Connections

LBJ and MLK Needed Each Other 

The threat of a recession has done something which previous national issues have not: it’s enabled Congress and the White House to find some common ground on which to act. That common ground is directly related to the need for a stimulus package to fire up the U.S. economy and restore some confidence into consumers. Even though both branches agree that something needs to be done, they differ in their approach. President Bush tends to favor tax cuts for middle and lower class workers and additional breaks for businesses while Democrats are holding out for increased federal spending–particularly an increased in federal money going to states which are mired in the mortgage crisis. Whether or not Congress and the President are able to overcome their differences remains to be seen. President Bush has stated that he will not begin to work on this issue until he returns from the Middle East this week. Look for his proposal to be outlined in the January 28th State of the Union Address.

This story connects to several issues we’ve discussed in class so far. Your textbook laid out five purposes for government. One of the purposes—added during the 20th century—was to stabilize the economy. Obviously this directly relates to the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal which forever changed the role of the government and the way that Americans perceive the responsibilities of the president. We expect the federal government to take action to keep our economy stable and when signs appear that the economy is slowing down, we look for strong government action to revive it. This expectation could provide a foundation for Congress and the president to work together in the coming months. With a growing number of Americans worried about the state of the economy, perhaps the partisanship which has divided the White House and Congress during the past year might ease. I’m curious to see the specific proposals that will be offered to boost the economy and the rhetoric that is used to build support among the American public. I’m also curious to see how the presidential candidates respond to economic issues in the coming weeks. As domestic concerns overtake concerns about the War in Iraq, the candidates-particularly the Democratic candidates–will need to shift their messages.

You can read the full story in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302721.html?hpid=topnews

We’ve spent time this week discussing the principles which underlie our Constitution. One of the most important of those principles is federalism. A story caught my eye this week which is a great example of the complicated relationship between the states and the government in Washington, D.C.

Congress, under pressure from the Bush administration, passed a law requiring the states to toughen up their requirements for drivers licenses. According to the law, states would need to require more identification from drivers born after 1964: a birth certificate, a digital photo, and a statement stating that all the information provided is true. The purpose of the tighter restrictions is, of course, security. Since your driver’s license is your primary source of identification it’s pretty important that its accurate. There are always two sides to a story, however, and in this case on the other side are privacy concerns.  Some states have protested this new law on the basis that it establishes a form of national identification. Under pressure from such opposition, the federal government has delayed enactment of this new law which was scheduled to go into effect in 2008. The states will now have until 2011 to comply with the new requirements.

This story reflects the principle of federalism and demonstrates why the Founders believed it was so important to divide power not just between the three branches but also between the states and the federal government.  Because state government is closer and more responsive to the people, it’s supposed to be a barrier against an overpowerful and encroaching national government. That’s exactly what the states are doing here: opposing a law that some states believe is a violation of individual rights and state power.  This report illustrates how fluid the lines can be in some cases within the structure of government established by the Constitution. The relationship between the federal government and the states is outlined in the Constitution but the outline is flexible to a point and within the outline, the division of power changes depending on the context of the times. Since 9-11 that balance has tended to favor the national government but this story indicates that the pendulum might be swinging back the other way and that security concerns and not automatically going to translate into an enlarged federal government.

You can read the story in the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003971.html 

You can listen to this NPR story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1102

In Kansas, citizens enjoy a unique power: the power to petition to convene a Grand Jury. Only five other states in the U.S. grant their citizens this power. Grand Juries are an opening stage in criminal investigations. They do not determine guilt or innocence but assess the available evidence and determine whether there is enough foundation for a criminal case to proceed. In most states, the power to convene a Grand Jury resides with the district attorney.  In Kansas, citizens can take action when the district attorney fails to act by collecting a certain number of signatures on a petition (2% of the people who voted in the county’s last gubernatorial election).

Kansas residents have used this power in the past to target marketers of obscene materials. Recently, they have used this power to investigate abortion clinics and one doctor in particular: Dr. Tiller. The petitioners claim that Dr. Tiller and the clinics are violating Kansas law by performing late term abortions when the life of the mother is not in danger. Since such an action would be illegal, they are using the petitions to try and bring criminal charges against Dr. Tilller and other abortion providers.  From the point of view of the petitioners, most of whom belong to a pro-life organization—-National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Family—they are merely carrying out their legal responsibilities and are exercising their authority legitimately. From the point of view of Dr. Tiller and the clinics, the Grand Juries amount to a political witch hunt aimed at restricting a woman’s right to reproductive health care.

This story connects to the pathways of action that we’ve been reading about in Living Democracy. The citizens of Kansas are employing the court pathway, a course of action granted to them by Kansas law. They are using this power to force their local government to take action on illegal activities taking part in their state. But there are two sides to this story and while the citizens who favor such action see themselves in one light, the people who are the targets of this petition drive see their actions differently. Both Dr. Tiller and pro-choice advocates view this as a way of promoting a pro-life agenda in their community in violation of rights that are protected under the U.S. Constitution. They do not see the Grand Juries as a legitimate pathway of action but instead as a tool used to promote a particularly political agenda. The story highlighted a form of citizen action that I did not know existed and reminded me that there are always two sides of the story. This particular pathway of action looks very different depending on whose shoes you are standing in at the time. I’d like to know more about how this power is used in other states and will post more information as I find it.

The authors of Living Democracy emphasize the importance of citizen participation in government in Chapter One. They argue that the ability to participate in government is a distinguishing feature of democracies such as the United States. In the chapter, they provide many examples of pathways of action available to citizens who wish to create change in our nation. These pathways range from tried and true methods such as voting to litigation to cultural change.  Citizens need to learn how to negotiate these pathways of action, the authors argue, as the health and stability of our government depends on our involvement.

While listening to NPR on Saturday morning, I was struck by a story about an activist who has taken up the cause of racial injustice in Jena, Louisiana. The activist is a self-described balding, short,  former Baptist minister who has previously battled racism in Tulia, Texas. He is also white. Wade Goodwyn, the NPR reporter, describes how Alan Bean became involved in the struggle against racism in both towns and his relentless efforts to challenge perceived injustices.  Bean’s story reflects many of the themes discussed in chapter 1. He identified issues that he felt needed to be addressed in his community, specifically issues that he felt local government was not addressing.  Evaluating his options, he chose to use the media to direct attention on the issues. His intention was to raise public awareness of the racial issues in both towns. Increased public awareness would lead, he hoped, to increased pressure on the government and eventually a change. His methods worked in both cases. Although it took awhile to get the media to “bite,” one the news stories started to appear, people in the community began to become concerned and then involved. The story of Alan Bean reflects the theme of activism discussed in the chapter and illustrates how individuals can make a difference.

Here’s the link to the NPR story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17869393