A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP

The Republicans are hurting in national and state politics. Opinion polls consistently reveal that voters are skeptical of the Republican brand. The 2008 election marked the second consecutive cycle in which voters preferred Democratic contenders for Congress and in gubernatorial elections. Finally, after occupying the White House for the last eight years (and all but 12 out of the last 40), Republicans have ceded presidential power to the Democrats as well, and they even lost a few southern states in the process.

The Republicans need new direction and a savvy plan to regroup, and yesterday, they chose Michael Steele as their new leader. Michael Steele is the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and he is the first black to chair the RNC. Steele attended Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University Law Center. For years he worked in the DC office of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, a prestigious New York-based law firm with offices in many other countries. [Editor's Note: I worked at the New York office of Cleary Gottlieb after graduating from law school.]

Predictably, Steele Has Sent Liberals into Attack-Mode
My fellow liberals are already in attack mode. They are, indeed, Palinizing him (to Palinize). Some liberal websites report that he "exploited" homeless people. Others say that he is too close to Bush and that he is homophobic. The MotherJones blog has a picture of him posing with Rush Limbaugh. Although it looks like a cheesy "say cheese" picture taken at a fundraiser or other random political event, readers believe it shows that Steele is a reactionary.

But most of the liberal critiques of Steele argue or imply that he is a "token." Even readers at OpenLeft (one of my favorite blogs) have advanced this idea. Apparently, now that the Democrats have FINALLY elected a black person as president, they feel empowered to disparage blacks they do not like as tokens.

Democrats Should Not Feel Too Comfortable Attacking Steele
Despite having a relatively liberal stance on civil rights, Democrats have not always given black political interests priority. Presently, the party has not really addressed any race-specific social or economic concerns (some even doubt that such exist). I imagine that having Obama as president will obviate the need for the party to do anything race-specific. Obama campaigned as the post-racial first black president, and blacks will probably give him wide latitude to do absolutely anything (or nothing) related to racial issues.

And while the Republicans deservedly suffer a bad reputation among people of color, Dubya appointed Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as Secretary of State -- the highest Cabinet position -- which beats Obama's performance. Perhaps they were tokens -- but at they were tokens with power.

Steele's Task: Make the Republicans Moderate and Libertarian
Although I am a liberal, I strongly believe in the concept of an "opposition party," even when Democrats are in control. Personally, I find both parties lacking -- individually and collectively. Discarding either one of them will not benefit voters. So, despite my opposition to most conservative issues, I would like to see the Republican Party remain politically "viable." At a minimum, a strong opposition party (or parties) could give voters other options and effectuate changes in policy.

Although I disagree with most of Steele's political positions, I believe the Republicans made the right choice. Americans love symbols (just ask Obama), and Steele, if given the proper support from the party, can allow Republicans to remake their image. Steele will not send blacks to the Republican Party in droves, but that is not the purpose of selecting him. Instead, if he can improve the party's overall image, then moderate whites might feel comfortable with Republicans once again. Blacks have been solid Democratic voters since FDR. Unless something catastrophic occurs, this will not change in the near future.

Symbolism alone, however, will not save the GOP. Instead, Republicans will need to take more moderate political stances in order to woo independent voters who abandoned the GOP in favor of Obama. If Steele pushes the party more deeply into the direction of rightwing philosophy, particularly on social issues and international affairs, then it will remain an outsider party.

Steele's task, though difficult, is not impossible. Prior to Ronald Reagan's presidency, Republicans were fairly moderate on most issues. Also, a populist agenda that focuses on economic concerns rather than seeking to invade the bedrooms of GLBT people or the wombs of pregnant women, could help the party attract moderate voters, without sacrificing too many supporters in the Midwest and South. And despite Obama's strong victory, he barely won states like Florida, Virginia, and Indiana. A more attractive Republican candidate could certainly shake up the next presidential race.

Steele will need to "negotiate" with the more conservative elements of the party. If the party can redefine conservatism along the lines of libertarianism and consistently embrace a hands-off approach to government, then the GOP might appeal to moderates. Convincing social conservatives that this shift would accomplish more for them politically than dismantling Roe or preventing Adam and Steve from marrying is one of Steele's most difficult tasks. Good luck.

Hold Them Accountable Part II: If Conservatives Caused the Economic Crisis, They Had a Lot of Help from Democrats!

Elections and Economic Performance: The Historical Connection
The poor state of the economy helped to secure President Obama's election victory. An abundance of historical research demonstrates that voters typically blame the incumbent or the incumbent party for bad economic conditions.

Prior to the implosion of Lehman Brothers, McCain led or was tied with Obama in many leading opinion polls. But after Lehman and a number of other financial institutions experienced economic meltdowns and after statistics demonstrated that the economy was in a state of sharp decline, the momentum shifted strongly in Obama's direction.

Exit polls reveal that a majority of voters chose Obama because they trusted him to bring about economic growth. Voter preferences follow historical patterns, including the recent past. Poor economic conditions caused many voters to abandon Carter and Bush I in their re-election bids.

Lil' Bush's Fault?
During the presidential campaign, many pundits and commentators blamed Bush for the economic downturn. They often identified "deregulation" as the main culprit. Specifically, many liberals cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a depression-era statute that regulated several aspects of the nation's banking industry. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed a provision of Glass-Steagall that prohibited the consolidation of a commercial bank and an insurance company or investment bank.

Liberal critiques of Gramm-Leach-Bliley reached a fever pitch after several venerable investment banks imploded. Gramm-Leach-Bliley would soon symbolize to many liberals the utter bankruptcy of conservatism and the wisdom of liberalism.

Many liberals also blamed the economic crisis on Bush's tax cuts for high-income earners; others argued that the costly war in Iraq caused the problem. Also, during the Democratic primaries, progressives blamed NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements for the loss of jobs in the U.S., which they believe created the deep problems in the nation's "rust belt." Liberals argued that collectively, these failed "conservative" policies required a "change" of direction and that only liberal-Democratic measures could repair the terrible state of affairs.

If Liberals Are Correct on the Economy, They Must Criticize Democrats
Many economists dispute some of the more popular arguments that liberals advance as reasons for the sluggish economy. For example, according to economists, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not cause the financial crisis. Instead, the housing bubble and its subsequent explosion, the spread of risky mortgage-based assets through financial and securities markets, and the increase in interest rates from years of historically low levels created most of the nation's current economic problems (for an extended discussion of this issue see FactCheck.Org Confirms What Neither Party Will Admit: Bipartisan Blame for Wall Street Woes).

Democrats Supported the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
I assume, however, for the sake of argument, that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act contributed substantially to the nation's economic crisis. If this is the case, then Democrats are as blameworthy as Republicans. Although the statute is named for the three Republican members of Congress who sponsored it, the legislation passed with wide support from Democrats.

In the Senate, the legislation passed by a vote of 90-8. In the House, the vote was 343-86. President Clinton also supported the legislation, as did his Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin. Although popular liberal discourse portrays the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as the product of a vile and corrupt GOP, the historical record tells a different story: both parties supported the legislation.

Many Democrats Supported NAFTA, Including Party Elites
Economists, including respected liberals such as Robert Reich (Clinton's Secretary of Labor), dispute the role of NAFTA in the erosion of jobs in the rust belt. Reich argues that mechanization and technological advancements caused most of the job losses in this region -- not NAFTA. But, assuming that NAFTA caused higher rates of unemployment in the U.S, Democrats cannot claim innocence.

NAFTA passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38. Democrats split their votes 27-28, with one abstention. In the House, the measure passed by a vote of 234-200. Democrats voted against it, 100-156. Although a majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA, the vote was fairly close. Had more Democrats voted against the measure, they could have helped to defeat it.

Furthermore, many prominent Democrats supported the measure, including Senators Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Bill Bradley, Christopher Dodd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman; Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson also cast votes in favor of NAFTA. President Clinton also lobbied heavily for the legislation, and according to Obama's campaign brochures and advertisements, Hillary Clinton did so as well. Although a slight majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA, the measure still received support from many Democrats, including some of the party's most powerful and respected figures.

Obama: For and Against NAFTA
President Obama very passionately condemned NAFTA as he sought votes in Midwestern states during the Democratic primaries. Obama stated that he would not seek to repeal the legislation but that he would use his authority as president and force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" its terms.

After he secured the Democratic nomination for President, however, Obama sharply altered his tone with respect to NAFTA. During a June 2008 interview with Fortune, Obama said that he would not unilaterally seek to reopen negotiations concerning NAFTA. After the interviewer reminded him that he had once described NAFTA as "devastating" and as a "big mistake," he explained that campaign rhetoric often becomes "overheated and amplified."

In March 2008 a Canadian official leaked a memorandum of notes taken during a meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a top economic advisor for the Obama campaign. The notes explain that Goolsbee tried to reassure Canadians that Obama's tough stance regarding NAFTA was simply "political positioning." The Obama campaign, however, vehemently denied this description of the meeting, and some of his Democratic supporters contended that conservatives in Canada were trying to discredit his campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama's comments later that year, however, suggest that the memorandum accurately reflected his views on NAFTA.

In any event, Obama will not seek to repeal NAFTA or even unilaterally to renegotiate its terms. So, if liberals believe that NAFTA helps creates economic distress for Americans, they should criticize Obama for not trying to alleviate the problem.

Bush's Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
Most economists believe that Bush's tax cuts ultimately led to budget deficits, which will only increase over the next few years. Regardless of whether the tax cuts caused the recession, which most economists doubt, Democrats can actually claim innocence on this issue. The measure authorizing the tax cuts passed in the Senate by a 51-50 vote (Vice President Cheney cast the tiebreaker). The vote was highly partisan, with almost all Democrats voting against the measure and all Republicans voting for it. In the House, the vote was equally partisan.

The Costly Iraq War
In a prior post, I analyzed the Democrats' position on the Iraq War. In the House, a majority of Democrats voted against the war, while a slim majority of Senate Democrats supported it. The Democratic support for the war, however, came from some of the party's most powerful figures, such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Harry Reid. The war has indeed cost a tremendous amount of resources, but Democrats cannot claim innocence on this issue, despite passionate liberal anger with the military action.

Conclusion
Although the Bush tax cuts, coupled with greater government spending, squandered the Clinton-era budget surplus, this did not create the deep financial crisis the nation now faces. And while "cutting taxes and increasing spending" is bad policy, it does not explain why the country is now in a deep recession.

Economists question other popular explanations for the recession, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and NAFTA, but regardless of their connection to the nation's financial roles, Democrats and Republicans widely supported both measures.

Finally, the housing and mortgage-backed securities markets contributed most significantly to the financial crisis. But so many different actors were involved in this situation that responsibility transcends party affiliation and government/private-sector status. Although many liberals argue that the economy supports their claim that Bush is the "worst president" in history, the story is far more complicated than this popular script acknowledges.

Editor's Note: This article is the second in a series of essays that examine the extent of Democratic support for Bush's and the GOP's most criticized policies. This essay examines Democratic endorsement of "conservative" policies that liberals argue caused the recession and that discredit conservative political-economic ideology. You can read the first article here: Hold Them Accountable Too: Many Democrats Supported Policies of the "Worst President" (Part I).

Other readings on the economy:

Bah Humbug: Both Parties Are Guilty With Respect to the Economy, But Neither Offers Concrete Solutions

FactCheck.Org Confirms What Neither Party Will Admit: Bipartisan Blame for Wall Street Woes.

Get a Grip People: Bush Is not the Worst President in U.S. History

Disclaimers
I have always found surveys that ask people to rank presidents a little silly. People who complete these surveys often fail to look beyond their own reality and consider figures from the past. Also, even when people look to the past, they usually employ contemporary standards to judge historical conduct. But many political positions that are suicidal today, were perfectly acceptable in the past (and vice versa). Not taking this into account can cloud our assessment of historical actors. Finally, in order to determine a president's place in history, we might have to wait until long after the person leaves office before we can accurately ascertain the longterm impact of the individual's term in office.

But. . .Now That I'm in the Game, Others Compete Strongly With Bush for the Bottom-Feeder Award
Having said that, I have been lured into the game of presidential rankings due to the numerous postings on liberal blogs which state uniformly, unequivocally, and without any nuance whatsoever that President Bush is the absolute worst president in the history of the United States. Liberal blogger Bernie Horn, at Blog for Our Future, has posted an essay, Bye Bye to the Worst President Ever, which has become popular on progressive blogs.

Horn concludes that Bush is the worst president because he, among other things, made the "worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country," presided over an "unprecedented rejection of human rights," caused "unprecedented increases in inequality," engaged in a "culture of sleaze," blindly rejected science, and because he utterly refused "to protect the health, safety, and legal rights of Americans." Horn's analysis follows the pattern of many other "Bush-Is-the-Worst-Ever" essays because he fails to consider actions by other presidents that make them strong -- if not stronger -- candidates for the role of worst president.

One could rationally argue, for example, that the Vietnam War was an even greater foreign policy mistake than the Iraq War. Also, Andrew Jackson's callousness regarding the rights of Native Americans, which led to the brutal ejection of the Cherokee from Georgia, provides a much earlier instance of a president abusing a group's human rights. The Supreme Court held that federal law protected the Cherokee from Georgia's effort to remove the tribe in order to take possession of gold discovered on tribal land. In response, Jackson snidely declared: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

Even presidents ranked among the "greatest" have made horrible decisions that rival Bush's for their inhumanity and illegality. FDR, for example, ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, and his administration filed legal briefs to the Supreme Court that contained fraudulent "evidence" of their involvement in espionage and sabotage in order to justify this gross deprivation of liberty.

Another Possibility: Andrew Johnson
Let me state for the record that I disagree with just about everything Bush has said or done. But I have not allowed that fact to unnerve me or to distort my reading of historical events. There are many other presidents who could top Bush on the "worst president" list. When I think about the subject, Andrew Johnson always emerges as my choice -- or at least as a strong contender.

As a Southerner and a Democrat, Johnson supported slavery, but he also strongly opposed secession. Johnson was the only Senator from the South who refused to leave Congress after the advent of the Confederacy. He also attempted to modify his position on slavery, stating that if free, blacks could become better workers. Newspapers in the South criticized Johnson as positioning himself for a vice presidential position. Lincoln ultimately chose him as a running mate (dropping Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, whom party advisors viewed as too progressive) during his re-election bid. Lincoln wanted to unite Republicans and Pro-War Democrats in order to strengthen his electability.

At his inauguration ceremony, a clearly drunken and red-faced Johnson addressed the Senate. Johnson delivered a rambling and incoherent speech, during which he frequently referred to himself as a "plebeian," who lacked knowledge of "parliamentary law" and procedure, but who would call upon learned individuals for help. Historical accounts of the moment provide great entertainment. Johnson, however, has an excuse for his drunkenness: he had consumed a few shots of whiskey to help him recover from an illness.

Johnson's Deplorable Presidential Decisions
But Johnson's pre-presidential behavior, as entertaining as it is, cannot qualify him as the worst president. Once Lincoln died and Johnson replaced him as president, however, Johnson quickly became the enemy of Reconstruction. He also established himself as a terrible leader, a staunch opponent of social and legal progress, and as a guardian of white supremacy. Here are some highlights (or "lowlights") from Johnson's presidency:

* Johnson explicitly encouraged the State of Mississippi to prevent blacks from voting. Negotiating the state's return to the Union, Johnson encouraged the governor to extend voting rights to those "persons of color" who could "read the Constitution . . . in English and write their names . . . [and] who own[ed] real estate valued at not less than two hundred and fifty dollars." Johnson said that if the state took this action, "the radicals, who are wild upon negro franchise, will be completely foiled in their attempt to keep the southern states from renewing their relations to the Union. . . ."

* During the war, General Sherman seized lands in coastal South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and declared that they would be distributed to former slaves. Many freed slaves actually occupied and began utilizing the land for subsistence. Johnson, however, overruled the decision. Johnson resisted all efforts to distribute land to the former slaves.

* Johnson vetoed legislation permitting blacks in the District of Columbia to vote, arguing:

Where a people . . . speak . . . through the. . . ballot box, it must be carefully guarded against the control of those who are corrupt in principle and enemies of free institutions . . . [I]n admitting . . . a new class of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective franchise we weaken our system of government instead of adding to its strength and durability.

* Johnson offered amnesty to a very broad class of individuals involved in the rebellion. Under the sweeping provision, Johnson even pardoned Alexander Stevens and Jefferson Davis, the Vice President and President of the Confederacy.

* During the war, Congress created the Freedmen's Bureau, an agency in the Department of the Army. The Freedmen's Bureau provided healthcare, shelter, schools, legal assistance, and protection from racial violence to the former slaves. After the war, Congress voted to extend its operations. Johnson vetoed the legislation -- twice.

* After the war ended, the Southern states enacted "Black Codes," or discriminatory laws designed to subjugate blacks. Some laws, for example, criminalized black unemployment. The penalty for these so-called "vagrancy" laws included a fine or term of servitude. Because blacks lacked legal representation or money to pay fines, they were sentenced to a term of bondage, often to the very individuals who "owned" them during slavery. The laws also forced black orphans (this was a huge problem, due to the war, post-war violence, and the sentencing of adult blacks to terms of servitude) to terms of bondage until the age of 18. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to combat these practices and to secure the equal status of blacks under the law. Johnson vetoed the legislation.

* Radical Republicans in Congress spearheaded the passage of the Tenure of Office Act, which required Senate consent before the president could remove officeholders whose appointments were made with Senate consent. Congress (shamelessly) passed the law in order to prevent Johnson from firing Secretary of War Erwin Stanton -- who was a Radical Republican. The position was of great importance because the the South remained under military rule at the time. During a congressional recess, Johnson replaced Stanton with Ulysses S. Grant. When Congress reconvened, however, the Senate rejected Stanton's removal. Grant withdrew from the position, but Johnson again fired and replaced Stanton. The House moved to impeach Johnson because he violated the statute. Johnson escaped removal from office by one vote in the Senate. He was, however, the first president whom the House impeached.

Conclusion
Even after I adjust for historical prejudice, the evolution in the nation's political culture over time, and my own personal hatred of slavery and Jim Crow (for obvious reasons), I still believe Johnson's action's did greater harm to justice, humanity, and to national unity than Bush's policies. Either way, history will eventually find a place for Bush. And it might differ from the position to which liberals currently assign him.

Recent, Related Posts:

Hold Them Accountable Too: Many Democrats Supported Policies of the "Worst President" (Part I)

Separate and Unequal Public Schools: "Liberal" Blue States Have Worse Records Than "Dixie"

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

For over a year now, virtually every candidate for elected office has appropriated Obama's highly successful "change" mantra. But if you have taken just a few moments out your holiday festivities to read the latest political developments, Washington, DC will remain the same absent some catastrophic event.

What Happened to the Economy, Health Care, the Wars, and Civil Rights?
Despite all of the urgent problems the country needs to address, Senate Democrats apparently believe that their first major constitutional, political and media battle in 2009 should center around a two-year, filler Senate position. And as I write this essay, Republicans have just threatened to play the same game and block comedian Al Franken from representing Minnesota in the Senate -- despite his apparent 39-point victory over GOP incumbent Norm Coleman.

With such frivolity unfolding, our trustworthy media will undoubtedly flock like lemmings to Capitol Hill where they will remain planted and reporting every single development or rumored development in the messy drama. [Editor's Note: Despite the new Franken-Coleman developments, for the sake of space and my own sanity and free time, this essay focuses exclusively on the Blagojevich-Burris-Reid affair.]

Blagojevich Performing His Obligations As Governor
The 17th Amendment authorizes states to conduct Senate elections (Article I addresses the House) and to fill vacancies when they arise. In the event of a vacancy, the Constitution gives states the option of holding a special election or allowing a governor to choose the replacement. Illinois law allows the governor to fill Senate vacancies, and the current governor has done so, by naming Roland Burris to occupy Obama's vacated seat.

Not so fast, say Senate Democrats. Democrats refuse to allow Burris to occupy the seat because a federal prosecutor has filed a criminal complaint against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, accusing him, in part, of conspiring to profit from public office by selling the vacated seat.

Many constitutional law scholars (myself included) believe that the weight of historical evidence, constitutional text, and Court doctrine deny the Senate the authority to veto Blagojevich at will. Nevertheless, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, says that the criminal charges place a "taint" over the selection process that renders any appointment by Blagojevich illegitimate, which in turn empowers the Senate to disregard Burris or any other candidate the governor had selected. I'm not buying this argument -- at all.

Legally, Governor Blagojevich's Position Remains Unaltered
Despite the filing of criminal charges against Blagojevich, his role as governor has not changed. Blagojevich has not been convicted or even indicted, and even if he had been, this alone would not effectuate his removal from office.

Also, the Illinois legislature declined to deprive Blagojevich of the power to fill the vacancy -- a move that, if successful, would have prevented the current conflict. Instead, the Attorney General asked the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Blagojevich incompetent to serve -- in other words, to conduct an undemocratic judicial impeachment of the governor. The court, however, refused to do so. Meanwhile, impeachment proceedings have progressed at a snail's pace.

To make matters worse, the prosecutor has announced that he needs an additional three months to prepare a case against the governor, but he has requested that the impeachment panel refrain from taking testimony from alleged candidates (or their agents) with whom Blagojevich allegedly tried to make a deal. Due process, however, requires that material witnesses participate in fact-finding proceedings so that the accused can confront them and factfinders can develop a reliable record.

If the Illinois impeachment panel progresses without testimony from material witnesses, then its conception of due process will rival that of the outgoing Bush administration. Nonetheless, the panel has now promised to deliver a "quickie" impeachment with results by as early as next week.

The impeachment panel's promise reduces to simple equation: Withholding necessary witnesses PLUS steamrolling the proceedings EQUALS a denial of procedural fairness. With liberals promising to conduct rapid, outcome-already-determined impeachment proceedings without testimony from material witnesses change has not arrived, certainly not in Illinois -- the cradle of change.

Reid's "Taint" Argument Is Tainted
Reid and his supporters argue that the Senate must exclude any candidate Blagojevich selects because the criminal complaint taints the selection process. But the "taint" argument does not hold up to scrutiny. First, "taint" is such a broad and amorphous concept that it could support a Senate veto under an infinite number of scenarios, which would effectively obliterate the 17th Amendment's framework, which authorizes states to fill Senate vacancies.

That taint argument also assumes wrongdoing by Blagojevich simply because a prosecutor accused him of committing a crime. Personally, we might "believe" that Blagojevich is guilty of a crime, but a criminal complaint is simply a set of allegations -- not facts.

The constitution that I teach mandates that prosecutors prove allegations against defendants -- not that defendants prove their innocence. In other words, our constitutional culture assumes the innocence of the accused. Court doctrine treats the presumption of innocence as an essential element of a system of justice and ordered liberty.

Senate Democrats, however, have discarded the presumption of innocence and are using the criminal complaint to disempower not only Blagojevich, but any candidate he selects for the position. But unless Burris bought the seat, the taint argument simply cannot apply.

Reid nonetheless insists that the Senate must reject any person that Blagojevich selects. This blanket assertion -- made without any factfinding whatsoever -- undermines Reid's credibility and worsens the due process deprivation by treating with suspicion every potential appointee, regardless of whether a legitimate basis for linking that person to impropriety exists. Because Reid's argument undermines basic constitutional principles that require procedural fairness, his threat to exclude Burris in order to prevent taint is itself tainted.

Business As Usual in Washington, DC
For those of you who feared that change would devastate Washington, be not afraid. If you still dream of a different tomorrow, you should probably temper your hope.

Most of the nation's political leaders promised "change" in 2009. The Burris (and now Franken-Coleman) controversy, however, indicates that Congress will cling (at least in the near future) to the familiar past and will engage in public grandstanding over relatively insignificant matters when they could instead use that energy to tackle the world's most pressing problems. If you remain unpersuaded, here are some facts to consider [Editor's Note: Beware of Sarcasm]:

* While Bush hunted fruitlessly for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Congress subpoenaed athletes and held days of hearings in order to rid professional sports of terroristic steroid use.

* In 2005, after the ultimately destructive housing bubble had already begun, Congress convened an emergency session on national security to reverse a decade of exhaustive Florida litigation that allowed Terry Schiavo to end her life with dignity.

* And in the 1990s, while millions of Americans suffered from a lack of health care, members of Congress made sure that no future president would ever consensually stain a blue dress "not his wife's" (thanks for the line, Cokie Roberts) without suffering severe consequences.

Today, foreclosures, unemployment and bankruptcies have reached record levels. The nation's armed forces continue to battle two costly and deadly wars (costly, deadly, and war -- redundant). Poor people lack essential resources such as health care, jobs, food, shelter and education. Violent crimes have surged as jobs vanish. Children remain "left behind." And deprivations of civil and human rights continue but often go unnoticed and unpunished.

Although these critical issues require immediate attention, our nation's "leaders" have decided to spend precious intellectual and political resources in order to defeat a two-year, probably one-"term," legally appointed replacement Senator. Weighing the costs and benefits, Senator Reid, the Senate's flawed priorities and procedural unfairness will probably harm society much more than living with Blagojevich's alleged taint.

PS: After analyzing the constitutional and political issues at stake in this situation (and writing about them on the blog), I began to wonder why this was even happening. This essay is the product of those thoughts.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?