Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The Obama Doctrine

Now that we've had a chance to see how the president and his branch execute under stress, I believe that it's time to formalize and confirm the foundational principle of the Obama Administration.

Each occupant of the oval office has placed an imprint on the nation, and indeed the world, by either formally articulating or implicitly adopting a fairly consistent set of attitudes, objectives, and stances that guide their actions and behavior. While the most public (and famous) of presidential doctrines relate mainly to foreign affairs, it's clear that -- as domestic policy has become more federal and more transparent -- the same attitudes are applied to domestic affairs as well.

So it is with Mr. Obama, who has selected an administrative team on both foreign and domestic policy that appear to me to be a very consistent reflection of his approach.

I summarize that approach as: "If it's hard, we don't have to do it."

I'll let the interwebs serve as the best place to show you examples of the Doctrine at work (consider it my own little moment of homage to the Obama Doctrine itself).

To be clear, I don't intend or expect to convince his supporters of my opinion. This simply allows me to use a bit of shorthand when discussing current politics with friends over the holidays.

Uncle Pete: "I think that the administration should ride out the storm of current bad publicity in the interests of accomplishing a great public service."
Me: "Oh. Well, Obama Doctrine."

Hope this helps you too.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

My reaction to the Supreme Court's striking of the historical formula for determining the need for federal oversight of voting rights rules in such hotbeds of racism as Alaska (sorry, I'll strike that as it seems somewhat leading) is that if laws aren't informed by any currency of context, then they completely lose their effectiveness -- and, in the main, their legitimacy.
Two current examples leap out at me.
First, the "other" SCOTUS big decision striking down the Defense Of Marriage Act was, in my mind, a proper decision that is informed by the increasing legitimacy and normalization of 'non-traditional' family living arrangements. The fact that many states have legalized such relationships is less important than the fact that the preponderance of Americans have legitimized them. Since there is little or no public appetite to delegitimize gay marriage, it is 'fitting and proper' to provide the same legal protections and encumbrances that other families have.
Right now, that is the only "defense" I can see against legalized polygamy; there's a pretty strong consensus that it's wrong. But how long can that hold?
Second, several states have attempted to -- and succeed in -- modifying the latest date at which a woman can terminate a normal pregnancy from 23 weeks (let's call it "2/3 baked") to 20 weeks (let's call it "half baked"). Again, the preponderance of societal judgement is that we have to compromise between total disregard for the child and the complete loss of control by the mother. "Forcing" the woman to make her choice within the first four months has now become the rallying cry for a war on women. It's difficult not to get snide about that attitude -- at what point does "I'm getting around to it!" cease to be a legitimate response? -- but the consensus will continue to push that date earlier as technology improves our understanding and ability to support the development of the child outside of the womb.  There will come a day when the gap between popping a Plan B and "ma'am, we'll take those cells out and give them to someone that wants to care for the child" will be a tiny sliver of hours.
You might want to consider whether the right color of sneakers will change that debate.

So, yes, I believe that the facts on the ground have changed in the last 50 years, in most places, in most states, such that a separate legal framework for some places simply isn't justified by the facts on the ground. When we started this, trying to register was life-threatening. Now, the most fervent complaints are that the rules subject you to the ennui of having to wander down to the DMV sometime in the year preceding an election. This is not precisely Kafkaesque, at least in the same way that fighting a privately-administered speed camera that catches you going 35 while stopped at a light is, or trying to appeal felony* finger-gun possession by a six-year-old can be.
* Just a teeny bit of hyperbole there.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

I think we found an extra First Responder...

As the frenzy over fiscal crisis "Dennis" reaches its peak, we may have found evidence of just a teeny, tiny speck of surplus in the machinery of government.

Charge dropped against 10-year-old
School officials searched the boy’s backpack the following day, found the toy gun and called police.
To each school official who voted to call the police... thank you.
To the 911 operator who didn't hang up at the words "... toy gun"... thank you, too.
To the two squad cars that rolled to reports of a "2319" (young miscreant with plastic weapon)... thank you.

To the fourteeen members of the Commonwealth’s Attorney office who wrestled with this decision... thank you.

Saturday, January 05, 2013

On to the next Crisis

The best thing that's come from this most recent bit of policymaking buffoonery has been the decision of the punditocracy to start naming their fiscal crises. I presume that their intent is to honor the founder of the 'crisis to crisis' movement, Mr. Obama, by making his entrance the 'alpha' of this process.
This makes the 2011 debt ceiling crisis the 'beta', and I believe at this point we've switched over to person names in order to make them sound friendlier, much like hurricanes. I know I've appreciated the ability to refer to 'the visit from Helen' as if it were an elderly aunt dropping by, rather than a week-long power outage.
So fiscal crisis 'Cliff' murmured across the land, and apparently most of US Americans have survived.
Next up -- fiscal crisis 'Dennis', where the two major parties agree to significant, substantial reductions in federal spending in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, only to have it collapse at the last moment when they determine that some of them (D and R alike) could lose their jobs as part of the process.
Looking at the employment statistics for recent law school grads -- and let's face it, a typical politician is by definition the type of lawyer that John Houseman ("you come in with a brain full of mush, and you leave thinking like lawyers") wasn't able to fully fix -- you can see why they're not interested in rejoining the 'normal' economy.