
Political books are a dime a dozen these days. But finding one filled with practical wisdom and much needed real world prescriptions for our myriad political ills? That is invaluable.
Michael Waldman has written such a book with "A Return To Common Sense."
Michael’s succinct summary of the current hurdles to democracy brings the desperate need for reforms home for all of us:
…The United States imposes the most onerous voter registration rules in the West. Political campaigns are awash in some $5 billion dollars in privately raised funds. This absurd system forces candidates to spend so much time fundraising they have little time to tend to the public business. Few legislative elections are even faintly competitive, thanks in part to computer-aided partisan gerrymandering. The number of Washington lobbyists has tripled in a decade, overwhelmingly representing commercial concerns, paralyzing Congress and ensuring that policy tilts toward narrow interests and the wealthy. And all the while, in the wake of September 11th, the historic balance of power among government branches has tilted badly off-kilter, with power authority surging to the presidency, and the White House claiming unprecedented authority to act above the law and beyond the reach of the courts.
Michael’s work with the Brennan Center for Justice, and his prior role as Bill Clinton’s top aide for political reforms and speechwriter, gives a practical perspective — from proposed legislative fixes through assessment of leadership failures across the branches of government.
Michael begins with needed election reforms which promote a wider, fairer democracy. Taking on voter roll purges, ID laws, and other machinations against voting franchise expansion, designed to cast doubt on the motives of those – the poor, the single mothers, the inner cities and rural voters alike – whose voices are marginalized in our increasingly "pay to play" political system.
But Waldman does not simply identify anti-democratic problems. He goes on to analyze pending legislation and legal action, and potential new avenues for change.
This includes getting more technologically savvy people involved in poll-watching and election day work — to prevent gaming the system from within, essential to prevent electronic ballot box stuffing. Bringing in honest expertise to supplement technologically-challenged traditional poll workers is key to future democracy, and is far-too-often a last-minute thought only after fraud has been alleged.
How much more has been missed the last few years? And how do we argue for a wider voting franchise when voters cannot be assured a fair and free election result?
Beyond that, A Return to Common Sense tackles reforms regarding gerrymandering, public financing of elections and removal of the electoral college. Michael argues the pros and cons, with an eye toward changes which support the public business and minimize the constant craven money-grubbing fundraisers with the highest common monetary base.
What we have now is a system awash in cash from a few, which drives the policies at odds with the needs of far too many of the rest of us.
Finally, A Return to Common Sense tackles the restoration of checks and balances between the branches of government — better oversight, restoration of the rule of law, and a wholesale rejection of executive power at the expense of our nation’s democratic heart. Michael lauds Congress for oversight efforts on war profiteering and the US attorney purges, but cautions:
…other than these highlights, many committees have been slow to use oversight as a tool not just for exposing scandal but for building policy arguments.
When we had David Iglesias on recently for discussion about his book, In Justice, we discussed the "reservoir of credibility" in government that takes years to fill, but only a few moments of bad acts to drain it dry.
Where people are willing to fight for something better, there is still yet hope:
All through American history, pressure for change builds, often unseen, until suddenly it is time, once again, for renewal….Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, wrote words true then and truer today, "The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind." We can honor the spirit of our own founding, and make our nation once again the cause of all humankind, if we once again put democracy at the center of our politics — where it belongs.
We must demand better from our government and from ourselves, or change will never come. With that, I welcome Michael Waldman to the FDL book salon and open the floor for discussion.



87 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Michael, Welcome to the Lake.
Christy, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Welcome, Michael — so happy to have you with us here today at FDL. This book is fantastic — can’t recommend the read enough, gang, especially for all you folks who are doing poll watching and other grassroots reform work.
Thanks, Christy — I really appreciate the great work and insight of the folks involved with this site. Your kind words are appreciated, too.
Michael — a huge question that has been left dangling is what to do with the potentially politicized hires for career positions across the landscape of executive agencies — the DOJ being only one of many that will have to deal with this issue. We talked about this quite a bit with David Iglesias when he was here — the potential for discrimination suits, the long-term policy implications, and such.
But I’d love your thoughts on this as well. The culture and tenor of government service may have been changed by this disregard for the Hatch Act and other restrictions. How do we take a step back and attempt to depoliticize without tainting decent people who also may have been hired during this period? And, further, can we accomplish this in a single presidential term? It’s a tough situation, and not one that I envy anyone having to remedy…
I also meant to ask in the post if you could talk a bit about the work that you do at the Brennan Center — some amazing work on voter integrity the last few years, especially. I think our readers would be very interested in what you all do — and how they can help.
Welcome to the Salon, Michael.
Hi Christy, Welcome Michael, thanks for coming for a diip in the Lake.
If you don’t mind Christy, I’ll post what was in the Book Salon promo
Michael, how do we effectively combat the scourge of gerrymandering?
Sure. Well, first a word about the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, where I’ve been the director for the past three years. It’s a law and policy institute that focuses on democracy and justice — part think tank, part public interst law firm, part advocacy group. We were founded by the clerks and family of Justice William Brennan over a decade ago. In the past few years, for reasons that should be pretty obvious, our focus has been on voting (assuring voting rights, working to make sure that voter registration is not blocked, that voting technology works, etc.) and on preserving the Constitution in the fight against terrorism. In 2006 we estimate we prevented the disenfranchisement of between 300-700,000 voters. This year, who knows?
Looking forward to 2009 and beyond, we want to push for major reforms in those areas, such as a proposal we are developing for universal voter registration, as well as in campaign finance reform and access to the courts for the poor. So … between now and November … we’re busy!
As for the next steps at the Department of Justice and other agencies, you have identified a major challenge for whoever the next President is. There has been an utter politicization of the Justice Department, far beyond earlier years. Non-lawyers, I think, sometimes don’t understand just how off the charts this administration has been in the politicization of DOJ. Now, what to do about it? Ironically, the very civil service rules designed to protect independence will protect people who were put in place improperly. We are looking into this — I don’t really know what all the answers are. (I do wonder whether some of the more politically motivated people will really want to stay in government for much time …)
While there are plenty of good people doing great work (Brad Freidman comes to mind), visibility of their work is a major hurdle. How do we break through?
Hi which states should we worry about this election because they might or are going to suppress voter turnout? How do you think voting districts should be drawn to be fair to everyone?
My personal favorite districts — and I say that with as much irony in my typing inflection as I can muster — are the districts which follow along the sides of the interstate. I think Mel Watt’s district is one of those that follows the NC interstate for five miles on either side of the highway.
What a bizarre way to elect a member of Congress…
I seem to recall last election someone was telling African American voters they couldn’t vote or that the polling place had changed in Webb’s and other races.
Has anybody been prosecuted for this?
You are right that — even if we were to reform voting and campaign finance (as I hope we do) — our elections still are markedly uncompetitive, due to gerrymandering. In writing A Return to Common Sense, I learned that we are just about the only democracy that does it this way — having lawmakers draw and redraw their own lines. It’s a natural conflict of interest.
Now, gerrymandering is not exactly new. Patrick Henry tried to draw congressional district lines to keep James Madison from being elected to Congress! But it’s gotten much worse, partly due to computer software, and the Supreme Court has now given a green light to “mid decade” redistricting done purely for political purposes.
The best answer in the long run is to have the line-drawing done by someone other than the legislators themselves — say, a bipartisan or nonpartisan commission. That’s how it’s done in Iowa (where races are much more competitive) and the new system recently put in place in Arizona. Those are hard to pass, though, and voters rejected such systems in Ohio and California in 2006. We need something that is national and cleraly doesn’t help one party or another. Also, it’s quite late for states to put in place such systems now to have a real impact on the 2011 redistricting.
I would recommend, by the way, that you take a look at the Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting that we did, available here .
Michael, one of the things that you talk about in detail in the book is the restoration of “the feedback loop” connecting government and its citizens, wherein those elected are far more responsive and more accountable to those who elect them — the funding of politics and more fair and even-handed redistricting to restore competitiveness are just two ways to push that forward.
Are there particular initiatives that our readers could support in states? Or legislative actions at the federal level that our readers should talk about with elected folks?
Posters have asked which states will have the most voter suppression and disenfranchisement. The states that are closest often tend to have the most, since partisans push hardest there and the stakes are higher. For example, at the Brennan Center for Justice, we have filed lawsuits in Florida and New Mexico to strike down laws that would have cracked down on voter registration groups … we have worked in Ohio, where there have long been problems, on electronic voting … and we have fought secret voter purges in a number of states.
Michael, welcome. Will put your book on my list! Presently reading Jessamyn Carter’s wonderful book, “Everything you should know about politics and don’t.” I was getting a headache reading about the Electoral college, and a really BIG headache reading about Gore’s loss by 4 electoral votes in 2000. If we do away with the Electoral college and get a decent system does that mean the candidates can stop tapdancing so “centrist-ly” for a few swing states and the political bases can feel less disenfranchised from their parties?
On that note, have the cases against ACORN been mostly resolved from the last two elect cycles? Or are matters still pending? I know a lot of what Bradley Schlotzman was pushing has been discredited, but I’ve lost track of where other cases against their inner-city and poverty-stricken area registration drives have gone. Anyone know a legal update on those cases at this point?
Hey, Michael.
I’m wondering – with your background in government reform, what is your immediate response to the Palin nomination and McCain’s claim that her record shows her as a force for cleaning up government?
One of the reforms I talk about in “A Return to Common Sense” is to end the Electoral College. Four times in the country’s history, the wrong person won. That’s not a partisan point — Bush carried the country by millions of votes last election, but a few thousand votes shifted in Ohio would have made Kerry president. I might have liked that, but I suspect Republicans would have found that just as illegitimate as many of us found Bush in 2000. Even when the Electoral College “works,” it drives candidates to focus on just a few states — not big states, or small states, but swing states. I love Ohio, too, but it should not get all the attention! I am a fan of National Popular Vote, with which many readers may be familiar. It bypasses the Electoral College. It’s a multistate compact — states pass a law that says they will vote their electors for whoever wins the national popular vote, as long as enough other states do the same to elect that person. Illinois, New Jersey, and several other states have passed it — though Shwarzennegger and the Governor of Rhode Island just vetoed it. Don’t really know why the GOPers are against it, since it really doesn’t have particularly partisan implications; maybe it underscores the illegitimacy of 2000.
Gore actually won the popular vote by 600,000 in 2000. But Florida really sabotaged. And Ohio sabotaged in 2004. Are these still the most troubling re integrity in vote counting states, is there any way to know? What about the Diebold scandal in Calif. where the temp at Jones Day was a whistleblower about the Diebold machines being changed AFTER they were registered with the SofS, and THAT WAS A BLUE STATE!
Michael welcome and I look forward to reading your book. Safeguarding fair elections is crucial, if we are to continue as a functioning democracy. A government “elected” by manipulating the voting system has no legitimacy.
Thank you for your work at the Brennan Center. In VT, we used the report from the Brennan Center on the vulnerabilities of optical scan voting machines to convince our Sec of State to conduct random public audits.
What other things can people do on a local level to safeguard their elections?
David Iglesias had a task force look into voter fraud allegation in NM before he was asked to step down as USatty there. They looked at something like 99 separate allegations of voter fraud and voter registration fraud, and found only one matter which came close to being a legal violation. And, if I remember correctly from both Michael’s book and David’s book, that one case was not a sustainable prosecution — meaning that the evidence pointed to wrongdoing, but was a sketchy case on which a jury could not be relied upon to find guilt based on the evidence in hand, so David declined to prosecute it (which is a proper prosecutorial discretion decision, based on use of the public’s resources balanced against the level of wrongdoing alleged).
And for that, he was asked to resign because he wouldn’t bring a potentially politically fruitful case that might have aided Pete Dominici’s protege Heather Wilson. And that’s just one state’s worth of this sort of thing the last few years.
ps. Didn’t the temp have a few felonies thrown at him, one that stuck, for breaking legal confidentiality and Diebold only paid off a sign with a check? Not much encouragement for the whistleblowing heroes.
I think that’s so, but do you think that there is also widespread vote manipulation, in order to “soften up” even states with wide voting margins? A long term strategy to make a state competetive?
Michael talks a bit about just the software questions which are still open-ended with the electronic voting machines. And the research which has gone into tracking potential fraud through software glitch insertion and other methods. Paper trail is important in something like this — but it is only as good as the thoroughness of any audits done to test and retest the system and the vote.
“paid off a FINE with a check”… sorry.
Well, I don’t know much about Palin. (I guess that puts me in the supermajority!) Much of what I do know has come from Josh Marshall’s coverage of the brother-in-law firing scandal. And my group is nonpartisan.
But … though she was only elected to statewide office a few months ago, she did get elected by taking on some of the most corrupt figures in Alaska. When I heard about McCain’s choice, I did blurt, “Wow, he really hates Ted Stevens!” I am sure McCain will want to use this the way Bill Clinton’s choice of Gore in 1992 underlined his “New Democrat” credentials. McCain will say, see, this shows I am a reformer and will shake things up.
Democrats would be remiss to underappreciate the political appeal of this reform message. (Full disclosure: my group worked with McCain a lot on the McCain-Feingold bill, successfully defended it before the Supreme Court as co-lead counsel, and even represented him in a ballot access case in 2000! Also, he blurbed my last book.) One failing of Obama’s otherwise thrilling speech was that it focused so intently on the “kitchen table” concerns, that he missed the chance to talk about HOW he would change politics and Washington. Campaign finance reform, voter registration reform, etc., appeal directly to independent voters. Everyone forgets that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 on political reform issues.
What is the point of election laws if the fines and punishments all seem to happen after the election is over?
We need real time punishment to deter crime, punishment must be swift and certain I remember the law enforcement majors tell me in college in order to deter crime.
What if anything for example will likely happen to McCain for getting bank loans by saying he was going to go on public funding getiing the cash and then changing his mind?
Ok suppose we pass most of your ideas into law how does society benefit/profit? What is the cost/harm to society if things stay the same?
You are right that one big flaw in election laws is that the punishment for misbehavior often comes AFTER the election — when the bad guy may have won.
We ducked a real disaster this year in the Supreme Court’s case on voter ID, Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. If I am remembering right, Justice Scalia wanted in effect to block “facial” challenges to voting laws — in other words, even if a law is plainly unconstitutional in the way it blocks voters’ rights, you can’t challenge it until after the fact, i.e., after it has had its disenfranchising impact (and maybe swung an election). Fortunately, the majority of the justices did not go that far. In fact, they said they would consider striking down voter ID laws that go too far, if they had specific facts to look at. As bad as that decision was, it could have been much, much worse for voting rights.
Thanks, Christy. We’ll have to have the auditors and the voting clerks line up after for their lie detector tests. And the lie detecting examiners lined up for their lie detector tests… etc. what a world.
My other issue is WHY DOESN’T THE NATION HAVE ELECTION DAY ON A WEEKEND OR DECLARED A NATIONAL HOLIDAY? It is sometimes a serious burden on working people to get to their voting centers on time. Especially with the hopefully sustained increase in numbers voting.
Speaking of ID laws, any comment on Hans Von Spakovsky’s new consulting gig?
We should make Election Day convenient — according to the US Census, which studies these things, inability to get time off from work is a major reason people don’t vote. We have elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November because in 1845, Congress passed a law decreeing it. It was convenient for the farmers of the day, who needed a full day to go by horse and buggy to the county seat, it couldn’t be during the harvest, etc. etc. So why not for our convenience? I like making it a holiday (though service workers still often have to work on holidays) or over two days, as in many other countries. Also, early voting and easier vote by mail are good. There’s no one magic answer, but in all these ways, we can make it easier to vote.
Michael do you think the youth vote will bring it in for Obama this year? I feel their momentum for sure. But I know the youth vote was a disappointment for Kerry’s run.
Failing upward … or sideways, at least.
Michael, how can we get money out of politics? It seems that every law made to curb the role of big donors is easily circumvented.
Didn’t Tom DeLay create a couple of those?
One thing that I have seen here in WV is that our new early voting has been helpful for folks who work shift work or otherwise might have difficulty getting to the polls. Plus, for me, being able to vote early means that I can help do GOTV calls on election day and that others can do rides to the polls without having to worry about their own vote getting in on time.
It could be especially useful for a candidate to push early votes in for themselves, and that could work to a party advantage down-ticket as well if done with enough voter education.
Wow… how interesting. Like an old blue law still on the books, huh?
With so many “fresh hells” happening lately how do we make voting legislation a sexy enough issue to grab hold of the ADD, PTSD, sound-bite bitten American citizenry?
Is the League of Women Voters still a significant voice in voting organization?
I think we should impeach Scalia and friends for Bush vs Gore a ruling where no precedent can be made? Has that ever happened before in the whole history of law?
What more proof is needed of their shams and hackery?
It would by unusual by historic norms for the youth vote to win it for Obama. But … this is an unusual candidate and an unusual year! In 1972, when they lowered the voting age to 18, people thought it would help the Democrats, but a) young people stopped voting when Nixon cut back on the draft, and b) they weren’t so strongly for McGovern anyway. So it’s hard to predict. Young voters surged to Reagan in the 1980s, and were a key GOP bloc as they aged, too.
This year, all polls show a strong margin for Obama among young voters, though McCain has some appeal too. More interesting is whether they will vote. I suspect the next two weeks will be critical — when people return to college campuses. This is when organization really matters.
As you may know, many states have tough rules about whether and how college students can vote — check in with the Brennan Center’s website (www.brennancenter.org) over the next few weeks; we will have a lot of information posted on how students can make sure they can vote.
Yep — almost the whole state of Texas, too. Remember that whole Texas legislature Dems flee to Oklahoma and DeLay called his buddies at Homeland Security to find them fiasco?
Should not voting machine software be licensed to the government much the same way s/w is licensed to the DoD or intelligence agencies. Government should be able to audit it and have others audit and test it, as installed on real machines, to know what changes are made and to approve them before they are used, etc. Lacking such uniform protections, it seems we’ve outsourced vote counting, and hence, voting, not just mechanized the count.
Before you know it, it will be Blackwater running the voting.
It would have to be a mandatory holiday I’ve worked to many jobs that are seven days a week to trust a voting holiday after all I’ve worked Christmas and New Years several years in a row.
Maybe we could sell the holiday as a yearly mandatory Sabbath to the 30%ers to get it passed into law.
You got my vote on that! Relate.
Excellent point. European elections are either held on weekends or holidays or special election days specifically so that voters can get to the polls without putting at risk their jobs, their parents, their children or their health. As with union voting methods, the rules American governments adopt restrict the franchise rather than extend it.
I wonder if Blackwater’s troops will stay in New Orleans until after election day, just in case there’s another hurricane, or even a powerful wind of change that might threaten its bottom line, if not the levees.
BTW, must Congress approve annual appropriations for Blackwater just as it must for the standing US Army? Or has that constitutional limitation been superseded by the Post-9/11 World Order, too?
Michael — one of the issues you focus on nearer the end of the book is restoration of habeas corpus after MCA and other legal weakening of it the last few years. As I often say here, habeas was so important to the Framers that it was enshrined in the text of the constitution itself.
What are the odds for passage of reform of this and other civil liberties issues in the upcoming Congress do you think? I’m quite pessimistic about the odds of passage without a veto if McCain is elected — are reading his tea leaves the same way on this issue? (And I base it on Lindsey Graham’s involvement in the MCA passage as well as Lieberman’s as well, and their influence on McCain’s policy positions.) Any thoughts on this? And where we can be of assistance in pushing this forward?
What a good looking, informative website. Looking forward to exploring. Thank you.
Digg this post HERE
Great questions. Don’t know. I heard Blackwater is also commissioned now in San Diego to help with immigration issues. AND they are commissioned to help with the War on Drugs. So many TENTACLES. And I heard they are thinking of “internationalizing” their company. I am fighting to wrap my mind around the threat of that one.
All the redrawing of voting districts in Texas at least was done to split the GOP vote up and give a small GOP majority to as many voting districts as possible.
Given that this is a change election and that voting numbers are expected to be unprecedented this strategy won’t work if new voters who are more likely to vote Dem get above a certain number.
What is that number?
And was the Texas strategy of redrawing voting districts widespread?
After all a mountain can rise above a high tide but a levy while it can hold back a river for a much greater distance cannot handle a high tide like from a storm surge. The redrawing of Texas voting districts is a levy.
I have been reading to much Hurricane news online:)
It really is a great website — and the Brennan Center is a fantastic resource. Do take some time to peek around, gang, you won’t regret it!
Thanks:)
It’s sometimes hard to say. You’re absolutely right that, after originally being one of the strong voices on torture vis a vis Bush, McCain embraced him as part of his general lurch to the right. Obama’s statements on presidential power and its limits, while not detailed enough for my taste, are certainly more emphatic than anything McCain has said. (See Obama’s interview with Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe, available, I think, online.)
On the other hand, we don’t really know — McCain might feel freedom to maneuver, while Obama would be addressing such issues while trying to withdraw from Iraq and facing fierce criticism from the right.
Again, we should demand of all candidates what they will do. Obama didn’t mention this stuff — John Kerry did, though. Doubt McCain will either.
I’ve been working to get some more definitive statements on a whole host of legal issues from the Obama campaign without a lot of success. I take that as a sign that they are avoiding saying much definitive in order not to jeopardize election prospects with swing voters that the right wing could exploit. And, while I understand that from a political standpoint, the lawyer in me finds it disconcerting and not nearly enough for my comfort level.
That said, what McCain has said thus far about his legal stances gives me the all out willies. I realize he’s been courting his hard right base, but going reversing his stance on torture and rendition, shrugging off Gitmo, laughing off the Ledbetter decision and its implications and singing the praises of the likes of Alito and Roberts is exactly the way to get me to work my rear end off to be certain he does not win the election. Ugh.
Thank you for coming here, Michael. I’m in Ohio and I find it very hard to get people to register to vote, unless they’re young. There has been a lot of voter suppression here.
I wonder how long it takes to get over having your state’s elections rigged?
I’m encouraging people to register and to vote via absentee ballot, so there’s no waiting in line and it saves on gas.
I would guess, too, that Obama’s reticence is not only because he doesn’t want to alienate swing voters, but also to preserve his options when he’s president.
Thanks, that’s really interesting – I suppose my focus tends to be on the sins of The Party Which Is Not Mine, but it’s corrective to be reminded that the issue bites both ways.
I have such a list of “impeachment” people, starting with Bush and Cheney… but can the justices be impeached? I didn’t think of that as a possibility.
What was the deal, and Michael, can you answer this. After Ohio Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Barbara Boxer, representing their houses, officially complained about voting violations in Ohio. I heard with Kerry 20 Congresspeople did but they couldn’t get one senator to. What is that about? Can a court be overturned by Congress or have the power re-examine a questionable voting ruling?
True, it’s also worked that way with foreign policy statements from the campaign. I had Tony Lake in college, and know how important maneuverability and not being backed into a rhetorical corner is to him — I’d surmise that the legal advisors are the same way. Good point to keep in mind. (See, that’s where the practical experience from the inside comes in handy as an analytical starting point…)
Federal judges at any level can be impeached. And have been
Greetings Michael, and thanks for your appearance here. Two questions:
1) Do you and/or the Brennan Center have a preferred or suggested method for seeking accountability for the larger ills that have been perpetrated, since the traditional Constitutional modalities have been taken “off the table”?
2) How do you think we can best encourage, legislate and otherwise effect greater transparency for the national government both as to the legislative and executive branches?
thanks.
I heard with Kerry 20 Congresspeople did but they couldn’t get one senator to.
I meant to say “Gore” NOT “Kerry” in 2000.
Rep. John Conyers and the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee did a good and thorough study of voting problems in Ohio. I don’t know about the ability of Congress to overturn a court – -though in terms of who gets to sit in the House, it is actually up to the House to decide. There were some razor-close races over the past few decades where that happened.
We will miss Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. She was a real leader on voting issues. She cosponsored the Count Every Vote Act with Hillary Clinton. It was the best single bill on voting – an “omnibus” bill to fix many voting problems.
Am tearing up reading this. Another hero dying in their prime. She will be missed and God Bless her for her integrity and passion.
Michael, before we get too far down the discussion road, I want to thank you for your time discussing the book here today. And for the passion and effort that went into writing such a useful book in the first place. It really is an excellent read — and one that I wish more Congressional staffers would pick up in the coming months.
A lot of the issues you discuss will be familiar to our readers. But the legislative discussions were incredibly useful for me — and I know would be for others as well. Thanks so much for putting it all in such a compact, readable form, Michael!
Thanks, Michael and Christy. Can’t wait to explore the website and the book. This is definitely a dimension I need to learn about and today was a great start.
Accountability is key. The most significant method is what President George W. Bush called “the accountability moment” of an election. If voters won’t get active, we can’t expect politicians to. There are other mechanisms for ongoing accountability, too, that I discuss in the book. For example, we need a system for strong congressional oversight regardless of which party controls which branch. The breakdown of oversight over the past decade has been astounding, but really, the system of checks and balances was designed for a time without political parties. Now that the parties have become pretty uniformly ideological, in contrast to earlier eras of American history, the chance of a party doing oversight on its own president are slimmer. We can borrow from countries such as Germany, who now make sure that minority lawmakers can have subpoena power and the ability to call some witnesses.
My colleague Fritz Schwarz testified before Congress last month and called for the creation of an independent 9/11 style commission on the abuses of power that have taken place in the anti-terrorism effort. He was chief counsel for the Church Commiittee in the 1970s, but now thinks an independent panel is better than a congressional probe. I’m trying to get the hyperlink to work, but if it does, you can get his testimony here.
Michael, I think this may be the link you were trying to put up on that testimony,
Yes, it was – but my Internet skills apparently are not what they ought to be…
Great idea. I said this “issue” might not seem sexy for the citizenry, but it is key — the foundation from our founding fathers, or, to keep on with the hurricane metaphors, OUR LEVY against corruption.
Welcome to my world. *g* That testimony was wonderful, btw, gang — well worth watching.
I spoke a few weeks ago at Netroots Nation, on a panel with Cass Sunstein and John Dean. My talk was about the awful politicization of the DOJ, and the fact that prosecutions were made based on partisan affiliation. Then the questions came from the audience: Why weren’t we in favor of prosecuting Republicans? They are “evil,” don’t we understand? The irony was lost on the audience.
One thing good about an independent panel is it avoids a) tying up Congress in retrospective and inevitably partisan wrangling at a time when there are just a few months for key actions, and b) unlike a special prosecutor, gives the outgoing administration less incentive to cover up and issue blanket pardons.
If they won’t even use their “inherent contempt” power, how likely is it that they will find the vertibrae necessary to set up a Church Commission type panel?
Though I absolutely agree that such a body is sorely needed
what ll said
THANKS!
Michael, Thank you for stopping by the Lake to day and spending the afternoon discussing your new book and politics.
Christy, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, stop by the Brennan Center’s website (>http://www.brennancenter.org), and if you haven’t bought Michael’s book, the link is above.
Thanks all.
you wouldn’t be toying with us would you?
Can you expand on your “b”? how does a panel disincentive cover ups?
and, as ever, thank you Bev
Thank you and Christy for the link. Your points about an independent panel of some sort have some merit; quite frankly, it is probably the best that can be envisioned anyway, I don’t think Obama has the desire or cojones to take out after his predecessors right off the bat upon taking office (and due to statute concerns etc. it would have to be started immediately.
I hear you and thanks for the consciousness raising. I am often one of those “out for Republican scalps” lefties … but I thank you and I do hear you on this. And an independent panel sounds efficient and effective. (As they say, “It is easier to see a flea on someone else (or their party) than an elephant (or donkey) on yourself” in terms of defects. (I think I mangled that expression to be politically clever, but trust you get it.))
I had asked earlier about “the League of Women Voters” … are they still involved in voting standards and implementation? They are non-partisan, are they not, too?
I think Congress does need to look at their “inherent contempt” power — for the non-initiates, it must stop relying on DOJ to enforce the subpoenas it has the legal and constitutional power to issue.
More than happy to, Bev — I had this book with me in Denver last week, and did a lot of reading on the plane out and back. Several people asked me about it in the airport and in the blogger tent, Michael, so I hope your sales got a boost. *g*
Thanks, Christy and Bev … and thanks to all the commenters. The thoughtfulness was much appreciated. And … as mentioned above … please do visit our website at http://www.brennancenter.org … and buy the book, too!
Michael