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.

NYT Article on Congress and Wealth: More Context Please

The New York Times has published an interesting article on the wealth disparity among members of Congress and the average person in the US. The article reports that the median net worth of members of Congress is $913,000. The article does not provide the spread or the average net worth, however. The article also reports that the net worth of nearly one-half of the members of Congress exceeds $1,000,000.

The median net worth of members of Congress increased 15 percent between 2004 and 2010. The median net worth of Americans, generally, declined 10 percent during the same time period.

The article demonstrates that members of Congress have been insulated from the harmful impact of the economic downturn. The most damning analysis in the article, however, suggests that members of Congress might benefit from "inside" information when they invest money in securities. One study cited in the article concludes that investments made by members of Congress tend to outperform the market (it is unclear which market the study analyzed). Another study, however, found that the investments of members of Congress perform worse that the general investing public.

The Article Needs More Context

Although there are weaknesses in the article, it is probably safe to say that members of Congress are wealthier than the average American. The article, however, lacks a lot of information that could put this data into a more informative context.

Race, Gender and Congress

The biggest failure of the article is the omission of an analysis of the personal characteristics of members of Congress. Congress is disproportionately white and male. In the United States, these two characters correlate strongly with wealth.

There are 44 African-Americans in the House of Representatives and none in the Senate. There are 26 Latinos in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate. There are 74 women in the House of Representatives and 17 in the Senate. Two of the African-American House members are nonvoting delegates, as are two of the Latino members.

There are 13 Asian-American, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian members of Congress. 11 are in the House, of whom 2 are nonvoting delegates; 2 are Senators. There is only one Native American in Congress -- a member of the House of Representatives.

Blacks and Latinos are consistently poorer than whites in the US.  Furthermore, the wealth of blacks and Latinos has decreased much more sharply than the wealth of whites during the current recession. Women-headed households are also the poorest in the nation - especially households headed by women of color.

This racial and gender data provides a useful setting for thinking about the wealth data of members of Congress. Of course, several persons of color and women in Congress also possess great wealth (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, who is white, and Ed Pastor, who is male). Nonetheless, members of Congress could have disproportionate wealth because they are disproportionately white and male.

Other Relevant Personal Factors

Age

Other factors are relevant to this discussion. Members of Congress are not young. The median age in the House is 50; in the Senate it is 62. The median age in the US, however, is roughly 37.  Accordingly, members of Congress have had more time to accumulate wealth than the average person living in the US.

Former Employment

Members of Congress are also drawn from high-income professions. Most members of Congress are lawyers. Public servants/politicians and business professions rank second and third behind lawyers. There are also 17 medical doctors in Congress.

Educational Attainment

Members of Congress also have greater educational attainment than members of the general public. 92 percent of the House and 99 percent of the Senate have a bachelor's degree. 36 percent of the House and 55 percent of the Senate have law degrees. 18 members of the House have earned a Ph.D. 24 members of Congress have medical degrees. These numbers are up substantially from statistics in 1969.

By contrast, 87% of the US population above the age of 25 has a high school diploma, but only 30 percent of that demographic has a bachelor's degree. Less than 3 percent of that demographic has a doctoral or professional degree. If the entire US population were included, the percentages would, obviously, decline. Because wealth and education correlate strongly (in both directions), it is not surprising that members of Congress possess greater wealth than the average person in the US.

Wealth and Politics

Political scientists have for a long time debated the relationship between money and electoral success. According to conventional wisdom, wealthier candidates, or those candidates closely connected to wealthy individuals and corporations, enjoy more electoral success than economically disadvantaged candidates.

Several studies have challenged this conventional wisdom. Some research indicates that higher individual wealth or massive campaign donations do not influence election outcomes. Other research, however, presents a more qualified conclusion. It appears that wealth might give candidates an advantage if they are not well known or do not receive media attention. These candidates can purchase advertisements to acquire name recognition (Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of Political Science at Georgetown University, has written on this subject. See, Wayne, The Road to the White House).

Once inequality of name recognition subsides, however, some research finds that money does not substantially impact election success. This data, nonetheless, implies some connection between money and political success.

Summary

This essay does not contest the suggestion that the members of Congress can use their status as members of Congress to generate personal wealth. But this hypothesis requires more analysis than the NYT article provides.

Other explanations, such a race, gender, age, educational disparities, employment background, and pre-existing wealth (that relates to electoral success) likely explain a lot or all of the wealth disparities among members of Congress and the general public. These issues are extremely important points for public debate.

Update


Another important factor is likely investment risk tolerance. Investment in risky assets generally provides higher returns over the longterm. Studies have shown that wealthier folks, men, whites and higher educated investors have higher risk tolerance.

Dear Newt Gingrich: Judicial Supremacy Does Not Exist

Adam Liptak of the New York Times has written an article on Newt Gingrich's views of the federal courts. The article basically contains the same information as an earlier report by the Washington Post (see analysis on Dissenting Justice). There is, however, an additional point.

Gingrich condemns what he calls "judicial supremacy." By that, I suspect that he means (the article does not explain, but this is a well known debate among legal scholars) the notion that the Supreme Court has the last word on questions of constitutional law. Gingrich cites to Cooper v. Aaron for that proposition. Decided in 1958, Cooper arose out of the standoff over desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. State officials argued that they did not believe segregation was unconstitutional, and they claimed that states could nullify rulings of the Court. The Supreme Court, however, said that its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas stated a constitutional principle, and that the Supreme Court's doctrine on the constitution is binding and controlling as constitutional law.

Many commentators argue that Cooper went beyond Marbury v. Madison (which established judicial review), and in many ways, this is a reasonable observation. But if Gingrich is really concerned about activist and imperialist judges, he could have pointed to much earlier precedent. In the early 1900s, the Court began to apply a very rigorous standard of review in cases challenging various economic and labor regulations. This infamous period is known as the Lochner era (named for Lochner v New York, a 1905 case that struck down a New York labor law in the baking industry). During the Lochner era, the Court invalidated over 200 laws - much more than during any other 3-decade period.

The Court would continue its conservative approach until the New Deal era, when it struck down several pieces of popular legislation that FDR promoted to deal with the impact of the Great Depression. Roosevelt's critiques of the Court, the terrible state of the economy, the popularity of economic legislation, and personnel changes on the Court led to a major shift in direction. The Court suddenly began applying a more relaxed standard and overruled the restrictive case law from the Lochner era.

The overruling of Lochner disproves the entire idea of judicial supremacy. While Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution binds state and federal governments, its rulings do not end the debate over the meaning of the Constitution. Instead, the Court responds to politics, public opinion, social conditions, social movement activity, and other factors outside of mere judgment. Indeed, the involvement of the president and the senate in the appointments process ensures that the Court will reflect majoritarian or at least mainstream values.

Gingrich's rant on judicial supremacy is uninformed. It is also simply a reflection of his own ideological commitments. He limits his criticism to liberal opinions -- not conservative rulings that coincide with his own ideology.