Happy Partisan New Year

Discuss this on our boards!

Happy Partisan New Year
by James Hall

January 2, 2002

COLUMN OF THE DAY!!

"Leaning Left"

James Hall The events of 9/11 won't be forgotten anytime soon, if ever. America will continue to give support to President Bush as he wages a war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations abroad and at home. But that doesn't mean the end to political partisanship on issues not related to the war. Though Democrats and the left in general will support the president's efforts to defend the nation, they will challenge his efforts to run the economy, appoint judges and members of his administration with controversial and ideological records, negotiate free trade with South America, and create a socially conservative national agenda not reflective of our values.

While continuing to support the war on terrorism, Democrats in the House and Senate have already taken issue with Republican plans for an economic stimulus plan. The president and the Republican Party clearly see in the current recession an opportunity to grant large tax cuts to the largest corporations and advance tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, despite the proven lack of stimulus effect last year's tax cuts had on the declining economy. Democrats prefer an economic stimulus that increases payments and health insurance benefits to Americans out of work and increases spending on infrastructure that supports the war on terrorism instead--a stimulus package that would immediately increase economic activity. And noting the indicators of an improving economy, Democrats are willing to sit on any stimulus package now rather than further decrease government revenues at a time when we need them.

The administration continues to criticize the Democratic leadership in the Senate for approving Bush judicial and administration appointees at a slow pace. The slow pace of judicial appointments is in large part reflects a slowdown in judicial appointments that began in 1996, when the Republican-controlled Senate began to delay Clinton appointments to the bench. It reflects the increasing ideological polarization of the judiciary, where many judges are now chosen for their ideology, not their ability to fairly administer the nation's justice. It behooves the Senate to closely look at the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary--and reject those picked by ideological litmus tests.

President Bush has also pushed hard for a free hand in negotiating a free trade zone in South America. He gained such a hand from the House of Representatives by one vote, after promising exemptions for southern textile manufacturers. But the Senate should feel free to block free trade authority unless the president secures guarantees to make free trade fair trade, with good environmental, health, and safety rules in place. After 9/11, free trade must also be secure trade, with cargoes safely inspected before and as they enter the United States.

Another point of partisan challenge may well be the administration's interpretation of civil rights as it begins to try the first of the Al Qaeda members. Will they be tried under the US constitutional system of justice, or a system created by executive order? Will Attorney General John Ashcroft continue to assert that there are two systems of justice, one for citizens and another for non-citizens, in spite of the words of the Declaration of Independence, which stated that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We must fight for the "unalienable rights" of all suspects--terrorist or not, if we are to be true to our own Declaration.

President Bush's socially conservative agenda must be challenged. The president's faith-based initiative, while well-intentioned, is both dangerous to independent organized religion and constitutionally troubling, blurring the line between Church and State, creating religious organizations dependent on federal largesse. The Bush administration's ideological preference for abstinence-only sex education ignores the social realities of adolescent life. It's withholding of family planning funds overseas to clinics and organizations who mention abortion as an option creates another double standard--a constitutionally protected one for Americans, a different one for citizens of other nations.

Finally, someone -- the House or Senate -- should investigate the ties of the Enron Corporation to members of the Senate like Phil Graham, whose wife sat on Enron's board while Graham placed in legislation language exempting Enron from federal regulation. Enron's ties to the Bush administration must be investigated after Enron executives donated $6 million dollars to the Bush campaign and Enron's chief executive became a Bush Pioneer ($100,000 or more in individual donations). Was there a quid pro quo for these donations? What role did federal regulators play in the potential defrauding of thousands of investors, including Enron employees with 401K's who lost their retirement savings while Enron executives made millions of dollars?

While we support President Bush as our Commander-in-Chief in a war against terrorism, we can and should disagree with him on the domestic and social policies of the American nation. America wants and needs a vigorous debate on the issues that divided our country before 9/11, and which remain unresolved for 2002. To remain silent or allow the administration to do what it wants purely to be a patriotic American would be to do our country a great disservice. So as 2002 begins, let the partisanship begin also. ***

Photo of World Trade Center Tower #2 courtesy of WRC-TV NBC-4, Washington, DC
Photo of President George W. Bush courtesy of the Texas Governor's Office