Obama's elevator speach

David Brooks published a column today (September 3rd) in the New York Times entitled "The Elevator Speech." I like that phrase. I take it to be a speach one could give after getting on an elevator and finish before the doors open again. It seems to me Obama's elevator speach would make three points:

- America could elect a Republican President and Congress, which would solve the problem of divided government, but would put those who caused the current serious recession, and their policies, back in charge (put the fox in charge of the hen house). 

- America could re-elect a Democratic President  and return a Republican Congress (status quo) which would continue the deadlock of divided government.

- America could re-elect a Democratic President (Obama) and give him a Democratic Congress with which to work, allowing them to do something about the economy. 

The Republicans, after the last election, stated their top priority is to defeat Obama, not repair the economy mind you but to defeat the President. It seems they meant whatever it takes including bringing down the country.

Red, White and Blue

Much has been said about the polarization of American society, and particularly politics. As I see it we do not have a true polarization, but rather one pole on the right but with almost nobody at the other extreme. Following the convention, I use red to represent the right and blue to represent the other political side in America. White will represent the opposite pole from red. Maybe this should be green for the Green Party (in the interests of full disclosure the writer is a registered Green) but I'm not sure how far that will take us.

I'll start with red (conservative, and Republican). They are pro individualism, self reliance,and have little need of government except for law enforcement (including enforcing contracts) and national defense (including immigration control). At its extreme there is rugged individualism, and greed. As Ayn Rand put it "altruism is evil." and Ayn Rand is influential among some tea party conservatives, particularly those of a libertarian bent. Her "altruism is evil" line makes a virtue out of greed. But she was an atheist and that was part of her philosophy.

Republicans oppose most government regulation, seeing regulation of financial markets as inhibiting economic growth, and regulation of business and of the workplace (for example mine safety) as causing unemployment (by increasing cost of doing business). The free market (Adam Smith's invisible hand) will make adjustments.

As they say, "politics makes strange bedfellows." It is ironic that the political party of greed is also the party of evangelical Christians. Long ago most Christians decided the sermon on the mount (Mathew 5-7) was impractical and the teachings of Jesus were for the few, or for another time and place. Among Catholics the religious (i.e. friers, monks and nuns) are expected to do good works (yes, a great oversimplification), but Protestants hold that salvation is through belief (faith). In both cases following the teachings of Jesus was a gift of grace. The Nicene creed goes right from Jesus' birth to his death with no mention of his ministry.


Gun ownership without restriction is a corollary of individualism, every man for himself (applies to women as well). The NRA has been pushing for gun ownership without restriction for some time. What do concealed handguns have to do with "A well regulated Militia?" And recent laws even expand permissible use, what with "stand your ground" laws.The Supreme Court seems to take the same approach as the Talmud: the Torah gave he Hebrews 613 mitzvot (rules) but the Talmud built a hedge around each one just to be sure, so that the rule might not be broken inadvertently. "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk." (Exodus 34:26b) gave rise to the whole system of different dishes for meat and dairy. The Supreme Court seems to be saying no laws regulating guns are constitutional lest we inadvertently violate the second amendment. And of course the gun lobby, principally the NRA supported by sportsmen (why does a sportsman need a concealed handgun?) and financially by gun manufacturers and dealers, loves it. Money drives the system.

The problem with the US Senate

The problem with the US Senate goes a lot deeper than the need for a 60% super majority to pass anything. That may be an issue for some of us, but there have been times that I've been glad for the ability of a minority to prevent passage of (what I saw as) ill considered  legislation. In the current Congress the immediate problem is polarization.

But more basic than that, the problem lies in the undemocratic nature of representation in the Senate. Each state, large or small (here I am speaking of population) has two Senators. This means voters in large states have their influence diluted relative to voters in small states. This means that a voter in Claymont, Delaware has the voting power of fifteen voters living five miles away in south eastern Pennsylvania.

This made sense when the Constitution was ratified; the states were sovereign, and equal in law. This fact was explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 62 by James Madison). But then the rational broke down. States started being admitted that had never been sovereign. In fact the only sovereign state to enter the union after the first thirteen I can think of is Texas (Vermont's claim is unclear, the California Free State was a mining town in the history I've read).

The 17th Amendment confirmed that each state was to have two Senators, and provided for their direct election and not election by the state legislature as before. So the Senators, since 1913, now represent the people and not the state as a sovereign entity. And that undermines the justification for unequal representation. There is no longer any justification for my neighbor in Claymont to have 15 times the voting power, and influence, in the Senate than I have. One man (or woman), one vote!