Son of Timatollah

I just finished the first volume of Allan Nevin’s Grover Cleveland: A Study in Courage (Easton Press, 1932). That marks the halfway point (for now) of my reading of biographies of the presidents of the United States in order of their service.

I'm not exactly sure when I started the project, sometime in 2004 or so, I think. I had read bios of Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin in the early 2000s, then David McCullough's John Adams: A Life, and Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, before I dove in and found a Washington bio. It's been fairly steady since then.

Cleveland, elected in 1884, defeated for reelection in 1888, but elected again in 1892, is considered both the 22nd and 24th president. One of my trivial gripes with President Obama is his sometimes referring to the forty-three previous presidents, when there have been only forty-two previous presidents, but forty-three previous presidencies.

I couldn’t find what I felt would be a truly comprehensive recent bio of Cleveland. I pick these by reviewing sources on the Wikipedia page for the president whose bio I’m going to read, and then skimming Amazon reviews of the candidate bios. At Amazon, one learns that there are quite a few people out there who are engaged in or have completed this same project. So I ended up with this two-volume work, perfectly split with volume one finishing with Cleveland’s defeat by Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison. William Henry Harrison's presidency is remembered almost solely for its short duration—Old Tippecanoe became ill almost immediately after his inauguration and only served 32 days—and its giving us the first instance of a vice-president ascending to president after the president’s death. (Tyler was a total mess.)

While matters of situation lead Democrats to want to compare President Obama to Franklin Roosevelt and matters of temperament lead one to compare him with Lincoln, it would be wise for a greater number of contemporary Democrats to study the presidency of Cleveland. Cleveland was elected president after having served previously for one-term as mayor of Buffalo and only one-half of his term as governor of New York. His success in Buffalo rooting out corruption and his success in Albany in spite of opposition from Tammany Hall within his own party had made him the choice of good-government types in both parties.

The GOP of the time had held the presidency since 1860 (excepting the weirdness that was the Andrew Johnson administration), and it had controlled both the House and the Senate for most of the same time. While its opposition to slavery was clearly its core strength during the Civil War and during Reconstruction, its recognition of an active role of the general government in developing the national economy was also clear at the time of its founding. That active role grew in the post-Civil War era into a cozy relationship between business and the GOP that continues to this day. And not unlike this day, there had also evolved in the Democratic Party and goodly number of politicians who had ties to both national and local industry. The big businesses of the day were railroads, who had received numerous grants, concessions, franchises, and subsidies from the federal and state governments to build rail lines locally and across the continent; iron and steel, with plants in the “New South”, e.g. Birmingham, joining existing mills in Pennsylvania and New York; and textiles (still located then along the fall line from New England into the Piedmont). Labor had just begun to come onto the scene.

Both finance and taxation were issues during the times, with Civil War import tariffs still on the books, even having been increased in the time since the war. The Federal government enjoyed revenue in surplus of its expenses, largely due to those tariffs, as well as taxes on liquor and tobacco, and most everyone recognized that the surplus would eventually lead to an end to federal indebtedness, something the economists of the time, as likely would those today, recognized as just as great an evil as continually increasing debt. Federal bonds were part and parcel of the monetary system then, just as they are now. The money of the time was gold coin, silver coin, and greenbacks, and the use of fiat money (greenbacks) was unpopular with creditors and financial interests of the east, but very popular with the debtors and the farmers and developers of the west.

We can look forward to a 2012 campaign in which health care, taxes, deficit/debt, and money are issues, with the last not really being able to be debated much because the Federal Reserve remains, for now at least, mostly off limits to debate. Excepting Ron Paul, few candidates on the right openly discuss the crazy idea of returning to basing the money supply on the ability to mine a selected metal (as much as many of them might like to). The campaigns of 1888, 1892, 1896, and 1900 would see each of the issues above come into consideration and dispute.

In 1888, the tariff was the dominant campaign issue, with Cleveland’s vigorous call for tariff reform—both reducing the surplus and leading toward freer trade—coming too late in his first term to prevent his proposal being defeated and giving the Republicans and their business supporters an issue they used successfully to prevent his reelection, but leading to the excesses of the McKinley tariff of 1890. At the time, though, big employers had far greater leverage over the votes of their employees, since unionization was rare, and employers could either escort their employees to the ballot box and ensure how they voted, or still, in some cases, collect the ballots of their employees and have them taken to the ballot box themselves. There was a time, we forget, before the Australian ballot.

Not to draw the parallelism too closely, but the contemporary debate over taxes is similar. The current tax structure, brought to you by a GOP bought lock, stock, and barrel, by big business and big finance, in cahoots with a substantial wing of the Democratic Party, similarly in the pocket of big finance (more) and big business (some), gave us the Bush era tax cuts, which, as sensible people know, has continued a shift in wealth from the middle-class to the rich without delivering one bit the promised increase in jobs or prosperity. The Gilded Age tariffs, similarly, put big money into the pockets of industrialists and financiers, by protecting their businesses from foreign competition while increasing the cost of necessities and other products to those who farmed and those who worked.

Cleveland began his term recognized as a conservative Democrat with some connection to those with financial interests, particularly in his being a hard (gold) money guy. But he clearly came out for a more sensible structure for tariffs that would reduce the costs of raw materials and manufactured products, to the advantage of ordinary citizens. The debt situation of his time is topsy-turvy to ours now, but the necessity of reforming the way the Federal government raises revenue is just as important in this election as it was then. We have to ensure that all pay their fair share, understanding that it is completely and totally fair to expect those who can pay more to actually pay more through real, progressive income tax rates.

So, I encourage my fellow Democrats to learn more about President Cleveland and not to look only to the Great Depression and FDR for parallels in economies and politics.

Labels: biography, cleveland, gilded age, grover cleveland, obama, parallel, president

When everyone was expecting Lincoln, Obama gave us Washington. at Valley Forge, quoting Thomas Payne.

My favorite segment from the speech:

But those values upon which our success depends — honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

Good luck, Mr. President.

Labels: inauguration, obama, payne, washington

Yeah, I know, I've been quiet when I should be getting all excited about tomorrow's inauguration of President Obama.

I am excited, but my lingering disappointment in the LGBT movement—both in terms of moving forward after the November losses and in terms of not being able to move past focusing on distractions like Rick Warren—has just left me a little fried. I wish I could make more of a difference in moving LGBT rights forward, but I'm unclear how to do so. And I'm easily distracted by the day-to-day fulfilling of my family, personal, and professional obligations.

The only LGBT leaders who seem to me to have a clue are the actual politicians: the Barney Franks and Tammy Baldwins. The rest—activists, media/blogger types, and much of the community that I see online and in person—seem clueless. Anger seems to count for action, and the only action happening is anger.

We got our butts kicked here in Florida, and the local LGBT leadership goes on with their heads up their asses acting like nothing happened. Like November 4 doesn't deserve some kind of response beyond "we have really big plans for this year." The usual suspects—The Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, in particular—continue down their merry path in the delusion that they're going to be effective lobbying the reactionary Florida legislature (even more reactionary after November, since the local Democratic party gives the GOP a bye in just about ever district in which there's not already a Democratic legislator) for items like domestic partner benefits. The same people who led us to defeat in November are still running the show, but I see individual after individual on Facebook keep signing up as a supporter of the Human Rights Campaign. They may even think I'd want them to do so.

I certainly don't mean to declare "game over," but there is a time to actually take the safety, hunker down, and figure out what to do next. I don't see much of that happening. Instead, there's either Obama euphoria (Gene Robinson!), Obama disappointment (Rick Warren!), or floundering activity on an LGBT rights agenda that's going nowhere in the Florida legislature.

So, that's the report from Florida, 19 January 2009.

p.s. I am thrilled about President Obama, because I realize how far we've come as a nation in my lifetime regarding matters of race. But I remain dejected and irritated about my LGBT community, a community that seems not to have the slightest clue how to secure the rights that flow to its members as naturally as breathing air.

Labels: gay rights, lgbt, obama, president, rights

Lots of people are in high dudgeon about the Inaugural Committee's choice (with, one presumes, President-Elect Obama's consent) of Rick Warren to deliver the Invocation at the Inauguration.

Get. Over. It.

If you didn't understand what Obama was talking about when he discussed a politics of inclusion, you have no one to blame but yourself. You were told the us-against-them rules were going to change.

Treating people as persona-non-grata because you disagree with their opinion on a matter near and dear to your own heart is not an effective way to change their opinion. Impacting them in ways that leads them to change their point of view is desirable. There are ways to do that beyond holding them up to ridicule, scorn, invective, and dismissal. Engaging them as a human being that you care about, that you care to influence their opinion about, is an approach that yields substantive change both in the short and long terms.

It's better for Warren to be there on the platform and to hear Obama's inclusion of LGBT folk into the national fabric in his inaugural address than it is for him to hear it on a television somewhere. It draws him into the discussion. It makes him complicit in Obama's point of view.

We (LGBT folk) have to engage the church-going population, and not just the liberal church-going population. We have to hear their fears and concerns; we have to address them. Being right just isn't enough: we have to bring those who disagree with us along somehow if we are going to get to the point that they respect our rights from an understanding point of view.

Labels: gay rights, inauguration, obama, rick warren

Labels: election, obama, presidential

Image by Callie Shell at The Digital Journalist, used without permission.

From the caption

Senator Obama was doing press interviews by telephone in a holding room between events. Sometime later as he was getting ready to begin his event, he asked me if I was photographing his shoes. When I said yes, he told me that he had already had them resoled once since he entered the race a year earlier. Providence, R.I., 3/1/2008.

.

Temperment and just plain old good sense.

Labels: callie shell, digital journalist, obama, presidential

If I were him, I'd come back from Hawaii via Alaska, where I'd hold a rally in Wasilla.

Labels: alaska, hawaii, obama, presidential, travel, wasilla

Buck up!

Your running around scared of the GOP machine is sooooo 2004. Instead of doing everything you can to demoralize the opposition, you're fretting.

Wake the eff up.

Your attitude has a lot to do with how this election turns out. It's not some kind of magical "whatever you believe will happen," but it is some kind of not-too-deeply mysterious "if you act correctly, you can determine the outcome."

These folks are the ones with whom we share this nation. They choose to be on the wrong side of a great election we have coming. We won't hold that against them.

But be clear in your own minds. Those few are choosing to be on the wrong side. Your job is to get them on the right side, not to hand-wring about their invincible machine.

Instead of fretting, you ought to be reminding them of how badly they're going to lose on 4 November.

Instead of talking about their secret reservior of power, you ought to be recalling your own reservoir: the millions who've just registered, just to see this come to the right conclusion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again until some of you get it: There are only two true winning slogans in an election: "You never had it so good," and "Time for a change." 2004 and "Be afraid. Be very afraid" was a gross aberation.

Do you seriously think the American public wants to be in this situation in 2012 saying, "We thought we'd get change with McCain, but we really knew it was more of the same"?

NO!

They want change now, and the only candidate that can bring the change we need, the change you can believe, is Obama.

So cut the shit with the whining. Cut the shit with your secret fear of the Republican hate machine. Cut the shit with your fear and "respect" of those who stand for the monied and who wrongfully use the deeply religious to enhance their own power, not because they really share their views.

Buck up. Grow a pair. And tell everyone you know that the next President of the United States is Barack Obama.

Tell them that John McCain and Sarah Palin are frauds. Untrustworthy. Undeserving of leading this great nation in this time of need.

And that you pity them if they can't get with the program.

Today.

Now.

Obama 2008. The change we need.

Labels: obama, president

From Adam Serwer, here at TAPPED:

The way political observers watch debate is skewed by the idea that a debate is some kind of duel at high noon. It isn't. It's a beauty contest, and voters, like G-d, don't like ugly. One of the candidates seems to have figured this out.

Labels: adam, debate, mccain, obama, presidential, serwer, tapped

Maybe you've seen this.

Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Or maybe you noticed how rude McCain was toward Obama in the debate last Friday night.

I have my own hypothesis about why McCain is acting like search a jerk. First, I assume he's not really that big of a jerk. I assume this has to do with him (McCain) knowing how tenuous his hold on a certain cohort of voters is. That cohort is the crazy religious right.

The crazy religious right, brought back into the McCain fold by his choice of Governor Palin for his running mate, is likely the continuing source of those "Obama's a Muslim" e-mails. Those folks really believe that Obama has some secret plan to turn the US over the those who want to destroy us. Since Obama is "the other," by being black, it's easy for them, a largely white group, to try to turn Obama into "the other who wants to kill us." The idea that a US Senator in public view and running for President for the last N years and winning the nomination of America's oldest political party is some secret agent for our enemies is laughable, but people of good will sometimes believe laughable things.

So, by my thinking, if McCain treats Obama civilly, he cuts the legs out from under this idea that is believed by a goodly number of his recently-brought-back-on-board supporters. If he's going to keep those good-intentioned-but-easily-snookered people in his camp, he has to treat Obama like shit.

Just a theory. Not sure how to test it.

Labels: election, explained, mccain, obama, palin, presidential, religious right, rudeness

I made my choice to support Senator Obama in this election a little less than a year ago. The blog post about that choice is here.

Most of my thinking then, ignorning what comes across as just plain silly towards the end, still holds. Two key ideas, I believe, remain important today: Building a winning and governing constituency, and bringing to the conversation even those you disagree with.

[A]t least he is building a constituency. The very nature of his candidacy is of being for something, and should he win the Presidency, he will have built a pool of good will and political capital on which to draw....

It was probably inevitable that the perception on building something more than a 50.1% majority would fall to the wayside after the major parties picked their nominees: the inability to influence the media to a sufficient extent to what is something other than either Bush/Clinton squeak-by or McCain man-bites-dog, but also because of having to put together enough electoral votes to win and not having infinite resources to pursue a true fifty-state strategy. But the appeal to our better but not clueless natures is a component of Senator Obama's approach. It's not naivete to argue we actually can do better, both at home and abroad.

Obama brings the quality of actually listening to others, of encouraging the participation of those you thoughtfully disagree with (see Donnie McClurkin), of listening to those you thoughtfully disagree with. I'm sure some of my colleagues on the LGBT-side of the universe will have a difficult time accepting that you have to treat those who don't treat you like a human being like a human being, that you have to listen if you expect to be listened to, but everything in my heart tells me that Obama is right about this.

The other aspect of actually listening to people you disagree with is something that almost seem foreign to the political culture in Washington and in the punditocracy. The claim, bought into by Senator McCain, that having a conversation with foreign leaders we disagree with legitimizes their, admittedly sometimes awful, positions is a bunch of bunk. That the same approach is practiced on the wide-but-small scale to such a degree that all too often we turn those we disagree with into outright enemies in our minds isn't the approach we need to build a better world.

Not just a place at the table, but a table at which all are truly welcome, even those you disagree with.

Early voting is already beginning, otherwise I'd wait until the night before Election Day to make this post. But in the remote event you're still thinking about voting for Senator McCain, please reconsider. I think our collective best interests are served by electing Senator Obama.

Labels: 2008, obama, politics, presidential

I don't begrudge the McCains' their wealth. Good for them! But I know who I think will better consider the interests of ordinary folks when going through "what's good for the country?" thoughts.

Stolen from Joe. My. God., but who knows where he go it from.

Labels: election, mccain, obama, president, wealth

From Pundit Kitchen, via Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic.

Labels: chill, i got this, obama, out

Labels: election, obama, president

(1) Our Dems had a great convention. Mrs. Obama's speech was great. Senator Clinton's speech was great. President Clinton's speech was great. Senator Biden's speech was pretty good. Al Gore's speech was great. Senator Obama's speech was excellent.

My gut feeling had been all along that Senator Obama was comfortable with his role as his own happy hatchet man, and he played it perfectly. It was Reagan vs. Carter with the parties swapped. (I know many of my Dem friends still hate Reagan, but I still believe we all ought to learn from his ability to capture the good will of a goodly-sized majority of the American people behind his agenda, whether we agreed with his agenda.)

Of course, as a gay man, I regret that Senator Obama choose not to speak more forcefully for the rights of LGBT folk, even as he affirmed what, for some, remains a revolutionary concept, that our relationships ought to be respected. But, I don't want him to lose the election because of support for us, either.

(2) Senator McCain's nomination of Governor Palin ought to point out what an arrogant nutcase the Senator is. Or "becomes" if that suits your narrative better. The man doesn't have the right constitution to be President of the United States of America. I'm nearly certain that if you rounded up all the other POWs from the Vietnam era, you could find somewhere between five and fifty who would be better suited to the job of POTUS than McCain. And he has the balls to keep reminding people that he was a POW. He wasn't alone in that situation, and I look forward to some number of former POWs of the North Vietnamese reminding us of McCain's innate lack of good judgment, and, even, character.

(3) If Governor Palin had the judgment and temperament to be President, which the Vice President ought to have, then she would have rejected Senator McCain's offer, telling him, "You've got to be kidding?" That she didn't is face-value evidence of her not being suited for the position. And one doesn't even have to raise the degree to which McCain's offering her the position in hopes of bringing Senator Clinton's supporters to his side is insulting.

(4) Experience?

None of the candidates for executive positions have Federal executive experience, and Governor Palin's experience as governor as Alaska is hardly evidence for her being able to manage the Federal bureaucracy. Being a Senator may expose one to the workings of the Federal government, but it doesn't give one experience in managing that beyond the broad scope of helping pass laws.

(5) As none of the candidates have experience in the Federal executive, I turn to judgment and temperment as a discriminator between the candidates for President. It wouldn't surprise me if you, the reader, did, too. In those dimensions, Senator Obama is, and I use this word with a great deal of caution and reluctance, obviously the better candidate, regardless of one's Party affiliation.

(6) The chicken-sans-head activity of the GOP with a major hurricane bearing down on the Louisiana coast is laughable. There's not one whit of evidence that the GOP has learned any lesson except "try better to get away with being totally clueless about what to do" when it comes to disaster management, than they did when Katrina struck. GWB can go avoid the GOP convention by being at FEMA headquarters for photo ops all he wants. but there's no real reason to believe that they GOP has developed any greater empathy or concern for poor folk in harm's way than they had in the fall of 2005.

(7) There remains no evidence that the candidate who manages the campaign best, who expresses opinions in the most bellicose manner, or who appears to be "toughest" will make a good President. Consider again GWB.

Now I don't want to take away from Obama's managing a superbly run campaign, but neither that nor his ability to bitch slap Senator McCain (which I expect he'll be surprisingly (to the GOP commentariat) good at), or vice-versa, is evidence that he—or Senator McCain, should it turn out that he's better at that game (something I don't expect)—would make a great President, including as Commander in Chief. Again, let's turn back to temperment and judgment.

(8) When the hell will the left and Dems get their own network? MSNBC doesn't count, since GE is unreliable as a source of funding for left-of-center politicking. Back in the day (much of the 19th century into the first half of the 20th), it was common procedure for the party—or the executive of that party—to have a house-organ publication. In this day and age that means cable news network. Where is the sustainable response to Fixed (Fox) News?

Labels: 2008, al, biden, clinton, election, fox, gore, mccain, network, obama, politics, president, senator, vice-president

Near perfect.

Labels: obama, speech

I was wrong that the only inspired veep choices for Obama were either Senator Webb or Senator Clinton.

Presuming his speech today in Springfield, Illinois, is indicative of how he's going to play the role of Vice-Presidential candidate, Joe Biden is going to do just fine.

Labels: biden, humble, humility, joe, obama, vice-president

Presented, as here at Old Man McCain (link via Sullivan), without comment.

Watch it all, if you can, but if you have to pick just one, go with the third one.

Part One:




Part Two:




Part Three:

Labels: book, connie, dreams from my father, martinson, obama, talk

Department of "If I were the nominee..."

Obama: First choice would be Jim Webb. I know he supposedly begged off, but that might be a great distraction for the press. Second: Mrs. Clinton. All the other choices seem rather uninspired to me.

McCain: Pawlenty. First and only choice.

Remember, the object of the game is to win, not to be proven insightful by history.

Labels: clinton, mccain, obama, pawlenty, veep, vice-president, webb

Hi, all. Just got back tonight from a couple of nights in and around the District of Columbia, our nation's seat of government. Was up there representing NOGLSTP on the Engineers Week Diversity Council at a meeting with Obama's staffer for education (Senate, not presidential campaign).

The randomness:

• First time I was in one of the legislative office buildings. Got a good look at the Capitol, but didn't arrange time for a tour. Looking forward to going back.
  
• Backgrounding on matters of assessment in engineering education. How do we ensure that we turn out quality engineers from our degree programs? There's a sense that traditional methods need scruitiny, and the ABET accreditation processes we all go through is designed to make sure that the engineers we graduate are succeeding in the workplace, but what can we do different to assess in a very short term that students are learning what we want them to without starting over from scratch? Or am I over-estimating the downside to starting over from scratch?
  
• Still working on Alaska pics. Three or so more days to go: Barrow, Anchorage, and last day.
  
• Trying to figure out how to get more involved in the Vote No on Amendment 2 activities. The number of straight people who don't get it—that our (gay people's) lives are just as full of love, are just as valid, as theirs; that discrimination is not in their best interest; that one day they're negatively impacting their own children or grandchildren—is frustrating. May be going to "speaker training" this weekend. (SEND MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE, PLEASE!)
  
• The Washington trip is very interesting. I mean, it's fun to be involved in setting the direction—or at least being valued in what that direction is—for an enterprise. Imagine when that enterprise is the USA!
  
• Some say that civilization as we know it is headed down the tubes, but I present three examples that say those folks are wrong: (1) A young man waiting for a plane a few weeks ago was reading Man's Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl, a book I can recommend without reservation; (2) young man on the plane next to me the other day was reading The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, an author I can recommend without reservation (even if he did turn into a crank in his dotterage); (3) young (Israeli—kid was no older than fourteen) man on the plane next to me today had a CD of King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King. Have confidence in the next generation. We are in good hands.
  
• I supposedly have a sabbatical coming up a year from now. What to do? What? To? Do?
  

Labels: abet, amendment 2, assessment, council, dc, district of columbia, diversity, education, engineering, eweek, fairness, families, noglstp, obama, randomness, washington