Why the Democrats Can't Govern

Sigh...

What was is that Will Rogers said? I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

"George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate. After his disputed election, pundits insisted Bush would have to scale back his proposed massive tax cuts for the rich. Instead, Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items. Whatever the substantive merits of this agenda, its passage represented an impressive feat of political leverage, accomplished through near-total partisan discipline.

"Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally."

Cry me a freakin' river

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (March 01, 2009) - The View From Your Recession

A reader writes into Andrew Sullivan:

I work for a small, 5-year old non-profit arts organization in Illinois. A couple of our usual big donors have indicated we should be prepared for smaller donations this year, and possibly none in the next couple of years. The are mentioning Obama's tax plans and their need to save money now in anticipation of that. A lot of my colleagues in the not-for-profit world are really scared right now, and we are not happy with Obama. We hear the rhetoric that the government is going to have a reserve to give to non-profits that will make up for some of the lost donations, but the fact is, we have never received federal aid, and likely never would (assuming the organization could even make it that far). Organizations are going to be killed under Obama's plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.

Too bad. I'm sorry you may lose your job. But I'm also sorry millions have already lost their jobs...and their health insurance. If Obama's tax hike on wealthy families causes your non-profit some financial discomfort, it will be because our nation is finally righting an embarrassing wrong from over the last 100 years. While all of our developed competitors and allies offer health insurance to all their citizens, we do not. Obama's tax increase will finally assure health care to all Americans. If a few kids have fewer arts opportunities as a result, you want me to what? Cry for you? DON'T WAIT AROUND TOO LONG.

From the Brothel to the Broadsheet

Eliot Spitzer joins the people at Slate to opine on the issue of CEO pay. And talks some sense. The issue has never been the pay. It's been the collapse of corporate governance and the failure of institutional investors and boards to do their jobs.

G

How Far Are We from the Swedish Bank Bailout Model: And What does the Market Know?

Andrew Sullivan, whom I'm liking more and more each day, has some interesting speculation about the Obama Bank Bailout 3.0 which casts the whole thing in a whole new light for me.

There are two lines of speculation about the direction the Obama team will go. One, the most likely, is the 'bad bank' model in which the government buys up the toxic assets and helps get the banks off their feet; the other is nationalization, in which the government applies a "stress test" on the largest most troubled banks, and for those that fail, declares them essentially insolvent, wiping out the shareholders and taking them over directly (aka the Swedish model).

Some feel the secret plan is to pursue the Swedish model covertly, since the country is not ideologically ready for it and the GOP will make tons of political hay over it. But most feel that Geithner won the debate with more politically populist elements in the Administration such as Emanuel and Axelrod ie., the Bad Bank model won. Hence, the Administration is likely to have to seek trillions more from Congress to buy up those assets and face the politically troubling question of what price to pay. When asked directly, Obama has ruled out nationalization, although not in a way that inspires confidence that he understands what nationalization would entail. More and more economists are coming forward with the stated realization that Nationalization is probably the way we have to go.

Observers of Geithner's weak performance this week commented that markets didn't like the vagueness and ambiguity of the plan, so they went down sharply on the day he spoke. But what if we look at this another way? What if the market's direction provides an indication by buyers and sellers of the way in which the Administration is likely to go. If indeed bank shareholders are worried that they are going to have a bad year, and if indeed there are a number of large banks that are essentially insolvent, then bank stocks' downward direction is not a statement that the Administration is being vague, but an expression of the likelihood that the Administration will eventually need to adopt the Nationalization strategy and wipe their value out. If I were an owner of bank stocks, I'd be really, really nervous right now.

It's in the Administration's strategic interest to keep the question open for as long as they can, so they can hedge their policy bets. But it's in the bank shareholder's interests for Obama to commit to the 'bad bank' model as quickly as possible. Here's hoping he chooses continued ambiguity and options over assuaging the shareholders.

It's the Priorities Stupid

Between 2003 and today, the United States spent almost $600 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without anyone in Congress batting an eyelash. Most of that money went towards Iraq of course and to this day, no one can explain in an either coherent or compelling fashion what was at stake in that country and what threat it posed to the United States. But today, some in Congress such as John McCain or Susan Collins or even the Democrat's Ben Nelson can't swallow the size of the stimulus package when our entire economy is in dire trouble? The recently defeated McCain alternative to the stimulus came in well under $500 billion, far less than any economist who thinks government should work to end the recession has said is necessary.

The United States just spent a decade handing out tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, with limited job creation and a paltry economic growth rate and now, essentially nothing to show for it. As we all painfully know, the Bush years have ended in the worst economic contraction in 60 years. And now the GOP's main objections to the stimulus are that there is not enough being spent on tax cuts and that the tax cuts need to go to,...wait for the other shoe to drop,...wealthier taxpayers. The GOP house members and Senators object that too much of the tax breaks in the bill are going to working class and lower income families.

It might seem shocking that after so many years of being told that we should wait for the rich to shower down their wealth upon the rest of us, after we watched Congress and the White House vote trillions in economic benefits for corporate America and the wealthiest taxpayers, that we are asked to believe yet again in this Golden Calf. But the capacity for shock seems to have long left the building.

The sad truth is, that despite all protestations to the contrary, the GOP isn't interested in fixing the stimulus package but in rendering it less effective. As their chief advisor, Rush Limbaugh has said, they don't want Obama to succeed. They don't want the Democrats to succeed. They have a vested interest in their failure. In fact, many on the Right feel that the recession should be allowed to run it's course so that Americans develop a proper appreciation for the fickleness of the market's awesome power. If you don't believe me, ask the several hundred Right-wing economists the CATO Institute got to sign an ad in the New York Times.

When James Carville felt that the Clinton campaign staff was failing to pay proper attention to the message that would draw the proper contrast with their opposition, he famously wrote on a board in the campaign office, "It's the economy stupid." Well someone ought to go into the bullpen, or wherever it is Democratic strategists meet these days to ponder how to counter the avalanche of duplicitous concern demonstrated by their bipartisan colleagues from across the aisle, and write upon the wall "It's the priorities, stupid."

A quick glance at the proposed cuts by the 'moderate cabal' reveals that those who confess opposition to the structure of the stimulus package aren't driven by ideology or a coherent philosophy. They certainly aren't driven by any kind of rational economic thought. State and local governments, school districts and public universities are facing drastic budget cuts that could force layoffs and will certainly be recessionary in their impact. Medicaid rolls are swelling just when states have no money to pay the tab for thousands of newly impoverished and needy enrollees. Whether taken as a layoff, a furlough or a salary reduction, a 10% reduction in state personnel costs is 10% of state payroll taken out of the economy. But the moderate cabal has proposed axing state stabilization money, dollars intended to help governments deal with the fiscal impacts of the recession, by $25 billion, and a further $15 billion in direct assistance for states.

They've proposed cutting $6 billion from education programs. At one point they were considering cutting $14 billion from Pell Grants, even though seeking education and retraining is an economically sound way for a person to deal with a layoff or a drop in employment opportunities. You might be tempted to think that transportation spending would be at the heart of any stimulus package supported by a member of Congress, regardless of Party affiliation. But the 'Moderate Cabal' has proposed cutting Transportation grants. They've taken an axe to 5.5 billion in energy efficiency programs.

After all this, the group could still only come up with $77 billion in cuts. It's become popular to decry the waste in the stimulus package and lament its composition. Liberals bemoan the pork and the pet projects that may not be stimulative. But a look at the dubious spending propositions the Moderate Cabal has left in the bill and been unwilling to cut underscores that they've been driven by expediency rather than any kind of judicious or economically informed standard.

Could the bill be improved? Certainly. Would it be preferable if we didn't have to watch the Congressional sausage fest up-close. Absolutely. But the fact is that it is impossible for our democratic institutions to tackle a challenge of this sort without allowing local politics and pet projects to creep in. It is economically impossible to almost spontaneously inject nearly $1 trillion in new government spending into the economy within 18 months in a way that doesn't occasionally raise eyebrows or cause consternation. Think of the billions that we know were wasted in Iraq. But Americans, and certainly the members of the Moderate Cabal, never let that stop them from approving the flood of dollars into that fiscally porous endeavor.

The main objective the Democrats should focus on is the difference in Republican priorities and their priorities. Republicans want to give more tax cuts to the rich; Democrats want to give direct assistance to state governments to prevent drastic budget cuts and rollbacks in services. Republicans want to spend less than any sound economist recognizes is needed; Democrats want to spend what is necessary to get the economy, and revenues for every level of government back on track as soon as possible. Republicans want the wealthy to spend. Democrats want to make lasting improvements to the physical infrastructure and capital assets of this country. Republicans want to dither, while Democrats want to act.

Economists estimate that $1-1.3 trillion is being pulled out of the economy by this recessionary collapse. Poorly conceived tax cuts won't put that money back. But soundly conceived tax cuts and large amounts of government spending are the only ways to offset this loss of money. No other entity in American Society can rise to this challenge. The Fed has tried and it has nearly exhausted its policy options. The states cannot because they cannot spend more than they raise. And the private sector, as we all know, is bereft.

Public spending of any type will flow directly into the economy and ripple through, lifting economic activity and offsetting the imminent job losses and wage cuts facing millions of Americans. This cash will be used to pay salaries and build things that will last long after the recession passes. It will help states prevent adding a further drain onto our already troubled economy. It will keep stores open and factories running and work crews humming. Economists call this the multiplier effect of public spending. Some projects have higher multipliers than others. But with so much money coming down the pipe, policy makers have to scramble to find any policy that promises to multiply its benefit across the economy and some of those will do more for job creation and capital development than others.

But only government can do this -- can help our fellow citizens and heal this nation. Americans used to know this. The Republicans and their media brethren have hypnotized them into worrying about a misspent billion or two. Americans are once again worrying that tax dollars might go to a fellow citizen who is somehow unworthy. It's up to Democrats to remind them why in November they found their faith in change and in the power of government to stabilize our lives and secure our future. And how to find it again.

Matt Damon - Most Effective Obama Ad so far...

What Obama Needs To Do Now

Barack Obama continues to struggle in the polls in the wake of the return of the Rev Wright affair. His campaign appears to be faltering at a crucial time and we'll find out just how much tomorrow. His loss in Pennsylvania was just large enough to raise questions and concerns about him as a nominee, but not large enough to swing the election back to Hillary as a credible front - runner -- Nancy Pelosi's "leader after all the primaries are done."

Obama had no choice but to make a sharp clean break with the Reverend Wright. After Wright's performance, his clownish high-fives, declaring Zionism a gutter religion, that it was equivalent to racism, that the American government could have released AIDS in a ploy to decimate minority populations, etc etc etc., Obama had no other choice. His sadness at the development was evident on the day of his press conference. But his anger was somewhat muted. And the move, while it may have stopped the hemorrhaging of support, hasn't stopped the slow bleed. Hillary now leads Obama nationally among Democrats 47 to 40, which is fateful heading into a convention. She leads in Indiana and has closed the gap in North Carolina. So how can Obama win back momentum, shake the perception that he's too liberal, distance himself sufficiently from his divorce from Wright so that it won't be seen through the lens of political expediency at best, and a serious failure of judgment in the first place for having trusted Wright so much?

He needs to return to the big picture, thematic messages of his 'big-mo' period in February and March. Not to the policy particulars, and not just the small scale meet-and-greets and one-on -ones of Iowa. He needs to find an issue where talking about ideas, and about realities captures the imagination of people, reminds them that here is someone different, and restores the confidence and faith that has been shaken by the last three weeks.

No surprise there -- the challenge is how to do this.

My humble (OK I admit it, not so humble) suggestion is that he take on the social challenge of race in America in the way that only he can. After his speech on race in Philadelphia, one wag wrote that one benefit of Obama's stature, his candidacy, and a potential presidency was his capacity to tackle the problem of race from the full spectrum of both the politics and substance of the problem. In a speech in Texas that the author (Newsweek's Jonathan Alter) cites, Obama is quoted as addressing the problems within the black family that can often undermine and stymie a child's social and educational development and success (for an alternative perspective see here).

A woman asked about health care and Obama explained how, for the first time in human history, thousands of obese children, many of them black, were being diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes—a disease that is killing millions and helping bankrupt the health-care system. He told the crowd that kids couldn't keep on "drinking eight sodas a day," then went in Bulworth's direction. "I know some of y'all got that cold Popeye's [chicken] out for breakfast. I know," Obama said with a smile. He continued: "That's why y'all laughing. You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school … It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school,' and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you've got the videogame playing." Instead of being jeered, he was cheered wildly.

Obama has been tarred, by Wright's actions and words, by HRC's campaign, and by the Right-Wing attack machine, as a liberal elitist. Implicit behind this is, of course, the subtext these code words fill-in for -- the subtext that plays on the dark heart of America's soul -- it's fear of the 'other,' it's unwillingness to confront racism and it's legacy, and blackness itself. The counter offensive in other words has moved Obama from a figure of hope appealing to the mainstream to a figure on the radical fringe of society. They have made Obama black in white eyes. Black like Al Sharpton. Black like Jesse Jackson. Black like Louis Farrakhan. Such figures are popular in the black community but have limited appeal beyond it and are threatening to millions of (admittedly mostly white) Americans.

Figures from the black community like Oprah, Michael Jordan, and, for a time, Michael Jackson, who achieve extreme success across the spectrum and full market of American society seem to conquer white society by appearing to 'transcend' their blackness. I know I am on dangerous ground here and I am not speaking sympathetically of this perception, but it almost seems that Americans forget that their hero is black. There is, of course a term or two in the black community to describe this development. Initially, Obama's candidacy was greeted skeptically and warily by black political leaders. Many endorsed HRC early and his support nationally among African American voters was, before the Iowa caucus, divided almost evenly with her. His success changed all that, of course, once the possibility of an African American leader of this nation became a suddenly viable possibility. But this early hesitation, combined with Obama's message and his background made him also a figure, unlike Jesse Jackson (much to Bill Clinton's befuddlement and bemusement) who appealed across the racial, economic and political spectrum of this society. Obama's challenge now is to return to this state and I think the way there is to channel Bill Cosby for a moment. Consider for a moment the following:

• 48% of all black children grow up in homes without a father.
• Blacks constitute 63 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons
• Blacks comprise 49 percent of those in prison
• Black male life expectancy is 68.8 years while that of white males is almost 76 years
• The black drop out rate from HS is twice that of whites
• Black children spend more time watching television than children of any other racial or ethnic group

Does racism persist in America? Of course. Has racism become institutionalized within the fabric of society in the form of unequal opportunities, services, and infrastructure? Sure. But can black families begin taking initiatives that will directly improve the lives of their children and themselves without waiting for whites to wake up? Absolutely. And millions of Americans know this complex reality but are frustrated that no one takes it on.

Obama can exercise leadership on this dimension. The very leadership on which his campaign is predicated. The kind of leadership that can cross divisions in society and heal old wounds. The kind of leadership that can begin to solve problems that are not just a matter of tax dollars or government programs. The kind of leadership Americans of all colors, religions, and creeds long for.

I recognize that this is dangerous ground socially. I understand that he may be criticized by some as blaming the victim. I recognize that some in America will see no further than his critique of black social dysfunction to accept their own culpability in and obligation to address the underlying problems. I am fully cognizant that this position can be easily accused of being just another instance of liberal racism. My hope is that eventually Obama can establish sufficient social and political capital with white society that he can tackle the full spectrum of American hypocrisy about race.

In my mind the culpability lies on both side -- who are complicit in an unwritten social compact in which white and black agree not to call the other to account. Following the early successes of the Civil Rights movement, the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and 1965, it faltered in its momentous surge to transform American society. And with the murder of leaders like the Kennedys and King, the self-immolation of Johnson (and American Liberalism) over the fires of Vietnam, it became convenient for whites to reassure themselves that their work was done. Of course all the nation had accomplished was to grab the low-hanging fruit of political expediency. The rise of debates over affirmative action and economic and social injustice (and the nation's economic stumbles in the Seventies) eventually turned the political tide against a further consideration of racial policy. And the country settled down into its current self-satisfied, and unsustainable compact. Whites wouldn't criticize the black community's problems or failures of leadership, and blacks wouldn't push too hard for social justice or in pointing out the pathological racism inherent in the system. To see just how real (and powerful) this social compact was, just consider for a moment how marginalized in political society figures like Jeremiah Wright and William Bennett are.

In one sense, my suggestion is admittedly a cynical political move. I suggest that Obama tackle race again by addressing the short-comings that the black community needs to tackle and address in order that he can restore the comfort level of potentially sympathetic whites. I suggest that he campaign by moving to the right of HRC. To the right even of McCain for a time. Is this potentially a move to appeal to the worst in America in order to appeal to what might become the best in America? Yes. But it is a move that returns Obama to a position of leadership AND race neutrality. It allows him to recapture the spotlight in a way that playing basketball, or bowling, or visiting a barbecue in Fort Wayne will never do. It's a move that Shelby Steele has alluded to but doubts Obama will ever make. And it's a move that positions him to once again recapture the imagination of millions of Americans who dream about what his victory could portend for this country nationally and internationally.

60 Minutes, the US Attorney's Scandal, and the Democrat who went to jail

To my friends,

Imagine this. A local leader of the political opposition in a country is targeted by the party in power — which controls all branches of the government. The President’s henchmen line up a criminal case against the opposition figure, but their first effort is thrown out of court. On their second try the jury deadlocks twice over the trumped up charges before ultimately voting to convict the political figure for corruption. The leader is sent away to prison for 7 years, with his legs and wrists shackled. With their main rival behind bars, the President’s Party goes on to capture two local elections in a row.

Where is this? Putin’s Russia? Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Assad’s Syria? No, sadly, it’s right here in the USA.

Tonight, 60 Minutes documented the disturbing story of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Several months ago he was sentenced to jail for 7 years for bribery. That’s not a remarkable story — until you hear the details. First, remember that behind this story lies the broader question of whether the Bush White House put pressure on US Attorneys throughout the country to file criminal charges against it’s political enemies. And then it fired and replaced those who wouldn’t go along with these efforts to enlist the justice system to settle political scores.

Then consider the details in this case. Don Siegelman was the successful Democratic governor of Alabama, a mostly Republican state. His enemies, under instructions from Bush Svengali Karl Rove, first hired investigators to catch him in compromising sexual positions. But that didn’t pan out. So they enlisted the help of two US Attorneys in Alabama — one of whom was married to the campaign manager of his gubernatorial opponent. Their first effort to try Siegelman was thrown out of court by a judge after hearing opening arguments — so flimsy was their case. So they tried again. On their second try, prosecutors charged him with bribery. His crime? Accepting $250,000 for a campaign effort to pass a lottery in the state that could be used to pay for improving public education. According to the Justice Department, businessman Richard Scrushy gave $250,000 to the lottery campaign fund in return for a promise to be re-appointed to a state board charged with determining the clinical need for hospital and related health care construction in the state. Now there are two problems with this allegation from a legal and ethical standpoint.

First, the state’s case rested on the testimony of one man, a former aide, who claimed he saw Siegelman emerge from a meeting with Scrushy with a $250,000 check in his hand and heard Siegelman explain that the check was in return for the seat on the state board. But there were two problems with this testimony. First, the check was actually cut many days after this supposed meeting, so the aide could not have seen it when he claimed. Second, the aide was himself facing charges of extortion for misusing his office and looking at a 10 year sentence unless he agreed to cooperate. He has claimed that it took him several days and repeated attempts to write out his testimony as the prosecutors wanted it. But the prosecutors never provided these various versions of testimony to the defense, as they were legally obligated to. In fact, the Justice Department has repeatedly declined all requests for an explanation about this missing testimony, even subpoenas by Congress.

Second, focus on the charge of bribery for a moment. Typically, in a bribery case, an individual derives a direct, personal benefit from the use of his political office. In an unrelated case, a former Republican governor of Alabama, Guy Hunt, personally pocketed $200,000, but prosecutors sought probation — not jail time. In this case, however, the money went to the Lottery Campaign Foundation — an effort to raise money to improve the state’s schools. If this is bribery, then by this reasoning any time a political donor is named to an ambassadorship, or a deputy cabinet position, or any state board, there’s been a crime. In other words, every governor, numerous Senators and Congressmen, and even the President are guilty of bribery. But in those cases the money pays for person’s own election effort. Here, the money went for school improvement! I probably dislike the campaign finance system as much as anyone, but I don’t think our current system represents a violation of bribery laws.

There have been many occasions during the last seven years of the Bush Administration to weep for America. A senseless war whose justifications evaporated about the same time it became evident that it was being mismanaged into catastrophe. The sullying of our international reputation by first the effort to justify torture and then the vast evidence that our country has both sanctioned and executed torture repeatedly in the last six years. Invisible and visible ‘detention’ centers around the globe, where ‘enemies’ of America can be held without charge merely because the Administration has labeled them ‘enemy combatants.’

But this case sticks in the throat like few others. Here, the victim is an American citizen. A high ranking member of the political opposition. Governor Siegelman may be no saint. But the decision to run for office ought not to subject you to the threat of prosecution by your enemies. Sadly, under our criminal justice system, any one of us can be indicted for one thing or another. As a friend once told me, “with a Grand Jury, you can indict a head of cabbage.” And if anyone looks hard enough, long enough, they’ll find something on just about anyone. That red light you ran last week, that time you drank and drove last year. That pot you smoked in college. The error you made on your tax form. That’s why the justice system is not to be used to investigate people but to investigate crimes.

In this case, Bush’s Justice Department tore apart a man’s life looking for one thing on which to build a case. They looked until they found what they felt was something, no matter how small. The Republican governor's campaign manager’s wife (Leura Canary, wife of Bill Canary) led the investigation and filed the charges, despite a clear conflict of interest. She only recused herself after the case was in the courts. The judge who tried the case had been appointed by the Republican governor. A former Republican aide has testified that she heard the governor’s son, Richard Riley, state that the Judge would “hang Don Siegelman.”

Siegelman has been in jail for 242 days and still has not received a trial transcript to ready his appeal. Yet the law requires that the transcript be delivered to the defendant within 30 days of conviction. The law also allows a defendant 45 days after conviction to prepare for surrendering to the Bureau of Prisons so that affairs can be put in order and a legal appeal readied. In Siegelman’s case, on conviction, the Judge ordered the governor shackled and bound in the courtroom, where he was immediately removed and taken away to Federal prison — a practice typically reserved for the most dangerous criminals or the criminally insane. 44 former state Attorneys General, both Republican and Democrat have signed a letter urging Congress to investigate the circumstances surrounding this case.

I don’t normally write these kinds of letters. I don’t normally involve my friends in these kinds of email chains. But I simply cannot sit still and do nothing in the face of this gross injustice. But there’s more than injustice here. There is a perversion of our democracy, a sullying of everything we believe in as American’s. Because democracy cannot thrive where the state can be enlisted to take sides in political debates, and its power can be used to crush dissent and opposition. Please take a moment to visit the website of Don Siegelman’s friends to learn how you can help.

http://www.donsiegelman.org/pages/MAIN/home.html

Copy and paste this in an email and forward it to your friends. Write your Congressperson. Write the Judiciary Committee. Or donate to the legal defense fund. Thank you

Dr Kwanda

PS. Oh, and if all this wasn’t enough to send chills up your progressive spine, how’s this tidbit from Siegelman’s Wikipedia entry: “He was defeated for reelection in November 2002 by Representative Bob Riley by the narrowest margin in Alabama history: approximately 3,000 votes. The margin was controversial, as a voting machine malfunction in a single county produced the votes needed to give Riley the election. The recount, however, of that county's votes was affirmed by the state's Attorney General.”

Mourning the Passing of Jacob Wilhelmus Smit

I just opened the Nov/Dec CC Today and discovered with shock and sadness that Professor Jacob W. Smit (Professor Emeritus History Columbia) had passed away earlier this fall. I never had the privilege of knowing him as Wim although I have taken a great appreciation in reading the remembrances posted at a memorial site and in the memorial tributes of his friends and family. I am sorry that I never got to know him like this, but my exchanges with him were no less profound for that failure.

I had Prof. Smit for CC or Contemporary Civilization in my Sophmore year. It was the first profound intellectual experience of my life and I can say easily and honestly from the vantage point of 20 years on, that Prof Smit touched my life as few have and helped Columbia to shape me as the person I am today.

Unfortunately, I only had Prof Smit for one semester as he traded off the spring term with Prof Ainslee Embree. But the fall semester remains indelibly in my mind and I remember the envy of my dormates and classmates as I described the fascinating lectures and discussions of that fall term.

I came to Columbia from a family of professors and intellectuals, Univ of Chicago grads and Litvaks. So I arrived with an especial eagerness for the famed core curriculum. My dad, an English professor, spoke of how reading Plato, especialy the Symposium, at Chicago in the late 30s had changed his life. In my freshman year I struggled with Lit Hum. I too read Plato, The Republic, The Symposium, The Apology. But they didn't change my life. They seemed distant and opaque. I didn't really connect to the readings until late in the spring semester when we read Crime and Punishment. And my struggles further alienated me from a father who seemed somewhat aloof to begin with, to inhabit a world far different from mine.

I like to think that Prof Smit had a role in changing some of that. I entered CC in my second year and we began by taking up the Republic again. And this time, through Prof Smit's eyes it was like reading a new book. The text came alive. The notion of Platonic ideals took on deep and personal meaning. And the hypothesis that justice is called for because we know in our hearts it is right connected with me on some deep and almost anti-intellectual level.

I still read my Columbia alumni publications religiously and with great interest. It always amuses me a little the way the College pats itself on the back for its Core. But I realize that for me the Core worked. It did its magic. I discovered the wonderful life of the mind. I put together the natural questions of a (somewhat) engaged 19 year old with the canonical works of generations and was able to explore them within the structured approaches of great minds that have come before us. I went on to major in American History and came to see the relationships between our structure of government and the way the Founders thought on the one hand, and the works of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquie, Rousseau on the other.

When I first struggled with Lit Hum my freshman year, I went, being the earnest freshman I was, to see my professor to ask what was wrong with me. 'Why did I hate the readings and feel they were so dry when my father claimed they changed his life?' My professor at the time laughed and told me to be skeptical of anyone who claimed reading Plato changed his life. Maybe reading Plato didn't change my life, but I discovered in the next year that reading Plato with Prof. Smit changed the way I thought about life and justice, and politics, and policy, and how to live, for the rest of my life.

I went on to get a masters in public affairs at Princeton and a doctorate in public policy at Harvard and my first reaction at both places was the immediate sense of how different the campuses were because they did not have a core curriculum. Harvard struggled to reform its Core when I was there and I could only feel bemused by the great difficulty they had in realizing what Columbia realized 80 years ago and continues to realize today. Intellectual life seemed more vibrant at Columbia. The students seemed more engaged in their classes and in the world. I am sure some of this is attributable to self selection. But what was striking to me was how the students in Professor Smit's class seemed to feel as I did that what we were talking about was life today, not the life of the ancients, about the questions of the globalized, modern world, not the questions of ancient Athens. That the world outside the campus at Morningside Heights mattered and that what we discussed in class actually related to that world. I am sure this is unfair, but at Harvard and Princeton, students, by and large, seemed no different from my grade obsessed, ambitious high school classmates for whom courses, classes, homework, and school were all means to an end rather the end in themselves.

I never had the courage to speak up in class because I was amazed at the pace of our discussions, of the way the ideas would flow and the dialogue unfold. Before Prof Smit and some of the other students I always felt three steps behind. But I knew I was in the presence of greatness in the classroom so I would steal to his office hours to talk with him about the works of the week. He was always gracious and kind and eager to talk about the works, even though we would often go over the same ground that we would discuss in class. I remember the way his office smelled, the smell of books and what seemed in my mind to be a lingering sense of a farmers lunch of good dutch cheese with bread. Prof Smit did for me what no one had yet done. He made me rediscover how fun and engaging school and study could be. He helped me connect with my father on a level we hadn't until then. He was in short my most profound and heartfelt connection to what is best about Columbia and I mourn along with those here his too soon passing. I wish his family and friends the best and treasure the moments I shared with this great man.

You have to do this

From time to time you have to post to your blog to keep it active I suppose.