I very much believe in compromise. You don’t get legislation done without working with other legislators and often, they disagree with you. But, there’s something troubling when the word compromise is thrown around to justify capitulation. And I think if we are intelligent, we have to really look at what’s happening and ask ourselves whether or not we are engaging in a strategy that’s going to get us to the more egalitarian and democratic society that we want.
I’m forty-three years old and I’ve been doing politics for a while now and I’m getting frustrated. I want to live in the world that I imagined years ago. And I’m frustrated with the reality that has political parties killing the electric car decades ago, not taking the heat of alternative energies and solar energy and the excitement that could have happened way back when people like Jimmy Carter were in office.
There’s a point that you get to that’s a breaking point. You may not be at it. You may still feel like, gee, you know, I’m just scared to vote for Ralph Nader if this other thing happens. And I respect that. I understand that. Let me spend a little time telling you why I think you’re making a mistake if you capitulate because I think that’s what it is.
There’s a line by Allen Ginsberg that I think of every morning to start my day. And it’s the first line of a poem of his. “Be kind to yourself; it is the only one and perishable.”
If you be good to yourself, you don’t walk into a voting booth and start trying to do some mathematical equation that if you vote for the people that are identifying with your ideals this other thing is going to happen so you can’t do that, you gotta do the strategic thing. I think that’s a very cynical way of engaging in a democracy. Because those who raise the attack on Ralph Nader, thos who say that Ralph your responsible for George Bush, or you’re the one that cost the 2000 election, I invite you to look at the historical record. And this is what the historical record will say to you---
Eight years after Ralph Nader who is both on the one hand an irrelevant and trivial candidate that isn’t allowed into debates and on the other hand is a candidate who holds the country hostage; eight years after that, somehow the brainpower of the Democratic Party couldn’t figure out that we could neutralize somebody called Ralph Nader by simply mandating that the winner of election have over 50 percent of the vote. It’s that simple. Even if you didn’t want to change from the electoral college to a national popular vote---which I support---even if you didn’t want to that, you could say we’re not going to award electoral votes in any state until someone gets over 50 percent of the vote.
How is it possible that eight years could pass and this political party that tells us they lost the highest office in the country hasn’t figured out a solution other than what I call an antidemocratic one that should insult us which is to say that somebody in a democracy that holds different views than other people---You’re not allowed to run. You’re not allowed to participate. That can’t be the answer. And if that’s the answer, I’m suspicious because that makes me think something else is going on here. So, what’s going on here?
What is the thing that’s going on?
Well, in 1992, Ross Perot spoiled the contest for the incumbent Republican and Bill Clinton got elected, in fact to two terms. Neither time did he receive 50 percent of the vote. Never hear the Democrats complain about that one. And yet, Bill Clinton had a smaller percentage of the vote than George Bush had in 2000.
I try to say that to people and they often say but we like Bill Clinton, we don’t like George Bush. No, you see---what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The reason you’re not changing how we do elections even though you claim you lost the presidency in 2000 is that if you actually change how we vote and make it a more democratic system don’t you see what would happen? These two political parties would not be guaranteed of being in political office half the time all the time. They would suddenly be in office a third of the time, fourth of the time. They would rather lose elections through some weird arbitrary outcome because there are little parties trying to broaden the political spectrum. They would rather lose every now and then knowing that it’s still better than making this a more democratc system.
What do you do when you heed their call, when you’re scared to vote for the candidate that you oughtta admire, that you oughta appreciate are out there fighting it out, getting attacked all the time, being asked stupid inane questions that are dumbfounding that totally go against what we know about history?
How many times have you heard the leader of the Democratic Party or their nominee asked, “Hey guys, why won’t you debate these other candidates? You didn’t institute election reform so what do you have to complain about? If your ideas are superior to theirs than you’re gonna win the debate. It’s gonna be easy.”
And what do you say to yourselves in the particular climate that we find ourselves in? The introductory speaker did a marvelous job of really laying out some of these things.
Remember Nancy Pelosi? They’re gonna take back Congress. No blank check. It was fantastic. The rhetoric sounded so damn good.
The year before she took Congress war appropriations were 116 billion dollars a year. The year she became the Speaker, she became speaker first month of the year, war appropriations went up to 165 billion. 49 billion more dollars put into this war. The u rhetoric about no blank check---I don’t know---not important anymore because it was important for that news cycle and that excitement of the Democratic Party. We’re gonna take over and finally end this.
And then this year, it gets even worse. From 165 it goes to 189---another 25 billion dollars. And the real insult to injury is the Republicans who bring the appropriations bill forward, the Democrats were like no, no, no you got to increase the amount. Okay, well, you’re trying to get it out of our attention span so we don’t figure out what’s going on.
Now the amount of military spending the United States has is not 189 billion dollars a year. What it is is really astounding. On top of that 189, it’s 507 billion dollars. Now, compare that to 2001. In 2008, its 507. In 2001, it was 316. So, even putting aside the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, military spending’s gone up by about 200 billion dollars in less than a decade plus another almost 200 billion dollars.
Barack Obama says we got to increase military spending. John McCain says we got to increase military spending. All the while we’re gonna double monies for this, we’re gonna double monies for that. Every interest group you’re gonna get what you want. If you’re a school teacher, we’re gonna take care of you. Where’s it gonna come from? What are these guys doing?
And, can you feel good about yourself? Can you be kind to yourself and walk into a voting booth and say, “Yeah, we need more military spending”? Or, the candidate that is proposing that is the kind of courageous candidate that deserves your vote?
It’s not the only thing. Take any of the issues. Take the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been raised by this great Democratic Congress to $6.55/hr right now. Well, that’s less than 14,000 dollars a year for full-time work in the United States of America. Less than 14,000.
If you took the 1968 minimum wage and you adjusted it for inflation---the Federal Reserve Inflation CPI calculator---the government’s own calculator takes that $1.60 and it would be $9.91 today.
So, if we were gonna fight the bad guys, and here we are we’re the Democrats, we’re caucusing in Congress, we’re gonna take over. I’ve been a legislator. I know how to caucus with people. And you break down what you gotta do.
I would say, “Okay guys, we’re gonna pass a minimum wage and we’re gonna have an indicator for inflation on it. Because we have the votes now, we’re never gonna come back to this issue ever. We’re gonna win it now. And once we win, we’re done. We don’t have to come back every 5 years begging whether or not we’re in office or not in office.”
What’s the problem with that? The problem with it is it doesn’t guarantee that labor has to come kiss your feet every 5 years begging for another little increase that’s below even inflation. And so, if you even actually fix the problem when you have the power to, oh, well, you’re gonna hurt your power in the future so let’s not do it.
I saw it in SF. We brought a min wage 8.50/hr. at a time there was a recession. Everybody said Matt you’re wasting our time. Labor unions didn’t want to support it. I had to go to the labor councils and chastise them and embarrass them and say you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Why didn’t they want to support it? Because unionized workers weren’t gonna get a pay increase. Right? It was 8.50/hr---this was way lower than union wages. They didn’t want to put a lot of muscle to help a bunch of unorganized workers, a lot of immigrant workers, a lot of single mothers. But, I insisted on that cost of living adjustment.
And when we got that, that minimum wage is already 9.30/hr. It’s gone up 80 cents almost without anybody going to the polls, without any piece of legislation. Everyone scratches their head and I love it. I read that article and say that’s a beautiful thing, that’s a beautiful thing.
There are other troubling things you heard about the PATRIOT Act. Even though the Democrats didn’t have Congress when they voted the PATRIOT Act, you can say well they weren’t the majority party, but if 44 Democrats---and we’re talking about the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act---if 44 Democrats had voted no, the measure would have been defeated by 11 votes. That’s what your opposition party that’s gonna bring you change is talking about.
Their candidate impudiates public financing. Makes a promise he’ll do it when he’s having trouble raising money but when he’s raising money, he won’t do it anymore. He votes for the FISA Compromis although he’s a former constitutional law professor. Supports the death penalty. Goes out of his way to critique a Supreme Court’s decision to finally start taking away some of the offenses that qualify for the death penalty---he has to go out of his way to condemn that.
And that one’s troubling because people say that it’s about the Supreme Court and this and that. You know, Jeffrey Rosen wrote for the NY Times magazine a piece about the Supreme Court March of this year. And he said the Democratic appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, went out of their way to question lawsuits challenging corporate wrongdoing and the only distinction between these two individuals he put in a category called the “culture wars.” That we’re to believe that we’re right on the edge of losing all of our rights as they relate to the PATRIOT Act, to the FISA bill, to abortion---We already have enough justices that can overturn that.
You know why it’s not gonna be overturned? Because the U.S. Supreme Court does not just lead, they follow. They follow societal, cultural opinions. There was a more liberal Supreme Court in the 1980s with Thurgood Marshall and Brennan and all these great giants. And you know, they wouldn’t overturn anti-sodomy statutes in the South.
A conservative Supreme Court with Anthony Kennedy and people like that overturned it. They’re not more liberal. They’re not more progressive. Society changed to the point that they can’t do anything about it.
I had dinner with a Republican judge in SF, a very good civil lawyer got appointed to the bench. And I happen to know him because I tried his first criminal case and he made some bad rulings in that case but I won anyway. But, I like him. He’s a smart guy. And you know, a Republican judge is the one that gave us the gay marriage decision in California. He overturned it. Then the court of appeal overturned his decision. Then the state Supreme Court ---seven justices, six Republican court appointees---overturned the court of appeal and say gay marriage should be allowed.
You can’t fall for this. On top of it let me tell you something more disturbing. Many of the Democrats in Congress know we’re really pissed off about some of these appointees. So, you know what they do? They say, okay I’m gonna vote against that appointee, he’s bad.
Great. But they don’t go the next step and say I want to filibuster. They say well I’m not gonna filibuster. I’ll vote for cloture and shut down a filibuster. And you know what this is? I’m a skilled politician. This is what I saw my colleagues sometimes do. Somebody’s getting appointed you know they’re powerful, you know they’re bad you don’t like them. You don’t just vote against them and try to defeat them, you say privately, look I’m not gonna stop your appointment. I’m gonna vote against you, but I’m not going to do any work to try and stop you. And you hope that they’re not angry at you and they’re gonna say you know that was nice of that champion of the left to let me a rightwing conservative get my appointment.
So, when Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, he made it plain publicly I won’t support a filibuster. Is this an opposition strategy that’s working? What does it say about the future? He voted for cloture on Priscilla Owens to the 5th Circuit. Obama confirmed Thomas Griffith. Confirmed Myron Smith to the 9th Circuit. Confirmed Sandra DeKoda to the 9th Circuit. Voted for cloture for Brent Cavanaugh. These are all Bush appointees. That’s Bush’s agenda. That’s not an opposition strategy. That’s not gonna win. That’s not gonna get us to the kind of society we want to be in. [*apologize for the spellings and muddying of names of judges here. I cannot find information to corroborate what Matt said at this moment. I do not think he is wrong, I just want to be accurate in my transcription.]
I could go on and I could tell you how the Democrats supported Energy Policy Act of 2005. It had more---- Barack Obama voted for this and John McCain voted against it. Sometimes you’ll hear McCain say, “Oh you know he was given goodies to the oil companies,” because McCain, that’s how he makes his arguments but the irony is there’s actually truth in this argument.
The Energy Policy Act had tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies that collectively were already making over 100 billion dollars in profits a year. ExxonMobil 40 billion dollars a year. In 2005, it was 36 billion. Royal Dutch Shell 25 billion. British Petroleum 22 billion. And we as taxpayers were giving them billions of dollars for fuel production more than we were giving to alternative energies and conservation.
But, the Democrats who vote for that including Obama, they say it’s a compromise. They say you don’t get anywhere in politics---superheroes don’t get elected to Congress.
Well, the Canadian legislature didn’t have any superheroes when they voted for national health care. Russ Feingold when he voted against the PATRIOT Act wasn’t a superhero. There are other people standing up and fighting, but there’s that trick of the rhetoric where you’re supposed to believe it’s a compromise. Let me explain---
The Chicago-Sun Times said now it’s a curious time to be dishing out oil welfare. Well, Obama justifies it. He says you know we put billions of dollars into alternative energies. Okay it’s true. He put billions of dollars into that. But, it’s less than what you put into oil production and at a time when these guys were making out real good.
You wouldn’t subsidize oil production unless the economy were bad and you were trying to get oil companies to do something they didn’t want to do. For instance, you want to try to get them in the early 90s when profits are lousy to deep drill in the Gulf of Mexico where it’s really risky and it costs a lot of money. Then you say well you know the tax that we charge you for the lease, we’re gonna waive the tax to try and create an incentive. That’s legitimate. But, you don’t do it when they’re making record profits. You don’t continue cutting a break.
And then, the Obama campaign recently said this Energy Policy Act increased taxes 300 million. It’s true. 300 million dollars over an 11 year period. Compare that to the 12 to 15 billion that we send to the war in Iraq every month. Compare that to the billions that you gave to the companies, tax breaks and subsidies. You’re collecting a little bit more back from them. You’re not even keeping pace with inflation. You want to tell me that this makes sense? This amounts to less than 1% of the profits that they are making.
I want to thank you. I know it’s difficult and I know it’s a hard political climate. But there are many people that fought to make this a better democracy and they still fight. And I like to remind people that when Eugene Debs was urging the idea that women should have the right to vote, there were a lot of people that thought that was nuts. They thought that was crazy. You’re gonna vote for Eugene Debs? He never got more than 5% in the national election.
And you ask yourself if you had lived in that time would you have fallen for that argument? Would you have said you know that’s really compelling women ---Let me ask the men. They would have been allowed to vote. What would you have done?
That’s the ultimate question. Right now Ralph Nader is the most important voice that’s going after a corporate culture that gives money to these candidates and is guaranteed stuff like tax breaks and subsidies, guaranteeing that we don’t get the kind of money that we should have.
