or favoring certain teams over others.  (If deities are going to be in that business, the least they could do is make the Yanks lose!)  And I think they should turn deaf ears to humans who think of themselves – or their particular countries or teams or gardening clubs – as better than everyone else. 

No, if I had a god, he/she/it certainly wouldn’t be blessing America without also blessing Mexico, France, and Iran.  In fact, my god would also bless North Korea and Sudan (though, not their current leaders), not to mention cats and trees and amoebas.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of oneself or of one’s country, on those rare occasions worthy of pride.  But such pride ought not be competitive or zero-sum.  And that’s the problem with almost all patriotism: it isn’t sufficient to be happy about ourselves.  Rather, it’s about our victory over others, or the fact that we’re richer than they are, or have more and bigger tanks.  Such patriotism is inherently aggressive and hostile.

When aggressive patriotism is combined with a certainty of heavenly favor – and when that combination is then enforced on captive masses — I see great danger.  At the very least, the captives lose their ability to ask hard questions and challenge ingrained assumptions.  This loss of individual freedom or ability to think is also a loss of constraint on those in charge.  Little affronts to freedom of conscience are steps down a slippery slope to fascism and theocracy.

This is why I will not stand up for patriotic displays or pretend to worship a god I don’t.  This is why I object to being requested – nonetheless required – to do so.  And this is why I will not be attending any more Washington Nationals baseball games.  Even once the team gets on God’s good side and is no longer Among the Worst Ever, they’ll have to carry on blessing America without me.

©2009 Keith Berner

04.26.09 How’s He Doing?

Is Barack Obama too centrist and timid?  Or is he brilliantly husbanding his political capital for the fights ahead?

We knew during the campaign that Obama was no super-progressive – there were often dangerously moderate pronouncements coming from the campaign on a variety of issues.  And Obama’s post-election appointments hardly represented a departure from the past.  But it was abundantly clear (especially to those of us who read Dreams from My Father) that this was no conservative.  Here was a man of progressive instincts, combined with a strong sense of purpose and wisdom to get things done.

In one sense, Barack Obama is already the change we can believe in, simply by not being W.  This is clearly not an evil president and administration, driven by hard-right ideology and showing utter contempt for the world, the future, and reality itself.  The stark change from the last administration is a breath of fresh air, a cause for celebration every single day.

But there are devils in the details.

The Stimulus Package.  In the name of bipartisanship, Obama gave away the store before the conversations in Congress even began, by including hundreds of billions in tax cuts.  This maneuver, apparently aimed at getting Republican support, failed miserably as a negotiating and political tactic.  First, one should never begin negotiations by caving – that guarantees an outcome distant from the original objective.  Second, the GOP wasn’t interested in serving the country at all (big surprise, eh?), regardless of the incentives they were offered.

The tax cuts are also a component of the likely substantive failure of the overall package: they are not stimulative, producing only increased saving rates by the wealthy, rather than spending by the rest of us.  And the whole package was way too small.  A significant number of economists believe that the stimulus needed to be twice as large to jumpstart the economy.

The Bank Bailouts.  With an economic team made up of Wall Street robber barons, it is no surprise that the Obama administration is taking piecemeal action whose main purpose seems to be preserving the financial sector, as we know it.  Geithner & Co. are purposely covering up the magnitude of the banking mess so as to avoid having to tear it all down and start over.  Instead of nationalizing the banks, firing the fools and scoundrels that run them, and wiping out the shareholders, huge infusions of cash are going towards keeping the sick beast limping along.  We can expect the bleeding and cash infusions to continue, all so that Wall Street culture – and bonuses – might possibly emerge on the other side unscathed.

Secrecy Rules for “Terrorism” Trials.  On this topic, there is apparently no difference at all between Obama and Bush.  They both maintain that fair trials for the captives the US has been holding for years are impossible, because too much truth might come out.  This is extremely disappointing, to say the least.

Torture.  The picture has improved in the past week, but Obama is still more interested in moving on than in uncovering the truth and punishing evil.  I can understand the president’s interest in avoiding partisan warfare that consumes political capital and prevents progress on other urgent issues.  But investigating and prosecuting crimes against humanity is not optional.

Imagine Germany without the Nuremberg Trials.  Imagine South Africa without the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  Much more recently, imagine Peru without its conviction of Fujimori.  (Big credit goes to Chile for having extradited the former despot.)

It is not sufficient for Obama to declare that the US will not torture, because the next president could reverse that decision as quickly as it was made.  Only a thorough vetting of the past can allow the US to rejoin the community of civilized nations.  Only the unvarnished truth can assure that we never again sink to such a level of barbarity.

Global Warming.  From where I sit, I hear lots of nice noises from the administration, but see little real leadership.  Instead of a carbon tax, the administration is speaking softly in favor of a much less effective cap-and-trade system.  And it is deferring to a Congress that shows little enthusiasm for doing anything at all.

Guns.  I’m not expecting Obama and Democrats to commit political suicide by taking on the NRA head on.  But it is bitterly disappointing to see the issues of assault weapons and gun-show loopholes disappear entirely from the administration’s talking points and substantive agenda.

On the other hand:

Pragmatism.  Just as we know that an uncompromising progressive could never be elected president of the United States, so must we accept that uncompromising pursuit of progressive policies could result in the accomplishment of nothing.  Remember Clinton and gays in the military?  That was a case of taking on the wrong issue at the wrong time, sacrificing an entire agenda to something that was noble, but unachievable.  Frankly, I would rather see Obama bend on some issues, with an eye on larger prizes, than to sink under the weight of rigid purity.

Congress.  It’s hardly about the GOP.  Rather, it’s the fact that dozens of “Blue Dog” Democrats ardently oppose a progressive agenda.  There’s also the little matter that Democrats love to destroy their presidents (see Why the Democrats Can’t Govern, by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic, for outstanding analysis of this perennial problem).  Obama cannot afford to alienate Democratic congressional leaders, as Carter and Clinton did.  He needs to coddle them to get any cooperation at all and he needs their votes to pass legislation.  It is infuriating to watch, but there’s no way around it.

The Full Plate.  The GOP claims that Obama is taking on too much.  They are also denying the scope of the disaster Obama inherited, following the most evil and incompetent administration in US history.  (I remain thankful that evil was coupled with incompetence, otherwise, the GOP would still be in control.)  Obama has to take on everything.  But it is also inevitable that he can’t give everything equal priority or expect to win all battles.

Where some see weakness and flexibility to a fault, might there not be sly strategy, instead?  Perhaps the president is planting seeds everywhere to see which ones will sprout, giving ground where the results look less promising, and calibrating which issues and initiatives are worth standing firm on.

Health Care and Budget Reconciliation.  Here is one indication that Obama might be clever and strong enough after all.  In the past couple of weeks, the administration has been quietly and successfully getting congressional Democrats to line up for victory on this issue.  Specifically, they are very close to adopting budget reconciliation rules to pass health care reform.  This parliamentary tactic allows legislation to pass with 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 necessary to cut off obstructionist filibusters.  The GOP is screaming that this amounts to nuclear war, forgetting the Reagan and Bush record of using the same approach to passing their tax-cut agenda.

The significance of these developments is not to be underestimated.  They show a willingness and ability of the young administration to stand firm and pick battles.  Further, they show great skill in working with Congress.  All this bodes well for the future.

So, is the glass half full or half empty?  For me, there are daily disappointments, but they cannot blind me to the difference 100 days have made.  Neither can they obscure the great – if uncertain – promise that remains in this administration.  At the very least, Barack Obama will have reversed the worst of Bush-era excesses and lawlessness.  At most, he will have taken on seemingly overwhelming problems and scored real victories on some of them.

©2009 Keith Berner

04.24.09 Spring

Nation’s Capital Enjoys Annual Day of Spring

After weeks of rain and 40-degree temperatures, with frost warnings as recently as last night, today is Washington’s annual Day of Spring: sunny and 75.

Summer begins tomorrow, with highs in the upper 80s.  Soon oppressive humidity and mosquitos will kick in and last until late September, as every resident of this region knows.

Here’s hoping that once Obama changes evrerything else, he can get to work on our weather.

©2009 Keith Berner 

04.22.09 Hold Democrats Accountable, Too!

I wrote to Van Hollen not because he has any special responsibility for these matters, but because he is my local member of Congress.

An Open Letter to Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Dear Congressman Van Hollen:

In the past two days, the New York Times has informed us that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) improperly used her influence to obtain favorable treatment for Israeli spies and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was one of four members of Congress who was briefed on Bush torture policy when it was first implemented.

At the same time that I am calling for full investigation and prosecution of US leaders and citizens who broke international law and shamed our country, I must also call for Democrats to hold their own congressional leaders accountable.  It is crystal clear that the Democratic Party must renounce Harman’s behavior and seek her removal from Congress. Pelosi’s culpability is not yet so clear, but the Party must be out front in seeking full disclosure and proper action.

I call on you not to not duck these issues and not to allow our party to do so. Just as US torture made us no better than our enemies, Democratic cowardice will make us no better than the Republicans.

Sincerely,

Keith Berner

 

©2009 Keith Berner

04.17.09 Not Another Dime for Israel

US Aid to Israel serves nobody’s interests – especially not the Jews’.

Let’s start with the obligatory I’m-not-an-anti-Semite defensive statements:

I’m Jewish.  The Holocaust was real.  It was certainly among the greatest crimes of human history.  The Jewish people (as a religion and a nationality) need a homeland.

It is not my intent to revisit the question of whether the Jewish homeland should have been established when, where, and how it was. (What land belongs to whom depends entirely on the historical moment one chooses to start with, after all).  Rather, it is to identify the truth that has prevailed at least since the 1980s: Israel is a racist, hegemonist state, significantly financed by American tax dollars and by the contributions of misguided Jewish-Americans and right-wing Christians.  Without this country’s support, Israel never would have made the transformation from international victim to international pariah.

Israel embarked on that catastrophic transformation the minute it began to settle civilians on occupied territory.  Though many Arabs (and some leftists) may disagree – I would have had no quibble with Israel’s continuing a military occupation of territory conquered in 1967, as long as the surrounding powers were unwilling to make peace and adjust borders.  But once it began to pursue a religiously and ideologically inspired “Greater Israel,” purposely expanding its borders and stealing others’ land, it no longer had any claim to justice or international support.

It is important to note (as seldom is noted in the US media) that Israel continued rapid expansion of its illegal and immoral settlements during the entire Oslo Peace Process and under Labor governments.  There is no doubt that the PLO blew an historic opportunity (one of their favorite hobbies) by refusing to consummate a peace agreement in the 90s.  But the fact that the Palestinians are stupid does not mitigate Israeli guilt for ongoing theft and oppression.

Of course, it gets worse.  Israel has been quietly mistreating its Arab minority all along.  Most countries mistreat their minorities.  But not all countries show rapidly increasing support for apartheid-like policies and calls for expulsion (aka “ethnic cleansing”).  And that’s the key point: a majority of the Israeli public — expressing free will through democratic elections — has now declared explicit support for aggression, oppression, and racism.

When the Austrians voted overwhelmingly for Kurt Waldheim (and then continued to show huge support for right-wing extremist politicians), I decided I would never set foot in that deeply racist and anti-Semitic country.  By the same token, if I were not a US citizen and resident, I would have boycotted the US once W won a clear majority in 2004, because the American people freely chose torture, aggressive war, and contempt for the rest of the world.

When democratic countries thumb their noses at international law and moral norms, they deserve to be renounced and isolated.  I think the US should have begun to reduce funding for Israel in the 1980s, once the latter’s hegemonistic aims became apparent.  In 2009, there can no longer be any doubt of the correct moral course.

But, this is not just about morality.  The perpetual claim that the US shares strategic interests with Israel is a bald-faced lie, perpetrated by the infamous pro-Israel lobby and its amen corner among Christian fundamentalists.  (The latter see Israeli aggression as the necessary precursor to Christ’s return, at which point – ironically — Jews won’t be allowed into heaven.)  Trade with Israel is minute.  Military and intelligence ties would hardly be necessary, if the US weren’t alienating the rest of the world through its alliance with Israel.  There is no realist argument that the US-Israel alliance makes Americans wealthier or safer.

Just as the US is held hostage by the NRA to a never-ending plague of gun violence, so is it held hostage by AIPAC & Co.  This evil (and, dare I say, anti-American) lobby shuts down any honest public discourse and perpetuates the misappropriation of US tax dollars to undermine US interests and prevent Israel from dealing with reality.

That last point is the ultimate irony.  If the US had begun making aid to Israel conditional on that country’s behavior 25 years ago, Israel would have had to choose then between morality and immorality, between enlightened, long-term self-interest and national suicide.  No better than any enabler, the US chose – and chooses today – to help make Israel’s survival untenable. 

For those of us who are not anti-Semitic, who acknowledge and feel deeply the history of the Jews as a hated, oppressed people, this is a fundamental part of the outrage: a conspiracy of right-wing extremists oceans apart has come close to making a just, democratic, safe haven for Jews an impossibility for the indefinite future.  That outcome is at hand.

Meanwhile, the pro-Israel lobby’s persistent conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism adds to the tragedy, by muddying the vital distinction between that which is Israeli and that which is Jewish.  The just cause of Palestinian and Arab rights – the righteousness of anti-imperialism – is thus turned into a crusade against Jews, the very thing that AIPAC and the ADL claim to be working against.

For those of us who believe that being Jewish is equivalent to being humanist – compassion for the oppressed, commitment to peace and justice – the Israeli moral nightmare is very hard to bear indeed.

Final thought: if ending aid to Israel requires some act of balance, cut loose the horrific dictatorship in Egypt at the same time!

©2009 Keith Berner

 

04.04.09 Obscenity

Obscenity is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Item 1 – Let’s Cut Taxes for the Ultra-Wealthy.  So, did you think that massive tax cuts for the absolute wealthiest members of society would be off the table in this new era?  After all, we now have trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, as we clean up from the decades-long party thrown by (who else?) the ultra wealthy.  Well, you’d be wrong.

Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have introduced legislation to make sure the 0.2% of the population subject to the current estate tax get to pass on more of their wealth, thereby adding nearly $500 billion to the national debt and further locking in the horrific stratification between classes in our society. 

Obscene.

Item 2 – Teenagers Guilty of Child Porn?  Yep, only in America could teenagers who take naked pictures of themselves and keep pics of their boyfriends and girlfriends be arrested on child pornography charges.  That’s what’s happening in several states nationwide.  Adults may question the judgment of kids being kids, but the fact is that 20% of teens engage in this sort of thing.  And now these perfectly normal teenagers could be subject to long prison terms and having to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.  Perhaps the government should take the time and money devoted to these prosecutions and put it towards throwing more pot smokers in jail.

Obscene.

Item 3 – Nanny State Shuts Down Campus Cinema.  Oh the outrage!  Students at the University of Maryland recently decided to show a porn film at the student union.  Right-wing state legislators stepped in to stop the horror, threatening the school’s $424 million state subsidy over the issue.  And, rather than stand up for freedom of speech, the school’s president saluted and stopped the screening.

Meanwhile, many of these same wing nuts were trying to kill a new state law allowing speed cameras near schools and work zones.  Their complaint?  Stopping speeders would be an intrusion on civil liberties!

So, let me get this straight.  The “right” to kill people with assault weapons and drive over the speed limit needs to be protected, but kids snapping pictures and young adults watching porn require immediate state intervention?

Obscene.

©2009 Keith Berner

04.03.09 Good Guys

Among the hordes of bad guys, we’re blessed three highly ethical, principled politicians here in Montgomery County.

I have been writing a lot recently about all the bad guys in politics.  Not wanting to focus only on the negative, it is appropriate for me to cite the rare rays of hope amongst the general despair.

State Senator Jamie Raskin, as well as County Councilmembers Phil Andrews and Marc Elrich, deserve accolades for their extraordinary commitment to doing the right thing.  This is not to say that I always agree with the decisions these three politicians make or that ego plays no part in their pursuit of office and performance in it.  (How many of us “civilians” could claim that nothing we do is at least somewhat about ego gratification?)  It is merely to point out that that Jamie, Marc, and Phil are not primarily driven by service to self.

I have special respect in life for those who seek to leave the world a better place than they found it.  Having gotten to know Jamie, Marc, and Phil very well personally, I can see that this is the primary motivation for their lives in politics (and outside the public arena, too).  No other politicians I know personally, or follow closely, come close in this measure.

Of course, I don’t know every area politician well.  And, I might well have misread the character of some I follow, but don’t get to interact with closely.   So, Dear Reader, I invite you to nominate some public servants you think deserve special recognition.

PS. It is interesting to note that two of my good guys, Marc and Phil, are among only three current county members who have not endorsed in that awful District 4 race.  Good for them (and us)!

©2009 Keith Berner

 

04.01.09 Not Kramer, Either

Like I said: Neither District 4 front-runner is worthy of support.

When I posted my views on the District 4 county council race last week, some Navarro supporters came back to me with the rant: “So, are you saying Ben Kramer is better?”

“Awww geez,” I thought to myself.  ”What part of ‘I can’t stand either of ‘em’ can’t you understand?”

So, let me take this blog post to make clear the part about not being for Ben Kramer.  How shall we count the ways?

1. He’s an über-developer from a whole family of über -developers.

2. He led the charge last year against raising state taxes on millionaires just a teensy-weensy bit.  (His sister, the ever-so-right-wing Rona Kramer, joined him in leading this effort.)

But that’s hardly all.  Let’s take a look at the excellent analysis provided by Maryland Politics Watch.

On the environment: “Kramer’s lifetime score of 79% is the lowest of any Montgomery County state legislator other than his sister, District 14 Senator Rona Kramer (who scores 68%).  The average score for House Democrats was 85% in 2008 and 91% in 2007.”

On GLBT rights: “Equality Maryland gave Kramer a 60% score in 2008, tied for the lowest among Montgomery legislators.”

On crime issues: “Kramer co-sponsored a bill by Republican Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A) that would have made it easier for domestic abuse victims to acquire firearms permits.  The bill failed on an 86-51 vote.  Kramer and District 17 Delegate Luiz Simmons were the only Montgomery legislators who voted for it.  Lieutenant Governor Brown’s spokesman Mike Raia called it a ‘misguided measure.’”

More: “Kramer voted for Simmons’ abuser expungement bill three times – once in committee and twice on the floor.  The bill, which would have allowed accused abusers whose petitions were denied or dismissed by a judge to expunge their records, was opposed by female legislators by a nearly 2-1 margin.”

How much more do we need to know about this guy to determine that he (and his sister) hardly deserve to hold any public office in Maryland?  A jump from the part-time state general assembly to the full-time county council must feel like a promotion to Ben.  I see no reason why he deserves it.

I stand by the position I took last week: a pox on both their houses!

It is interesting to note (as I have) that the remnants of the totally discredited End-Gridlock Council have lined up for Navarro, as have many self-identified progressives.  Yet two of the slow-growth progressives of 2006 (Ike Leggett and Duchy Trachtenberg) have come out for Kramer.  It’s hard to define who the hypocrites are here.  It looks like there are plenty on both sides.

I have spent a good deal of ink (or, rather, pixels) recently decrying the lack of good guys in politics.  Well two of the three country council members who have not endorsed in this awful county council race are on my list of those rare good guys.  More on that in my next post.

©2009 Keith Berner

03.29.09 Politics & Politicians

If you’re interested in playing this dirty game, there must be something wrong with you.

During decades of political activism, I have often been the defender of politics and politicians, cringing whenever I heard the classic populist rants about politicians as self-aggrandizing scoundrels.

Well, during my idealistic years, I didn’t know very many political figures personally, nor follow their behavior closely.  Getting involved in “retail politics” in Maryland gave me a much more nuanced view – not only of the politicians I have worked with and followed, but of politics in general.

The conclusion, first – those populists have it right: most politicians are indeed self-aggrandizing scoundrels.  Most politics is a dirty, duplicitous game.  Much of the horrifically distasteful and hypocritical wheelings and dealings are necessary, representing the only way competing interests can form temporary coalitions to get anything done.  Necessary, maybe.  But it takes (in most cases) a somewhat depraved character to want to engage in it.

Look at the evidence, from Rod Blagojevich to Eliot Spitzer.  If politicos are not in the game for their financial enrichment (Blago), they’re in it for the feeling of invincibility and personal power (Spitzer).  Look at the truly despicable Ralph Nader, who spent much of his life pursuing the common good, only to flame out in a decade-long spasm of societally destructive ego gratification.

At one time, it would have been easy for me to toss aside these examples as exceptions.  But no longer.  All I need to see are the rags-to-riches stories like Ike Leggett (Montgomery County executive) who end up opposing small tax increases on millionaires to keep their top contributors happy.  Or Maryland Secretary of Labor Tom Perez (newly appointed to the Obama administration), who found his ethnicity once it occurred to him to campaign for office and then, in order to keep moving up the ladder, sold out the poor (disproportionally Hispanic) by writing the governor’s justification for slot machine gambling.

Speaking of the governor, don’t think for a second that he is the most powerful man in Maryland.  Rather, it is the right-wing, pseudo-Democrat, Senate President Mike Miller.  Wanna know why it is impossible to raise liquor taxes in our state?  Because that’s the Miller family business, that’s why!  Wanna know why slots wouldn’t die?  Because Miller held the entire legislative agenda hostage to them year after year until those opposed wore down and were willing to put the matter to a referendum so that other legislation might actually get considered in this state.

Even many politicians who vote the right way turn out to be unsavory when you get to know them.  There are the local legislators who engage in scummy campaign practices or who put personal ambition in front of fulfilling commitments to their constituents.  Because I care about policy outcomes I vote for these legislative good guys.  But, do I really want to spend time with them?  Do I really trust them – when push comes to shove – to put the common good instead of their own?  Of course not.  I just have to hope that that common good and their personal good stay aligned as much as possible.

To politics itself:  I just watched Milk, the excellent film biography of pioneering gay politician, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1978.  A great man, in so many ways, but his promises to a rival to support contemptible legislation in order to win a vote and then his repeatedly breaking those pledges hardly constitute admirable moments.

By the same token, it makes my skin crawl to see some of the local politicos I know well, and whom I know loathe each other, doing the kissy-face thing with each other and praising each other publicly.

As I alluded to earlier, vote trading and pretending to respect those you don’t are clearly the grease that allows the political machine to produce any progress whatsoever.  But would you want to engage in it or hang out with those who do?  Don’t you wonder about the personality types that like it? 

A couple of years ago, I flirted with running for public office.  Among other reasons for stepping back from that idea, I realized that a significant motive for me was the idea of winning for winning’s sake, and of feeling important when I walked into a room.  That ego craving is present in almost all politicians (and most performers, too – no surprise when someone jumps from stage to statehouse).  Some are able to keep it sufficiently subjugated to higher purposes.  I doubt most can.

(As for me, blogging is meeting my ego fancy, without causing any more damage than taking up your time, Dear Reader.  And deciding I would never run for anything has freed me up to speak [what I see as] the truth without having to worry about how it might effect my future prospects for building coalitions and winning elections.  What a relief!)

So, do I seek to get rid of politics and politicians?  Of course not.  I simply seek to keep my own idealism in check so that I stop being so bitterly disappointed.  I also hope to encourage others to be highly skeptical of the system, without completely washing their hands of responsibility for it.  After all, it is up to us voters to get the occasional truly good guys elected (and there are some of them) and keep a watchful eye on all the rest.

©2009 Keith Berner

03.22.09 (II) – Development, NIMBYism & County Council District 4

Apologies to Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager. And why I still don’t support his candidate.

A very irate David Moon, Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager, sent me an email me a short while ago.  David was objecting in no small measure to my having characterized him in a version of my post of earlier today as  a “hired gun.”  (I have since removed that reference.)  He wrote that this implied that he was selling out his values for cash. 

In using the term, I hadn’t really thought about its meaning.  I was going after David for supporting a candidate I don’t.  That’s fair.  But it wasn’t fair for me to do so in an ad-hominem manner.  And, I had missed entirely the fact that David supports Navarro because he supports her positions, not in spite of them.

I was wrong on both counts and apologize. 

In his email, David writes that he has “never been a no-growth NIMBY.”  He goes on:

I think people haven’t thought enough about development and climate change lately and are stuck in backwards wars of the past.

A few years ago there was an attempted coup of the Sierra Club board, who wanted to promote anti-immigrant policies and “zero-growth” — while completely ignoring the realities of population growth globally, and its environmental consequences. We saw this replicated when MoCo Sierra Club members tried to stage a coup over the organization’s support for a light rail Purple Line along the trail. Unfortunately, I feel like MUCH of the old slow-growth community in Montgomery has not caught up with the times and understood the fact of density/transit and redevelopment being needed to reduce carbon emissions. They are now acting in anti-environmental ways, especially in opposing density at metro stations and failing to realize that the urbanization of pockets of Montgomery’s metro stations is already happening and is needed to curb climate change/carbon emissions.

I also don’t consider myself to be a “no-growth NIMBY.” I too support dense development around Metro stations and a place for immigrants as an essential part of our community.  Yet I oppose Nancy Navarro’s candidacy.  Let me explain.

First, my suspicion of development is the direct result of my hostility to developers.  In my view, they are the local equivalent of  AIG-style robber barons: ultra-wealthy scoundrels out to make a buck at the expense of everyone and everything else.  These are the folks who have brought us strip-malls and sprawl coast to coast. 

Developers have dominated MoCo politics for years, in effect “owning” the political system by making up a huge percentage of all the campaign contributions that have kept it lubricated.  The height of their control came with the victory of County Executive Doug Duncan and the End-Gridlock Council in 2002, after a harsh campaign of defamation against good-guys Blair Ewing, Marc Elrich, and others.  Tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars of developer money poured into campaign coffers for one reason only: to ensure that the ultra-wealthy could get wealthier.

For me, this isn’t about NIMBYism.  This is about putting a stop to the grip of the least deserving elements of our society on our collective jugulars.

Duncan is gone, but three members of that council remain and have endorsed Nancy Navarro: Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp, and George Leventhal.  Floreen and Knapp were bad guys then and still are.  For his part, Leventhal was never as deeply enmeshed and I have always found him to be more thoughtful than all the other “perps” of that era.  Yet, when I see him in coalition with Floreen and Knapp, it brings back terrible memories.  And, in my view, that coalition taints whomever it seeks to anoint.

Then there’s Valerie Ervin.  Ervin spoke out of both sides of her mouth during her successful 2006 campaign for the council.  I should know – I was on her campaign staff and witnessed it, along with her internse and disturbing anger at those who rubbed her the wrong way.  She encouraged slow-growth progressives to believe she was one of them, while courting chamber of commerce.  She refused to take a stand on hot-button issues like the ICC in the interest of alienating no one.  Once she took office, she lined up with pro-growthers and expressed stunning contempt for many of those she previously cultivated.  (I am privy to – and have been a target of – some of this rather undiplomatic communication.)

Ervin and Navarro are close.  And one policy area where they are especially close is the labor unions.  Though I have always been pro-labor, I see the public unions in Montgomery County as growing fat at others’ expense (much like their situational allies, the developers).  In a fiscal climate that presages draconian cuts to public services, the public unions have given back far too little. Ervin is already in the unions’ pockets.  I fear that Navarro will only increase their power.

For me, then, Nancy Navarro is damned by the company she keeps – the End-Gridlockers, Ervin, and the unions.  This is why David Moon and I may agree on the issues he raised to me today, but not on the candidate he supports.

©2009 Keith Berner