Databases for the Democrats

I came across this interesting article in the Post today regarding infighting about whether a private firm or the DNC should create a new, comprehensive database to profile and target Democratic voters for GOTV and other efforts.

Because Shayna Englin (another ROHer) knows so much about this kind of thing, I sent her the article, asking her for her opinion. She wrote me back in her usual thorough, well-informed style. It was so helpful, that I asked her if I could put the exchange in ROH. She said yes. Here's what she told me:


"I think the DNC shouldn't be so territorial about the voter file. I
think it's difficult to argue that 1) we aren't light years behind the
GOP in terms of voter file technology, 2) even if we catch up on the
technology front, we don't have any coherent strategy for using that
technology to good effect, and 3) even if we develop a killer
strategy, we don't have the infrastructure of people on the ground to
implement it.

The DNC should let Ickes, et al, dump the money into the technology
end to address problem number one, while the DNC targets resources
toward strategy and implementation capacity to address problems two
and three. If Ickes, or any of the other half-dozen entities working
on it, are successful on the technology end, the DNC can contract for
it.

The GOP has been so much more succcessful at this in no small part
because they understand that top-down is not generally the best way to
arrive at the most innovative, effective, or efficient ways forward.
They've let a thousand flowers bloom, tested the most promising
approaches in off-year and down-state elections across the country,
and then invested heavily into the ones that prove best.
The DNC, on the other hand, has done the opposite - invested heavily
in what they think/hope is the one best approach, tested it
haphazardly in a big national election, and then, finding that the
approach they'd championed is unsuccessful, invested heavily in the
next interesting idea.

Aside from the internal politics, on the question of whether we should
be micro-targeting based upon publicly available but still creepy
personal information about voters: I say resoundingly, uncomfortably,
YES. If we don't, we will lose."

Congress: Do your job!

Today's Washington Post reports that our Congress is wavering on conducting a formal investigation into the White House's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Now is the time to speak out about why they absolutely cannot drop this matter--and here's why:

First is the question of whether this program is a good idea or not--and it's hard for an average citizen to judge this for certain. I personally tend toward a libertarian streak, so I prefer for the government to stay out of my home entirely, and yet I understand that some liberties have to be sacrificed for the sake of security, and at some level one has to trust that our system of self-government won't allow that balance to get too out of whack. So I'm willing to trust that there's more to this story than I understand, while I allow my congressional representatives to learn more.

Which brings me to the most important reason for the Congress to treat this seriously: our government functions because of its system of checks and balances, and there is ample evidence that this Administration wants neither checks nor balances. Far more alarming than the mere existence of this program is the fact that the Bush Administration did it for four years virtually in secret--and clearly in violation of the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Out of 535 members of Congress, only 8 were regularly briefed about the program, and they were prohibited from seeking legal counsel or policy advice on the matter (eliminating the first 'check'); the court established specifically for this purpose wasn't allowed to review the process (check #2); and the American people were obviously not informed (the ultimate check).

David Ignatius, typically a cautious, centrist editorialist, wrote this morning about the danger of the Bush Administration's hubris. I found this article a sobering reminder of just how dangerous an unchecked executive can be. But this is less about the Bush Administration than it is about Congress, and that body's unwillingness to do its job as an equal branch of government.

A review of every important issue facing this country over the last several years shows the ineffectivess of our Congress. Iraq war? No questioning of the intelligence used to justify the war or of the preparation for the aftermath. Torturing prisoners? No serious investigation, no one held accountable. Even the anti-torture legislation passed by Congress got a 'P.S.' from the president saying, "I'm not actually promising anything." Homeland security in the aftermath of 9/11? We get an 'F' from the investigating commission, and everyone admires the press conference and then moves on. Medicare prescription drug plan? No independent verification of the cost, which we now know the White House lied about. Budget? Swelling, structural deficits as far as you can possibly imagine--even if, as the Administration plans, we eventually stop supporting poor people entirely. When A.G. Gonzales comes to testify before the Congress on the very topic of whether the Administration lied, he's not forced to testify under oath?! This is incomprehensible.

During last week's hearings, it was Senators Specter, Leahy, Graham, and Feingold who treated this warrantless wiretapping matter with the appropriate amount of gravitas, and they deserve our kudos. If they represent you, thank them for their efforts and urge them to keep going. This morning's Post reported Senators Snowe, Hagel, and DeWine as waverers unwilling to hold this adminstration accountable--and they should hear from us, too. You should find out where your own Senators and Representatives stand on this issue, make your own opinions known, and ask them to stand up to an increasingly imperial president. This is about far more than the specifics of this program--it's about Congress fulfilling its responsibility to be more than a lapdog to George Bush.

(You can read the transcript of A.G. Gonzales's appearance at last week's Senate Judiciary hearing on this topic to learn more here. It's actually really good stuff.)

Of budgets and morality

The posting two days ago that provides a link to E.J. Dionne's column on the budget bill is still the must-read entry on this issue. Nevertheless, having just seen the news that the bill passed and is going to the president for his signature, I find myself at one of those moments where I think I have to raise my voice as a citizen, or I've abdicated my responsibility.

First, my histrionic moment. I have children, and any of you reading this who also do will understand viscerally Dionne's image of the woman who, sometime next year, will have to make the decision about whether or not she can afford to take her sick child to the doctor. Not being able to take your sweating, vomiting child who has a 104-degree fever to the doctor because you can't afford it (and if you have a child, at some point s/he is sweating, vomiting and has a 104-degree fever) is the kind of thing that drives a parent to practical insanity. The dicates of decency say that we should try to avoid a situation where our fellow human beings face such choices if we can. And we can.

But we didn't. From what I understand, the bill that just passed actually does cut benefits like health care for the poor while giving tremendous financial perks to the wealthy and large companies. And the tradeoff actually was straight forward and happened in a back room. We're used to people on both sides of the aisle taking complex negotiations and complicated legislation and oversimplifying to demonize an opposing position. But in this case, it's what happened. The poor are getting less, and the non-poor are getting more.

Which brings us to the moral dimension of a nation's budget. We tend to treat budgeting as a technocratic issue. (In truth, as a general public, we tend not to treat budgeting at all. It's overwhelmingly complicated and opaque.) The line items in a budget, however, and the tradeoffs made to derive them, inherently express the priorities--and yes, the values--of the citizenry. A budget is a moral document.

I don't believe the budget bill just passed reflects the core values of our country and its citizenry. I believe that only the most conservative and the most libertarian among us believe that we have no obligation to provide a safety net for each other, and that the core responsbilities of the state do not include providing for the basic human needs of its citizens. I also believe that few of America's citizens really believe that cutting back programs for the poor in order to give those financial benefits to a wealthier class---as opposed to using the reductions strictly to reduce the deficit or increase personal or national savings, for example--is a moral approach to governing.

The previous posting on this subject referred to "spend and spend" Republicans. I look at this budget and see "bleed and spend." And I'm giving that label to anyone who engaged in the backroom dealing and then put this thing over the top. We're bleeding the people who need it. And we may be bleeding morally, too. We have to stop the bleeding.

The Lesson of Alito: Elections Have Consequences

Alito, like Roberts before him, was confirmed easily and with very little real opposition from Democrats. Which is exactly as anyone watching could have predicted upon the moment of his nomination.

Why? Because ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Not being able to get good people on the courts, or even prevent bad people from getting there, is one of the biggies.

Choice took a big hit today.
The environment took a hit.
Civil liberties took a hit.
Separation of powers took a hit.

Hopefully, Democrats took the hit that will WAKE US UP.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. If you don’t like getting beaten up, then I humbly suggest that you find a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate near you and write him or her as big a check as you can. Sign up to volunteer for him or her. Recruit your friends to do the same.

No viable Democratic Senate candidate to jump behind? Then find a Democratic candidate for something else. State house. City Council. School Board. Dog Catcher. We’re behind. We’ve been falling behind for 20 years. While Republicans have been diligently building their base, training their grassroots, and filling their bench, we’ve been…I don’t know what, exactly. But clearly not building our base, investing in our grassroots, or filling our bench.

We’re in this war for the long haul, and if we want to win the battle this November, November 2008, November 2010, and beyond, we’ve got to get down to the hard work of learning from those who have vanquished us – and it’s impossible to look at today’s U.S. Senate and argue plausibly that we have not been vanquished – changing our battle plan, and getting truly prepared to win the war.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. All elections. The consequences may manifest next year, or they may manifest in twenty years. Take a look at how many Senators held down-ticket offices first. They rarely come from nowhere. The City Council candidate you help elect today could be the U.S. Senator who votes to restore our rights in many tomorrows.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. There’s a time and a place for issue politics. That time is not now, and the place is not where there are truly contested elections. Until the numbers change, we have no control of anything, and I would hope we all agree that more Republican control is not going to be a good thing.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Let's have a late new year's resolution: we'll put all of our political energy toward making sure that they're the consequences we want.

What conservatives?

I don't know how many times E.J. Dionne has been praised on this blog--but whatever the number is, it's not enough. This morning he writes about the budget about to be voted on in the House of Representatives--one which "balances the budget on the backs of the poor", as our fair president spoke against back when he was still trying to get people to vote for him.

As Dionne says, this budget is terrible for many reasons--because it takes from the poor (Medicaid recipients) to give to the rich (health insurance companies), because it was worked out in some backroom deal behind the backs of the conference committee (now a regular practice in the Republican-controlled Congress), but--most bafflingly in this era of supposed conservative control of government--because it continues to perpetuate our growing budget deficit.

Just last weekend I heard the president complaining about Democrats who want to "tax and spend". Besides the fact that that label grew old about fifteen years ago, it provides the perfect opening for Democrats. In order to win elections, you've got to have some crossover into the other person's territory, and the perfect issue for Democrats to steal from Republicans is fiscal responsibility. The one genuine good conservatives are supposed to bring to government is the ability to manage a budget responsibly, and yet under Republican control our annual budget has never been balanced and our national debt has steadily increased--this after a Democrat worked so hard to bring our fiscal situation under control. Repeat after me, Democrats: what's even worse than a "tax and spend liberal" is a "spend and spend" (suggestions welcome on a catchier alternative title than this one!) right-winger hijacking the label of 'conservative'. Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility. Sing it from the rooftops, and we'll have control of Congress back in January 2007.

Oh, yes--and be sure to contact your Congressional representative TODAY to register your opinion on this budget bill. If you're not sure who it is, look it up at www.congress.org.

And now, for something a little nicer

I wrote this several months ago. A publication picked it up, but then never ran it. It's something that makes me happy, and this Christmas week it feels like we could do with a little more happiness, so I thought I'd put it out there.

***

We baptized my infant son, Jude, last month. On that morning four legacies, bequeathed by strangers, came together.

It actually happened before the baptism. Jude was in his crib, squirming in his linen knickers and shirt. The poor little guy had no idea how much more uncomfortable he’d be when we put him in the baptismal gown. It hung on the side of the crib, freshly and lovingly pressed by my mother, who had baptized eight of her own children, including me, in it. Her Aunt Jenny made it more than half a century ago, imagining—I like to think—the generations of babies, as yet unknown, who would feel the touch of holy water and scented oil while squirming in it.

My husband, Steve, and I stood over the crib as I fumbled with the clasp of a necklace. It was a wisp-thin gold chain, bearing a medal of St. Jude, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes, and the saint whose name Steve chose for his confirmation 20 years ago. I bought the necklace for Steve in Italy, home of mine and Aunt Jenny’s ancestors, the year after we married. We dreamed then of having a son one day. A son we would name Jude.

The crib had its own legacy. I’d purchased it for $15 at a yard sale from three generations of the same family—mother, son and grandson—who all had used it. I carried it in pieces in the back of my Toyota for six weeks with no place to put it. We lived in 600 square feet, I was pregnant, and we needed a house. The crib was a symbol of defiance against mortgage and asking price—a sign of optimism that we would find a way to buy the 125 year-old farmhouse I’d fallen in love with—in which I wanted to raise my family, and in which it sits today.

Jude is indifferent to the arc of life experienced by each child who wore the gown before him, or slept in the crib, or gew up in that house. And it is Steve's and my responsibility not to saddle him with the hopes and dreams that brought us together and brought him into the world, but, instead, to let him have his own. He neither needs to, nor will he, set upon some path to finish the unfinished business of those who came before him. And yet, we help make his own journey possible.

My mother came into Jude’s room just as I closed the necklace around Steve’s neck. We lifted Jude from his crib and stood in front of it. With the gown hanging next to us, and Jude grasping at the chain resting on his father’s neck, she snapped a picture that tells the story:

A house, handed down in one family for 115 years. A crib, tearfully surrendered to an expectant mother by three generations standing together in a gravel driveway. A gown, turned cream-colored with fifty years of baptizing children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A necklace, brand new, but given in the hope of future generations.

And one infant boy, innocent and unaware that in that moment, the faith and endurance of four separate legacies baptized him with the promise of a life yet to come.

Bush Contends Partisan Critics Hurt War Effort

Say what you want about the war in Iraq. Really, say what you want. The administration's contention that public debate over the pros and cons of the war is in itself unpatriotic and "deeply irresponsible" is absurd and insulting. Among the freedoms that are at stake in Iraq and elsewhere is the freedom of expression. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as saying that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. We can hardly be expected to defend freedom abroad by compromising it at home. Truth is more important than partisan politics. The insinuation that open political debate is somehow dangerous to our country or harmful to our troops appears to be nothing more than a shameful and cowardly attempt to hide questionable policy behind the unquestionable honor of those who serve our country. So say what you want about the war. It is important that you do.

The Human Security Report

The Human Security Center at University of British Columbia just came out with its first Human Security Report. Strikingly, it says that armed conflict, genocide and politicide have all gone down in the last 10 to 15 years. The section called "Overview" gives a helpful summary. Surprising and heartening information.