Archive

February 13th, 2016

Why James Madison would have backed Phoenix's Satanists

    The Phoenix City Council has voted to no longer to begin its meetings with a public prayer. Sounds like a victory for the separation of church and state, right? Maybe even the influence of Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in the Town of Greece case, in which the court's majority allowed such prayers to continue?

    Think again. The Phoenix City Council is banning prayer so that self-described Satanists won't have a chance to give one. The decision isn't about tolerance but intolerance. In the end, that's a good thing, a sign of the establishment clause working -- and of James Madison's First Amendment logic in action.

    The law as clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2014 case is the backdrop against which events have unfolded. According to the justices' interpretation of the First Amendment, the city council can hold public prayer at the beginning of its sessions. Congress does it, after all -- and has from the very beginning.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Why 5 tech companies are undisruptable

    We live in an age of rapid technological change and disruption. Launching revolutionary startups is cheaper and easier than ever. No established company is safe. Except for, you know, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google (Alphabet, if you prefer). Oh, and maybe Microsoft.

    The notion that the biggest tech companies have an unsurmountable advantage is in fashion. "The period where tech startups can readily disrupt larger tech companies is ending," Jessica Lessin wrote last week at The Information. Twitter co- founder and Medium Chief Executive Officer Ev Williams chimed in, arguing that while "it's easier to start a company than ever before, it's harder to compete."

    And last month, New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo anointed the companies listed above "the Frightful Five": "By just about every measure worth collecting, these five American consumer technology companies are getting larger, more entrenched in their own sectors, more powerful in new sectors and better insulated against surprising competition from upstarts."

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

What would Founding Founders say about assault weapons?

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has struck down Maryland's law regulating assault weapons, creating a split with the 2nd Circuit, which upheld similar laws in New York and Connecticut. That split could, and probably should, lead the U.S. Supreme Court to take up and decide the issue. It's time therefore to ask: How should the justices treat the question? In particular, what does the right to bear arms, created to preserve a "well-regulated militia," say about assault weapons today?

    The key issue in the 4th Circuit's opinion last week was: Does the Second Amendment even apply to assault weapons? When the 2nd Circuit addressed the issue in October, it assumed without deciding that the amendment applied. To its credit, the 4th Circuit addressed the issue head on, and said the answer was yes, it did apply.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

What Republicans lose if Jeb Bush fails

    There's an opening in the Republican race for president. Businessman Donald Trump seems to be losing interest after losing Iowa. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz may be the top choice of conservative Christians who support carpet-bombing, but he still unnerves many mainline conservatives.

    Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's plans to ride message discipline and policy pliability into consensus support from the party's corporate elite suffered a setback on Saturday night at the Republican debate in New Hampshire. (The Wall Street Journal editorial board, a pillar of that elite, said that Rubio's "gutting by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Saturday was as complete as any we've seen.") Former surgeon Ben Carson appears ready to take his assiduously compiled list of donors and head off for a lucrative retirement.

    "If this were a script," Florida writer Carl Hiaasen wrote last week, "you would now write in a timely entrance by the seasoned, well-credentialed Jeb Bush."

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

What money won’t buy, and what it will

    Jeb Bush didn’t exactly get skunked in Iowa. But, well, his 2.9 percent showing meant – let’s put the calculator to it, as political savant Nate Silver did: The $14.9 million he spent on advertising alone there meant he harvested one vote for every $2,844.

    It would have been better for Jeb to have spent it all on corn.

    We’ve been led to assume the contrary, but in presidential politics, as the Beatles once sang, money can’t buy you love.

    The two super PACs Karl Rove assembled to influence the 2012 elections raised a stunning $175 million and accomplished almost nothing.

    Indeed, that year PACs on both sides spent $14 billion. In the presidential race, all that gold didn’t move the needle. Barack Obama entered the 2012 campaign with a 3-point lead in the polls. He won with a margin of, yes, 3 percent.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

The Many Mideast Solutions

    In December at the Brookings Saban Forum on the Middle East, Atlantic magazine reporter Jeff Goldberg asked right-wing former Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman this provocative question: “Things are shifting radically not only in non-Jewish America but in Jewish America as it concerns Israel and its reputation. My question is: (A) Do you care? (B) What are you going to do about it? And (C) how important is it to you?”

    “To speak frankly, I don’t care,” Lieberman responded, adding that Israel lived in a dangerous neighborhood. Give Lieberman credit for honesty.

    That conversation came back to me as I listened to the Democratic and Republican debates when they briefly veered into foreign policy, with candidates spouting the usual platitudes about standing with our Israeli and Sunni Arab allies. Here’s a news flash: You can retire those platitudes. Whoever becomes the next president will have to deal with a totally different Middle East.

    It will be a Middle East shaped by struggle over a one-state solution, a no-state solution, a non-state solution and a rogue-state solution.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Stop whining about Iowa, N.H. going first in primaries

    Every four years we hear it: the many, many complaints that Iowa and New Hampshire are unrepresentative of the nation yet they get to go first in presidential voting. Black, Hispanic and Asian voters are scarce. There are no major cities.

    But if you accept that the parties choose nominees, it doesn't matter which states vote first. And Iowa and New Hampshire are really national, not local, battles.

    It isn't as if a representative sample of all Democratic or Republican voters chooses the parties' nominees anywhere. Those with clout are the most active members, at the state and national levels -- the politicians, campaign and governing professionals, donors and activists, formal party officials and staff, party-aligned interest groups and the partisan press.

    Volunteers who travel to Iowa or New Hampshire to participate have the time to do so and, unless campaigns subsidize it, the money to afford it. Campaign staff and political consultants have complex incentives they do not share with ordinary voters, and the donors have their own motives.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Public campaign funding is so broken that candidates turned down $292 million in free money

    Sometimes, prosperity can be a sign of failure. Take the $292 million pot of taxpayer dollars that politicians are refusing to touch.

    For years after the public fund for presidential candidates was established in 1974, the biggest worry for its minders at the Federal Election Commission was whether there'd be enough money for all the candidates. Now, despite a sharp decline in the number of people participating in the $3 tax return check-off that funds the program (down from a high of 28 percent in 1977 to less than 6 percent last year), the fund has been growing steadily - because candidates don't want the money anymore.

    Former president George W. Bush began the exodus from the public finance system in 2000, when he refused to take matching funds for the primaries and caucuses. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first candidate to decline public financing in the general election. This year, only one presidential contender sought and qualified for public financing: Martin O'Malley, who has already dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

Oregon is the picture of rosy economic health

    The biggest recent news from Oregon has nothing to do with the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge near the high-desert town of Burns. It's about the state's economic health, the most improved in the United States last year.

    The 27th-largest state, with almost 4 million people, had the best-performing economy in the nation measured by employment, home prices, personal income, tax revenues, mortgage delinquency and the publicly traded equity of its companies, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    By punching well above its weight in half a dozen comparisons that make up Bloomberg's Economic Evaluation of States, Oregon's economic health index rose the most through the first three quarters of 2015, according to the most recent Bloomberg data. The closest two rivals for No. 1, North Carolina and Michigan, were at least a full percentage point behind Oregon, failing to achieve the same consistency of improvement across the six business, financial and industrial values in the index.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!

New Hampshire won't determine anything

    Here is my prediction for New Hampshire: It settles nothing. Despite the most intense eight days of the campaign so far, New Hampshire will end the way it started. Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will win comfortably. New Hampshire will fail to play the role it has so often, that of winnowing the field, and its reputation as a place for dramatic comebacks will be tarnished: A Trump win won't count for much of a turnaround after his second-place win in Iowa.

    Trump has been more lucky than good in New Hampshire. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did the wet work on Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and left him as flummoxed as Arnold Schwarzenegger in this scene from "Total Recall." Rubio, like Schwarzenegger, thought he could sneak through by repeating the same talking points, but he got caught, and what followed wasn't pretty. Advantage: Trump, because any coalescing around Rubio as the Trump alternative is stalled.

Full text and e-editions are available to premium subscribers only. To subscribe to the digital edition, please visit subscription page. If you are already a subscriber, please login to the site.

We'd be happy to set up login information for a free week of the Liberal Opinion Week website for you. Please email liberal@iowaconnect.com with your request. Thanks for your interest in the Liberal!