Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Marches Into Rightwing Camp

The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation has cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen previously provided grants to fund breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood medical professionals.

Recently, however, Komen hired an anti-choice Vice President, Karen Handel, who was recently an unsuccessful candidate in the Georgia gubernatorial election. Handel actively campaigned on an anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood platform. She also received an endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Komen defends its decision by citing to a "new" rule it adopted that denies funding to groups under Congressional "investigation." Last year, House Republicans launched a partisan investigation to determine whether Congress should continue funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion family planning and health services. That investigation, however, has not proceeded, due to opposition by Democrats. Because of this context, Komen's new rule seems plainly designed to target and justify the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Furthermore, because liberals tend to support women's health issues and abortion rights, this decision could prove harmful to Komen.

Planned Parenthood has released a statement that criticizes Komen.  Planned Parenthood has also started a campaign to raise funds in order to continue providing breast cancer screenings for its indigent patients. Komen's decision is not based on good healthcare practices. Instead, it rests on partisan political ideology. Shame.

Does This Picture Prove That Romney Is "Out of Touch" Or That Some Liberals Are Hypocrites?

First it made the rounds in social media.  Now it is plastered on the website for  MoveOn.org. It is a picture that seems to show Mitt Romney getting his shoes shined on an airport tarmac, while grinning happily. Next to that image, President Obama is shaking hands with someone in a uniform commonly worn by blue collar workers. The caption states: "Notice the difference?"

Liberals have promoted the picture, claiming that it demonstrates Mitt Romney is out of touch with Americans and that he exploits low-income individuals. By contrast, Obama is a man of the people, who shakes their hands rather than using them to shine his shoes. For several reasons, the picture says more about its liberal promoters than Mitt Romney.

FIRST, the picture is highly deceptive. Romney is not getting his shoes shined. Instead, he is getting scanned by a TSA agent before boarding a charter jet. The use of deceptive photography has no place in civil political discourse.

SECOND, despite the deceptive nature of the photo, some liberals insist upon defending its use. MoveOn for example has apologized for implying that the photo shows Romney getting his shoes shined. Nonetheless, the organization says that "[w]e still feel it goes a long way in showing Mitt Romney’s special circumstances in comparison with the 99%." It is difficult to understand how a misleading picture demonstrates anything. This is poor judgment by MoveOn and others who have made similar arguments.

THIRD, even if it were true that Romney was getting his shoes shined on a tarmac, this alone would not prove anything about his character.  Wealth alone does not make a person unsympathetic to poor folks.

FOURTH, using the photo to demonstrate Romney's inability to connect with the public hypocritically ignores similar activities by other politicians -- including President Obama. Many political candidates use private planes during campaign trips. Obama does so himself.

Obama boarding campaign plane

Planes allow candidates and their staff to make multiple stops and to conduct meetings while they are traveling. Indeed, there are many photographs on the Internet of Obama traveling and boarding his own private campaign jet. Yet these photographs have never led to liberal uproar. Granted, none of the pictures shows Obama getting a security screen while sitting in a chair, but this tiny distinction could not reasonably explain the disparate reactions to the two of them. Furthermore, Obama's campaign plane has luxurious seating. Most of the "99%" have never flown in such comfort. So, if Romney's exclusive experiences make it impossible for him to understand Americans, one could reach a similar conclusion about President Obama.

Interior of Obama's campaign plane

FINALLY, liberals' disparate and partisan reactions to wealth come across as a faux class critique. There are many wealthy liberals, including esteemed persons like John F. Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Many other presidents in US history were wealthy, and, after adjusting for inflation, some were wealthier than Romney. Some reports estimate that the Obamas hold $10 million in assets. That wealth far exceeds that of most Americans.

Furthermore, there are several ways in which all of us benefit from the work of poor laborers, many of whom earn less than persons who shine shoes for a living. Apple products, for example, are assembled in China by very poor and badly treated workers, including many young children. Restaurant staff are often underpaid and mistreated. And hotel housekeepers earn notoriously low wages. Yet, liberals eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and use Apple products.  Indeed, Obama apparently uses Apple products, in spite of the fact that the company has admitted to using child labor. If getting a shoe shine is a sign of class indifference, so are these other activities that many liberals enjoy.

A Better Debate: Analyze Policy

Liberals are using the photograph to construct a narrative about Romney. They argue that his wealth makes it impossible for him to understand the struggle that Americans are facing during this economic downturn. Even if this argument were legitimate, the picture does not convey this point. For the various reasons stated above, the picture speaks more negatively about its liberal supporters than Romney.

Romney's policy positions are far more important than his personal wealth. Also, focusing on policy is much healthier and educational for public discourse. A few years ago, liberals complained that conservatives were running from real issues by probing things like Obama's religion, his minister's anger, his fondness for arugula and Whole Foods, and his international background. During his presidency, conservatives have said that he has inappropriately taken vacations while Americans are struggling economically.  Unfortunately, some liberals are replicating this negative behavior. Shame on them.

Washington Times: Possibly "Illiterate" Obama Used "Naked Thuggery" to "Rape" the Constitution Like A "Suicide Bomber"

The title of this post is not inspired by a satirical article in The Onion.  Instead, it describes an op-ed written by Charles Hurt, a columnist for the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper.  By publishing Hurt's latest column, "President Obama's Thuggery," the Washington Times proves that it does not care about contemporary journalistic ethics.

Recess Appointments: A Brief Constitutional Analysis

Hurt's column is a racist rant that pretends to offer an analysis of President Obama's decision to make three recess appointments last week. The Constitution allows presidents to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in session and is unable to provide advice and consent. There is a legitimate constitutional debate over the legality of the recess appointments. Obama made the appointments when the Senate was in session. Accordingly, one could argue that his actions violate the Constitution.

On the other hand, it is clear that the Senate was only "in session" in a technical sense. Rather than actually meeting to discuss business, the Senate instead held multiple pro forma sessions. These sessions were designed specifically to block Obama from using his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. Ironically, the Democrats started using this subversive (and highly immature) practice during the Bush administration for the same purpose.

Legal observers who support Obama's decision argue that if Congress refused through subterfuge to offer advice and consent, the president could make the appointments on his own. The Constitution does not discuss the meaning of recess or session. Furthermore, it is possible that the Supreme Court would not intervene in this dispute. The Court could conclude that the matter presents a "political question" suitable for resolution by Congress and the President.

Racial Tirade

Hurt only discusses the recess flap for one fleeting moment. He devotes most of his analysis listing atrocities and dangers associated with Obama administration. Although Hurt's analysis is riddled with distortions, this is not its worst quality. Instead, Hurt's article is despicable because he uses graphically racist language to discuss Obama. The list below documents Hurt's racist rant. Decide for yourselves whether you consider this respectful journalism.

• Obama used the recess appointment "to utterly rape our most cherished Constitution"
  
• "Mr. Obama is now installing his henchmen to Senate-confirmed positions. . . ."
  
• Questioning whether anything could stop Obama "from simply 'recess appointing' thugs to the Supreme Court in order to uphold his socialist platform"
  
• Considering whether Obama "is learned, yet illiterate, which is entirely possible considering the perniciousness of affirmative action at places like Harvard Law School"
  
• "Obama has become our homegrown enemy. He shreds the Constitution with the unflinching calmness of a suicide bomber, uncaring that he is destroying the only system on Earth that could have given him the life and success he has enjoyed. . . ."

In the book The Color of Crime, Professor Katheryn Russell Brown of the University of Florida College of Law examines social stereotypes that subject black males to discrimination in the criminal justice system.  Russell says that collectively, these stereotypes construct individual black males as a criminalblackman (yes -- one word).

Russell's terminology accurately describes Hurt's treatment of Obama. Hurt depicts Obama as an illiterate rapist, thug, socialist, suicide bomber, domestic terrorist, and undeserving beneficiary of affirmative action.  That Hurt invokes racist imagery in his essay is beyond dispute. By publishing this rubbish that only pretends to offer pressing analysis, the Washington Times has discarded any lingering credibility that it has as a legitimate news source.

Greenwald Gets It Wrong on Progressives and War

Glenn Greenwald has been writing a series of articles that criticize the Obama administration for endorsing recent  legislation that codifies the indefinite detention of enemy combatants under certain circumstances. Greenwald has also given a lot of attention to Ron Paul's campaign. While Paul advances oppressive domestic policy proposals, he has condemned war and many unjust antiterrorism practices. Greenwald argues that if Paul received the GOP nomination, he would bring these issues into national discourse -- unlike Mitt Romney (challenging Obama).

Greenwald has also strongly criticized progressives for not giving heat to Obama regarding these issues, even though they condemned Bush for many of the same practices. Today, Greenwald continues his series of essays on this topic. He argues that liberals seek to "deprioritize" war and civil liberties in order to focus on social issues, for which the Democrats have a better record.  Greenwad also rejects the critical observation that upper-class white male progressives might perceive war and antiterrorism practices as central to their agendas because they do not experience subordination based on race, gender or class. Greenwald describes this as "grotesque accusatory innuendo." I disagree with Greenwald's latest commentary.

First, let me state that I have a tremendous amount of respect for Greenwald. He is consistent in his positions, unlike many commentators across the political spectrum. He is a tireless advocate for vital issues such as liberty and peace. His articles are also usually well documented and thorough. Nevertheless, his latest article falls short of this standard.

Distorting Progressive Critiques of the Left

First, Greenwald does not establish his main point -- that "Democratic partisans" seek to deprioritize war and civil liberties in order to protect President Obama. Admittedly, many Democrats have been silent about these issues since Obama's election, but they are not the folks that Greenwald targets. Instead, he goes after folks like Megan Carpentier and Katha Pollit. Carpentier and Pollitt, however, do not fit neatly within the "partisan Democratic" box in which Greenwald seeks to force them. Rather than taking on partisan Democrats who are loyal team players, Greenwald challenges commentators who have made progressive critiques of his arguments. This is an important dimension that Greenwald does not acknowledge.

When progressives (myself included) initially criticized Greenwald for writing positively about Paul, he defended his position by stating that while he agrees with Paul on some issues, he finds many of Paul's proposals unconscionable. Yet, Greenwald has failed to return the respect he has demanded. Leftist criticism of Greenwald and others who have discussed Paul in glowing terms does not seek to deprioritize war and antiterrorism practices. Instead, these commentators seek to highlight the deep problems related to Paul's domestic policies. If Greenwald can focus on the positive side of Paul without deprioritizing his negatives, then other progressives can focus on his negative policies without marginalizing war and antiterroism. Indeed, many of Paul's progressive critics concede that they agree with some of his positions.

Identity and Ideology

Greenwald also vehemently rejects the argument that some white male progressives might overlook Paul's negative positions due to their relative social privilege. These arguments offend Greenwald. I disagree with his reaction.  The intersection of identity and ideology are valid progressive concerns.

From an empirical standpoint, Paul has generated more support among white men than others. Most of his voters in Iowa, for example, were  young white male moderates and independents. He only received 14 percent of Republican votes.  Social patterns are entrenched within political affiliation and voting. Women, the poor and persons of color support liberal causes and candidates. Whites, upper-class and man tend to support conservative and issues and candidates.

Greenwald, however, dismisses any role for societal privilege in the recent progressive debates regarding war and social issues. But people who work on issues of racial discrimination, gender, sexuality and poverty have produced substantial research which demonstrates that public opinion on these issues tend to correlate with social status. Whites, for example, have a very positive view regarding the status of race relations; blacks and other people of color do not (see, e.g, here). This leads many of them to oppose policies designed to ameliorate racial inequality.

Greenwald imples that if identity and ideology were linked, then he would have the better argument because he is defending Muslims and persons of color from abuses by the US. Greenwald, however, refuses to engage in this type of reasoning.  Yet, by raising the point, he effectively does make the argument. Many of Paul's supporters have made similar claims in online debates. It strikes me that people of color are mere pawns in this reasoning.

Presumably, Greenwald and others would remain antiwar regardless of the predominant race of people affected by it. Describing Paul as a favored GOP candidate while neglecting any substantial discussion of the group's affected by his domestic policies reveals an acute blind spot. This does make anyone in this position an evil person.  Instead, it just acknowledges the complexity of human perception and intergroup understanding. Studies, for example, confirm that when people know one or more openly LGBT individuals they have a more positive view of gay rights.  The blind spots are removed by interaction. When people treat progressive identity-based arguments as offensive they risk chilling speech on these important matters.

Conclusion

I am glad that Greenwald has written so powerfully on antiwar and antiterrorism issues. By doing so, he has caused a lot of progressives to examine Paul, which has exposed the danger of many of his ideas. Leftist critiques of Paul and his progressive defenders do not deprioritize war and civil liberty. On the contrary, they promote a comprehensive justice that antiwar advocacy alone cannot accomplish.

Dear Washington Post: Ron Paul Is NOT a Champion of Civil Liberty (Updated)

[This article is now on Huffington Post.]

Washington Post "factchecker" Josh Hicks gives Ron Paul high marks for consistency. Hicks claims that Paul's proposals and voting record are 100% consistent with his political rhetoric. This conclusion, however, is woefully incorrect.

Ron Paul (along with his many fans) describes himself as a champion of civil liberties. Paul also embraces an extremely narrow conception of federal power. These two positions, however, do not always co-exist peacefully.  Consequently, Paul has sponsored legislation that would imperil the very civil liberties he claims to endorse.

Consider for example Paul's sponsorship of the We the People Act. This bill, if passed, would have dreadful consequences for the protection of civil liberties. The proposal would prohibit the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding cases challenging state laws that implicate:

1. the free exercise or establishment of religion;

2. the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

3. the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

The proposal would also prohibit the federal courts from issuing rulings that "interfere[] with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." Also, the bill, if passed, would "negate[] as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act."

Let's sort through the legalese. The bill would curtail civil liberties in several ways. First, it would remove all cases involving freedom of religion and the establishment of religion from the federal courts. This could harm liberty in a couple of ways. For example, if a state infringed an individual's or church's right to exercise religion, the federal courts could not intervene to redress the wrong. Only state courts could do so. On the other hand, if an individual claimed that the state had unlawfully subjected him or her to religious practice (say, by mandating that a student pray a Christian prayer in school or profess a belief in god), that individual could not pursue redress in the federal courts.  Because states still violate these constitutional rights, Paul's proposal would allow these practices to remain in place, unless state courts sided with plaintiffs.

The bill's most dangerous provision would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction in right of privacy cases. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution establishes a right of privacy. This is great example of libertarianism. Unless individual behavior harms another person or the public, then the government needs a pressing reason for regulating it. Although the right of privacy protects individual liberty, Paul would keep the federal courts out of this important constitutional area.

As a consequence, federal courts could not decided the constitutionality of state laws that unlawfully regulate (or even prohibit) the use of contraception, restrict or ban abortion, or that deny marriage to same-sex couples. States could also ban adult consensual oral sex, anal sex, premarital sex and a host of other practices that fall within the right of privacy without any check from the federal courts.

Furthermore, the portion of the bill that would negate the applicability of any precedent prohibited by the statute would mean the immediate demise of Roe v. Wade -- a case that Paul the purported libertarian opposes. It would also mean that many other important rulings, such as cases protecting parental rights, family privacy, the right to marry, and the right to refuse medical treatment would suddenly lose all value as precedent in cases challenging state laws.

Moreover, the bill's vague language that would prohibit federal courts from issuing any ruling that would interfere with the "legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states" could enable dangerous restraints on civil liberty. For example, if a state legislature banned women from voting, the bill could prevent a court from enjoining the statute. While a court might find this law unconstitutional, it could not enjoin enforcement of it. Enforcement of rights, however, is essential to liberty itself. Without remedies, rights have no value.

Finally, even though Paul's opposition the War on Drugs and various practices involving the US military (like indefinite detention, etc.) is clearly rooted in libertarianism, his preference for state protection of rights would imperil liberty. So, while Paul opposes the federal government's War on Drugs, Paul is silent with respect to similar wars being waged in the states. This silence is striking in light of the fact that states prosecute most crimes in this nation. As president, however, Paul would not question impediments to civil liberty in the states. This omission, though consistent with his extreme views of federalism, make it impossible for him wear the libertarian label. Ron Paul is not a champion of liberty. The Washington Post is wrong.

Note: Some of this discussion is drawn from a previous article on Dissenting Justice, Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should NEVER Become President.

UPDATE
One interesting thing about the We the People Act is the selective exclusion of only certain issues from federal court review. Paul chooses the right of privacy and the religion clauses. In so doing, he is picking the very clauses involved in progressive liberties cases with which the religious right vehemently disagrees. This is rather convenient for a Republican candidate. Paul's selective libertarianism would be a boon for social conservatives.

New York Times and Washington Post Articles on Congress and Wealth: Simplistic Statistical Analysis

Yesterday, the New York Times and the Washington Post published articles reporting a dramatic difference in wealth among members of Congress and the general public. Both articles show a widening wealth gap. While wealth among the general public has declined in the last two decades, it has risen for members of Congress (see Dissenting Justice analysis).

The articles both question whether wealthy individuals can properly lead the nation. The subtext, which is not so subtle in the New York Times article, implies that simply being a member of Congress creates wealth. And many readers have concluded that corruption, inside deals, insider trading, and other improper conduct explain the wealth among members of Congress.

Although these articles raise important issues, they fail because they do not analyze important issues that could explain the wealth disparities. Instead, the articles only isolate one factor for examination: the wealth of persons inside and outside of Congress. These populations, however, have many characteristics -- especially the general public.  The articles, however, do not control for any other factors that could account for a wealth disparity.

For example, a good statistical study of this issue would control for race, gender, age, educational achievement, investment behavior, and other factors that correlate with wealth (see previous article on Dissenting Justice). It is unclear whether members of Congress have greater wealth than persons with similarly situated individuals outside of Congress. Because of this failing, the articles leave the impression that membership in Congress alone explains the wealth gap.  This problem could erode the public's trust in government, which is already suffering according to opinion polls.

The Washington Post and New York Times should update these articles with more sophisticated statistical analysis. The articles both raise important questions. But, they fail to establish a solid factual foundation for engaging in an informed -- or useful -- dialogue.

Note: An updated version of my earlier discussion of this issue is now on the Huffington Post.