Presidential Idol: Lincoln the Best, Bush Not the Worst

C-SPAN has released the results of its second annual presidential leadership survey. The survey asks historians to rank U.S. presidents using a pre-determined list of criteria. This year, Lincoln tops the list.

I have always found these types of surveys bizarre, yet innocuous. First, "ranking" a president seems strange because multiple factors will determine how a president's contemporaries view him or her (perhaps, some day). But as time passes, new issues will shape a president's standing among future generations. Also, most of these studies poll historians. Although I respect the expertise that historians have in discussing the historical impact of particular presidents, scholars in other fields, such as political science, economics, and law, could make valuable contributions to this subject as well. Nevertheless, the study provides annual space for harmless trivia and debate.

Yes, Democratic Underground: Andrew Johnson Ranks Much Lower Than Bush
This year's study, as do most others, places Lincoln at the top. Although many liberal historians and politicians have recently argued that Bush is the absolute worst president (a claim I vigorously dispute), Dubya ranked 36 (out of 42). Immediately following Lincoln in the top five are: George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

The bottom five included (from bad to worst): Warren G. Harding, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan. Previously, I described Andrew Johnson as possibly the "worst" president due to his callous efforts to kill Reconstruction and perpetuate the subordination of black people, and based on his awful conflicts with the Republican Party, which almost led to his removal from office. My analysis upset the crowd at Democratic Underground who seemingly believed that any argument that did not consider Bush the worst president emanated from a vile and corrupt mind. Does anyone know how the kids are reacting to the release of this survey?

Lyndon B. Johnson: Number 11
I am happy to see that LBJ ranks number 11. Many liberals despise Johnson due to the Vietnam War and his crass Southern persona. But Johnson actually did more than any other president -- including Kennedy -- to advance racial equality, assistance for the poor, public education, public health care, and general civil rights concerns.

Nevertheless, Johnson typically gets less credit on these liberal issues than he deserves, while Kennedy tends to receive far more acclaim on these matters than his performance warrants. Of course, social movements played a critical and essential role in pushing Johnson towards these accomplishments. The engagement of social movements with presidential leadership allowed for the dramatic political and social changes of the Johnson administration.

Outside the Box: Stimulus Vouchers?

Well, it's too late to consider this idea (perhaps), but a very bright friend raised an interesting proposal during a recent conversation. He suggested that in order to get people spending money again, the stimulus should come in the form of spending vouchers. Under this proposal, the government would send recipients vouchers (in the form of certificates or debit cards) equal to a specific monetary amount. The vouchers would entitle recipients to purchase goods and services at merchandisers. Recipients could not use the vouchers to pay down debt, and the vouchers would expire in a pre-determined amount of time (which would prevent hoarding).

Precedent for this idea exists in other countries. Taiwan has used this process to revive its slumping economy, and some business advocates have recommended that Australia follow the same approach. This proposal could have satisfied conservatives who argue that "people spend their own money best" and liberals who want to help "Main Street" with cash subsidies.

This proposal could also overcome some of the inherent weaknesses of other consumer spending items, like stimulus checks and tax cuts. Many people will simply save the proceeds of stimulus checks, which frustrates the very purpose of the stimulus package. Also, economists tend to criticize tax cuts as a part of emergency stimulus packages because they do not rapidly impact the economy and because higher income individuals benefit more substantially from them. The Tax Policy Center, for example, has harshly graded most of the tax components of the stimulus package.

What do you think about the idea? I have combed through the draft stimulus, and it contains a lot of spending for "programs," but a lot less direct money for consumers. Also, the tax components will certainly lack an immediate effect. But both parties got to pad the legislation to benefit their most influential -- as opposed to most needy -- constituents. Great....

From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

John Judis, a writer for the New Republic, has written an article in which he laments the lack of critical progressive commentary and social movement activity regarding Democrats, including President Obama. Judis observes that:

[I] think the main reason that Obama is having trouble is that there is not a popular left movement that is agitating for him to go well beyond where he would even ideally like to go. Sure, there are leftwing intellectuals like Paul Krugman who are beating the drums for nationalizing the banks and for a $1 trillion-plus stimulus. But I am not referring to intellectuals, but to movements that stir up trouble among voters and get people really angry. Instead, what exists of a popular left is either incapable of action or in Obama's pocket.

This article sounds markedly less upbeat than an essay Judis wrote immediately following Obama's election victory. In that article -- America the Liberal -- Judis argues that the Democrats' success demonstrates that a new political bloc consisting of persons of color, women and liberal professionals could potentially engender longterm progressive reform.

Although Judis tries to temper his excitement, he believes that the 2006 and 2008 elections mark a fundamental leftward shift in the ideological makeup of the electorate:

The rise of [women, people of color, and professional liberals] within the post-industrial economy has brought in its wake a new political worldview. Call it "progressive" or "liberal" or even "Naderite". . . .[P]rofessionals are the vanguard of the new progressive majority. Their sensibility is reflected in the Democratic platform and increasingly in the country as a whole. . . .Professionals are generally liberal on civil rights and women's rights; committed to science and to the separation of church and state; internationalist on trade and immigration; skeptical of, but not necessarily opposed to, large government programs; and gung-ho about government regulation of business, especially K Street lobbyists.

Many are children of the 1960s and '70s--heavily influenced by Martin Luther King Jr., Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Nader--but their views are clearly reflected in succeeding generations of college-educated Americans, particularly the "millennials" who grew up during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Ucla's annual study of incoming college freshmen across the country found in 2006 that 28.4 percent identified themselves as "liberal"--the highest percentage since 1975.

Judis also contends that:

[S]even years removed from September 11, liberal views have re-emerged with a vengeance. Now, the coming recession seems likely to push voters even further left.

Needless to say, this "push" has not occurred.

The Left Effusively Endorsed Obama During the Democratic Primaries
I have always been suspicious of liberal arguments which celebrate the demise of the GOP and conservatism and which welcome the advent of a liberal Utopia. I wrote many essays on this subject during the campaign and since the election -- including an essay which responds to Judis's "America the Liberal." I also created Dissenting Justice because often, the Left seemed like it was in a collective Obama-Vegetative State, which rendered progressives incapable of offering critical and balanced analysis of the Democratic presidential candidates. I hoped to shake things up with my own rigorous analysis.

And as gauche as saying "I told you so" seems, I can barely resist doing so. Nevertheless, I will attempt to make a critical contribution to this debate by reiterating some of the basic points I have made on my blog and elsewhere.

What the Political Left Needs to Understand
First, an election is not a social movement. Although many diverse people united to support Obama and to oppose the GOP, this does not mean that they shared a leftist political ideology. The invalidation of same-sex marriage in California -- where Obama won by more than 20% of the vote -- demonstrates this patently obvious point.

Second, progressives were so unnerved by Bush and the Clintons that many of them projected radicalism upon a moderate (or undefined) Obama in order to frame voting for him as a dramatic break from the past. Although "change" supports many meanings, for progressives, it symbolized liberal transformation of U.S. political life and policy.

Third, many liberals wanted so desperately to believe in the myth of a post-racial America that they treated Obama's electoral success as the ultimate triumph of progressive race politics. Despite the fact that strong racial cleavages shaped the vote for both Obama and McCain, many commentators, nevertheless, argued that Obama's victory would allow the country to move beyond race altogether.

Fourth, many self-described liberals are actually political moderates. They passionately support a set of symbolic liberal causes, but they do not favor more substantive societal transformation. Beating up Don Imus or Republicans who sing about a "Magic Negro" is a lot easier to do than creating good public schools that do not deprive poor children and children of color of a quality education. And passing the much-needed Ledbetter legislation does not resolve the substantive legal difficulties that civil rights plaintiffs encounter if they manage to overcome tough procedural hurdles. Yet, liberals cheered loudly for Ledbetter without even discussing (minus a few exceptions) the need for more progressive measures.

Liberal Regrets: Not Obama's "Fault"
Progressives cannot blame Obama for his effort to straddle the ideological center. Instead, they must look inward and discover why they chose to treat a politician (as skillful in that role as he might be) as someone who is mythological or larger than life.

They should also canvass history, as Judis has done, to learn about the critical role of passionate collective activism in the evolution of U.S. politics and policy. Moderate presidents have presided over great changes in the U.S., but they did so with the backing and agitation of engaged social movements. True social change does not result from effusive adoration and acquiescence; instead, it arises from criticism, collective activism, strategic compromise and political opportunity.

Conclusion: Silence and Defensive Partisanship Will Not Create Change Either
Many liberals have remained silent or have become defensive partisans in response to commentary that reveals striking similarities between Obama's policies and Bush-era practices that provoked sustained and angry criticism from the Left. Consequently, I am not hopeful that progressives will welcome dissent and self-criticism in the near future. Dissent and criticism, however, are staples of successful social movement activism, which is an essential component of progressive (or conservative) political change.

Ironically, I have found that political conservatives (e.g. Glenn Reynolds) often provide the most accommodating space for dissenting progressives. Admittedly, progressive dissent can serve conservatives' interest in hearing criticism of Democrats. But this process can also link nonpartisans across the political spectrum, who, despite disagreeing on many issues, can learn and benefit from open debate. I hope that progressives will begin to provide the same space for liberal criticism that some nonpartisan conservatives have already offerred.

PS: My sudden obsession with links to my previous essays is just a subtle way of saying "I told you so!"


Just Added to Dissenting Justice:

Presidential Idol: Lincoln the Best, Bush Not the Worst

Disturbing News from Pennsylvania: Two Judges Make Millions Sending Kids to Prison

An article in today's New York Times describes a disturbing scheme in which two judges received kickbacks for sending kids to privately run juvenile detention centers. The judges pleaded guilty to charges of income tax fraud and wire fraud. They received $2.6 million in kickbacks for sending children with very minor charges to detention. Here's a slice of the article:

At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment. She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

“I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare,” said Hillary, 17, who was sentenced in 2007. “All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing.”

Here's another question: If the facts of Hillary's case are as simple as the article describes them, why on Earth did the prosecutor place the teenager in the criminal justice system? This looks like overzealous prosecution (or overzealous reporting).

Forcing His Hand or Providing Political Cover? Congressional Democrats Introduce Legislation on "State Secrets"

Glenn Greenwald has been providing extensive coverage of the debate surrounding Obama's recent assertion of the "state secrets privilege." The privilege shields from disclosure information or testimony related to national security. Several courts have broadly applied the privilege and have dismissed anti-torture and other civil liberties-related lawsuits that challenge various aspects of Bush's "war on terror." Many liberals contend that Bush used the privilege to create a wall of secrecy to hide torture and other deprivations of human dignity.

During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to abandon Bush's approach to governmental secrecy and to create more transparency within the Executive Branch. According to some liberals, however, he "failed" his first test on this issue when he recently invoked the privilege to defend the dismissal of an anti-torture case. Bush successfully asserted the privilege in the same case, which is now on appeal, in order to secure dismissal.

Congressional Democrats Introduce Legislation Concerning Use of State Secrets Privilege
Obama's decision to invoke the privilege has generated criticism among civil liberties advocates. Now, members of Congress have added their voice to the situation. Yesterday, Pat Leahy and Arlen Spector reintroduced the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008, which Hillary Clinton and other senators introduced last year. Several House Democrats have introduced a similar measure.

The proposed law would require courts to evaluate each individual item of evidence in order to determine whether any of the materials contain sensitive information. Several courts have broadly recognized the privilege and dismissed cases without conducting an item-by-item review of materials which, absent the privilege, the government would normally have to disclose.

Although the proposed legislation would not prevent courts from dismissing cases based on the privilege -- particularly if they broadly defer to the government on the issue of national security -- adherence to the item-specific approach would provide greater transparency. In addition, another provision which would require courts to consider the possibility of a "non-privileged" alternative (such as a stipulation of facts, redacted submissions, etc.) could potentially mitigate against dismissals based solely on recognition of the privilege. The government, however, could simply deny the feasibility of creating a workable alternative to the desired materials without revealing sensitive information.

Politics and Law: Could the Proposed Legislation Provide Political Cover for Obama While Advancing the Interests of Congressional Liberals?
The Obama administration has stated that it is conducting a review of cases that implicate the state secrets privilege. But while assertion of the privilege angers liberal activists, DOJ lawyers -- who must engage in "zealous advocacy" on behalf of the government -- predictably decided to "stay the course" when they had to pick a strategy to argue an actual case. Perhaps the movement on this issue by members of Congress (prior to the completion of DOJ review) demonstrates that they predict this "smart" legal strategy will ultimately outweigh political considerations.

Liberals in Congress, however, might also favor the law in order to provide Obama with political "cover" and to advance their own interests. The proposed measure would either require Obama to follow a path that he personally desires but which his staff and political moderates and conservatives disfavor -- or which he disfavors, but which a well organized and influential part of the Democratic party supports. The measure would also allow liberals in Congress to notch a victory on an issue that civil libertarians favor -- and which created an immense amount of controversy during the Bush administration.

Neither Obama nor Senate Democrats, however, probably want to engage in highly public battle over this issue. Perhaps Obama and Congressional Democrats have quietly "negotiated" a path that will provide the president with political cover among liberals, while allowing him the latitude to manage the affairs of the Executive Branch, and which scores points for the lawmakers among liberal organizations. The proposed measure could potentially accomplish that balance. Because the statute makes a strong statement against the blanket assertion of the privilege, but does not disturb the typical practice of courts deferring to the president on matters of national security, both sides could come away with a "victory."

An Aside: Separation of Powers
If Obama strongly disapproves of the measure, he could veto it (in the event that Congress passes it). He could also challenge its application in court on "separation of powers" grounds. Although Congress has the authority to establish evidentiary standards for use in federal courts, this particular evidentiary privilege arises out of executive power. Obama could argue that Congress (or even the courts) lacks the power to define the boundaries around which the privilege operates. Historically, presidents have not been successful when they have made these types of arguments (e.g., Richard Nixon).

[Editor's Note: My colleague Amanda Frost has examined (and rejected) separation of powers concerns in this setting. See here.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rendition, Secrecy and Torture: Inseparable?

Just As I Predicted: Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege in Anti-Torture Lawsuit

Speaking of Obama, Rendition and Torture. . . .

So Exactly When Does "Change" Begin, Take 45345234524523452452: Elena Kagan Says Government Can Indefinitely Detain Terrorism Suspects

Let me say upfront: I am a cynic. Accordingly, I never took the "change" mantra too seriously. But I certainly thought that after eight years of frenetic liberal criticism of the Bush administration, Obama would indeed offer some important differences. But even that tiny hope has been dashed. After the recent announcements that Obama would continue the practice of rendition and that the CIA would seek approval for "harsher" interrogations "if necessary," the small space I reserve in my heart for idealism and for surprisingly good decisions (or at least decisions that fulfill promises) by politicians has diminished substantially. But after today's news, the space has completely vanished.

What happened today? Elena Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School and nominee for Solicitor General, announced that she believes that the government has the authority to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects because the country is "at war" with Al Qaeda. Because I am busy finishing edits on a law review article, can someone please explain to me how this differs from Bush's position, which liberals condemned, bashed and burned in effigy?

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rendition, Secrecy and Torture: Inseparable?

Just As I Predicted: Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege in Anti-Torture Lawsuit

Panetta: Rendition Will Continue, Would Ask Obama to Authorize Harsher Interrogation Methods "If Necessary"

Elevating Form Over Substance: Liberals Now Argue that They Oppose the Label of Bush's Program, Not the Substance

Still a Flip-Flop: My Fellow Liberals Push Back Against Allegations of Inconsistency Concerning Rendition

Major Flip-Flop by Human Rights Watch: Organization Waiting for Obama to Develop Kinder, Gentler Rendition Program

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

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

From the "Post-Racial" Vault: Slate Magazine Asks Whether Michael Steele Is Barack Obama's "Evil Twin"

Now that Obama's election has dramatically ushered in an era of post-racial life in America, I occasionally like to highlight those precious "Hallmark moments" that harken back to our recent racial past. To this end, I offer you the latest article written by Christopher Beam, a writer for Slate Magazine. Beam's article seeks to answer the following (presumably unproblematic) question: "Is Michael Steele Barack Obama's Evil Twin?"

Here are some details:

Evil twin, nemesis, archenemy—whatever the term, every great protagonist has one. Superman had Bizarro, his alternate-universe self. Spock from Star Trek had the shady, goateed "mirror" Spock. Super Mario has the cackling Wario. And Barack Obama has Michael Steele. . . .

And as the term would suggest, evil twins look similar but usually have distinctive physical differences—an eye patch, say, or a scar. Michael Steele, like Barack Obama, is African-American. But unlike Obama, he is bald and sports a mustache—a classic nemesis signifier, although a goatee would be ideal. . . .

The twin-ness even carries over to the way the two men view their race. During his campaign, with the notable exception of his "race speech" in Philadelphia, Obama made a concerted effort not to make his race an issue. He made the historic nature of his candidacy implicit. Steele has a trickier job. One of the reasons he was elected party chairman is his ability to reach out to minorities. So in a way his job is to emphasize his background. But sometimes it comes off weirdly. After Steele called Obama's stimulus package "a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years, to get a little bling, bling," Gawker declared: "The Republicans have finally found their voice: it's the voice of a 50-year-old using hiphop slang from the end of the '90s." Obama's hip-hop references are from at least 2003.

Obama's use of race was far more complex than the article acknowledges. Obama emphasized his racial backgrounds for political gain and deemphasized them for the same reason. Clearly, Steele serves a "diversity" purpose as well. But I really do not see how that differs from Obama's role in the Democratic Party. To many people, "change" symbolizes "racial progress," and Obama's numerous references to Lincoln certainly exploit this notion. Also, Democrats frequently boast about their ("our") diversity. That too is an explicit appeal to race. Republicans are merely trying to compete.

But on the point of Beam's use of race -- is anyone else slightly annoyed by the implied "good black"/"bad black" analysis? And aside from being black men -- have I missed recognizing that Obama and Steele actually "look similar"?

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

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