Obama Revives Clinton’s Disastrous Triangulation Strategy

“It was Bill Clinton who recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems,” President Obama wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope. “Clinton’s third way…tapped into the pragmatic, non-ideological attitude of Americans.”

Clinton’s “third way” was “triangulation,” a term and strategy invented by his pollster Dick Morris. Triangulation is a candidate’s attempt to position himself above and between the left and the right. A Democrat, Clinton insulated himself from Republican attacks by appropriating many of their ideas.

Obama is even more of a triangulator than Clinton.

Triangulation can work for candidates in the short term. Clinton got reelected by a landslide in 1996. (It failed, though, for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.) But triangulation hurts parties, which sell an ideological point of view. Clinton worked so hard to out-Republican the Republicans that he forgot he was a Democrat-. He also forgot that Democratic voters expected to see liberal policies.

Clinton’s greatest achievements ended up being Republican platform planks: free trade deals like NAFTA and the WTO, welfare reform, balancing the federal budget on the backs of the poor and working class.

By the way, Dick Morris is now a Republican. Maybe he always was.

Because of Clintonian triangulation, the liberal base of the Democratic Party saw the 1990s as a squandered opportunity: eight years of unprecedented economic expansion with not one new social program, not even national healthcare, to show for it. They got the message: voting Democratic doesn’t guarantee Democratic policies. Unenthused, liberals stayed home or voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Liberal disgust for triangulation (they called it “selling out”) sufficiently reduced Al Gore’s margin of victory to allow George W. Bush to steal Florida and the national election. It took the Democrats six years to begin to recover.

Obama ran as a centrist. It would come as little surprise if he were governing as one.

But he’s not a moderate president.

Obama is a Republican.

A right-wing Republican. Thanks to triangulation gone wild.

In his first year Obama chose to continue numerous Bush Administration policies, many of which originated in the far extreme wing of the GOP. Each of the following asterisks represents a broken campaign promise:

Keeping the Guantánamo torture camp open*

Continuing the war against Iraq*

Expanding the war against Afghanistan

Renewing the USA Patriot Act*

No-string bank bailouts

Continuing “military commission” kangaroo trials*

Reserving the right to torture*

Continuing the NSA’s “domestic surveillance” program of spying on innocent Americans’ emails and phone calls*

It took over a year, but Obama can finally point to two legislative achievements: healthcare reform and reducing private banks’ role in the issuance of student loans. The student loan bill, though a step in the right direction, is liberal but too modest. Student loans ought to be replaced by grants. Ultimately, universities and colleges will have to be nationalized.
Obama’s revamp of healthcare, on the other hand, goes too far, perverting the liberal desire to provide healthcare for all Americans into a transfer of wealth from poor to rich that the hard right never dreamed of.

Buying into the classic, flawed, American assumption that a bad system can’t get worse (ask the Iraqis and Afghans), ObamaCare entrusts 30 million new customers, to the tune of roughly ten grand a year each, to the tender mercies of private insurance companies.

ObamaCare pours hundreds of billions of dollars, some from taxpayers, the rest from poor people, into the gaping coffers of giant corporations. Once people find themselves paying even more for visits to the same crappy doctors and hospitals they can’t afford now, they’ll hold the Dems responsible at the polls. If Republicans stopped to think, they’d love it.

And if Democrats stopped to think, they’d hate it.

Most Americans, and almost all liberal Democrats, want socialized medicine. Like they have in the rest of the world. Failing that, they were willing to settle for single-payer. When Obama let it be known that Mr. Audacity was going to lead as anything but, they prayed for a “public option.” What they got: zero.

Actually, less than zero: We were better off before. Taxes will go up for the already insured. For those about to be forcibly insured, they’ll have to pay more. And here’s the kicker: not only will the insurance companies be making higher profits at our expense, so will the federal government.

The Congressional Budget Office, invariably described in pieces like this as “the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office,” projects that the U.S. Treasury will come out ahead by $130 billion over 10 years.

Deficit negativity helped score votes among Democratic deficit hawks in Congress. But again, think about it: If the healthcare bill is making a profit for the U.S. government, where is that $130 billion coming from?

Correct: you and me. Our taxes will be higher than they should be, our health benefits will be less.

Obama, the media and many of us have forgotten what the problem was in the first place. Healthcare costs were too high. Thanks to this monster of a bill, they’ll go even higher.

The government should not make a profit off sick people.

Even the Republicans wouldn’t propose a tax this regressive.

Now Obama is echoing Sarah Palin, right-winger-turned-Tea-Partier. “Drill, baby, drill!” says the president, guaranteeing oil-soaked beaches decades after he has retired. It’s a terrible policy for the environment, won’t lower gas prices by one red penny, and will further turn off liberal Democrats.

Democrats will lose seats in Congress this fall. It may already be too late for Democrats to keep the White House in 2012. But if they continue to follow the Clinton-Obama triangulation strategy, they could destroy themselves for years to come. They might even expose the overall bankruptcy of our two-party pseudo-democracy.

(Ted Rall is working on a radical political manifesto for publication this fall. His website is tedrall.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

What Lefties Could Learn from The Party of No

“Damn! I wish I was a man,” sang folksinger Cindy Lee Berryhill in the 1980s. Me, I wish I was a Republican.

Conservatives dress frumpy, are all white and bland and suburbany, and don’t know much about history. But they have more fun than liberals. They stick together. And they fight for what they believe in (or, more often, they fight against what they’re against).

Right-wingers are tough.

Why can’t left-wingers be tough? Tough feels right. More importantly, tough works. Tough wins.

So here’s a toast: to guts, glory, and the Party of No. May we learn from them.

Consider where the GOP was ages and ages ago—OK, this is almost embarrassing to say—in November 2008. Republicans had lost control of both houses of Congress. Six months later, they were still in trouble, reeling from the defection of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The GOP, Jonathan Capehart wrote in The Washington Post, was in crisis. “[It] hasn’t coalesced around any ideas that weren’t born in the Reagan years. It hasn’t been able to muster the kind of galvanizing policy positions that made the Contract with America a rallying point for Republicans to go toe to toe with President Clinton in the 1990s. And it’s still in search of a leader…While the party isn’t over for Republicans, it’s getting there.”

What a difference a year of holding firm—and Democratic wankery—makes.

By January 6, 2010, The New York Times reported that Obama and the Democrats were “facing a shifting and perilous political environment that could have big implications for this year’s midterm elections and his own agenda.”

Healthcare is a lose-lose: If it fails, Obama won’t have a single major legislative achievement to his credit by this fall. If it passes, the details Democrats have managed to keep secret—high deductibles, co-pays, mandated payments to private insurers—will cost them in the midterm elections and possibly in 2012.

Dems are also taking hits for the financial bailouts—ironically, since the first round of banker giveaways began under Bush. But Americans have short memories. And no one is buying Obama’s argument that 20-plus percent underemployment rate would have been even worse without the bailouts.

Going into the 2010 midterm election season, right-wingers are fired up by the Tea Party and their thinly-disguised contempt for the fact that a black guy is in the White House. Liberals, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly be less motivated to serve as the Democratic Party base. They see healthcare as a sellout to insurers, hate the bailouts, and are disgusted by Obama’s decision (advertised in 2008, but Americans have short memories, dontcha know) to expand the war against Afghanistan. They won’t turn out to vote. As things look now, November 2010 will be a rout.

Capehart was right: the Republicans didn’t have any new ideas.

They didn’t need any.

Voters who back a losing party are angry. But they are realistic. They know their guys are in the minority. They only expect their representatives to do one thing: obstruct the other party as much as possible.

Which is exactly what the Republicans, led by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, have done. They have driven Democrats crazy.

As The New York Times put it: “Republicans are monolithically against the health care legislation, leaving the president and his party executing parliamentary back flips to get it passed, conservatives revived, liberals wondering what happened.”

The “party of no,” as liberal commentators slagged the GOP, is unified in its opposition to what it calls big-government, but is in reality opposed to anything the Democrats want. Which is just the way Republican voters like it.

“Their goal,” said Senate Democratic whip Richard Durbin of Illinois,” is to slow down activity to stop legislation from passing in the belief that this will embolden conservatives in the next election and will deny the president a record of accomplishment.”

Is that supposed to be criticism?

Sounds to me like they’re making the most of their 41 percent control of the Senate. Sounds to me like they’re giving Republican voters a reason to support them.

During the early years of the Bush regime, the Senate was split 50-50. One can’t help admire the unity of today’s 41-vote minority Republicans to the passive wimpdom of the 50-vote Senate Democrats of 2001-2002. Bush got everything he wanted: his invasion of Afghanistan, legalized torture, Guantánamo, the USA-Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy, the build-up to the Iraq War. Democrats never held as few seats as Republicans hold now—yet they never lifted a finger to slow down Bush’s agenda.

Finally, consider the results. Cowardly Bush-era Dems lost seats in 2002 and 2004. Balls-to-the-wall Obama-era Republicans will almost certainly gain in 2010.

What’s the point of being a Democrat? When they lose, they let the other side have their way. When they win, they do the same.

Democrats will soon have another chance to redeem themselves—as a minority party.

Damn! I wish I were a Republican.

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.”)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

Bill a Bailout for Insurers, Disastrous for Americans

The details of Obama’s healthcare plan are finally starting to come out. They are ugly. (Some of the lowlights are revealed below.) This nightmare should be aborted.

I am writing this as someone who wants socialized medicine. I am a leftie. I lost my medical insurance in December when my insurer, HIP, jacked up my rate to $920 a month.

America desperately needs smart, strong opposition to ObamaCare. The worst part of this bad plan is its “mandate,” which requires the uninsured to buy insurance at hyper-inflated prices from greedy for-profit private corporations.

We can’t count on so-called liberals to fight for us. Despite everything, they’re still sucking up to Obama. We need a passel of old-fashioned conservatives to come to our rescue.

But old-fashioned libertarian conservatism is dead. What we’ve got instead are fools like David Rivkin.

Rivkin, a right-wing lawyer who worked in the Reagan-Bush Justice Department, recently fired the first salvo against Obama’s healthcare mandate in The Wall Street Journal.

Requiring Americans to buy health insurance from a for-profit monopoly is stupid and immoral. But Rivkin and other Federal Society types, they of bow ties and tiny brains, rely on a different approach: suing. They say the ObamaCare mandate is unconstitutional. “If you say the government can mandate your behavior as far as this insurance goes,” he wrote, “there will be nothing the government can’t do. They can control every single way in which you dispose of your income.”

There’s a reason lawyers tend to be liberal. Most lawyers are smart.

Rivkin isn’t. As late as 2009, Rivkin was still arguing that Bush-Cheney-Obama’s “harsh interrogation techniques” weren’t torture.

As Mark Hall, a law professor specializing in public health at Wake Forest University, points out, Congress enjoys “ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s ‘commerce clause’ to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.” Congress can make us buy health insurance. The $750 penalty in the current version of the Senate bill being considered this week—for refusing to buy health insurance—would be enforced via the IRS. Congress has the power to tax income, Hall reminds us.

So the court challenges of the future will be fun for lawyers. And Rivkin will still be spouting nonsense in the WSJ. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be stuck with the horrors of ObamaCare.

What horrors they are, too.

Obama’s proposed solution to our healthcare non-system, which is a national disgrace, will pour billions of dollars into the pockets of the very same people who caused the problem in the first place: insurance companies.

Insurance companies routinely deny valid claims. Their lobbyists help protect regional monopolies. They jack up rates much faster than inflation, underpay doctors, and kill tens of thousands of people a year thanks to denied claims and rates that are unaffordable. They pay their CEOs tens of millions a year—with our premiums.

Any sane solution to the healthcare disaster would begin with shutting down health insurance companies, then move on to nationalizing the entire system. Public health should not mix with the profit incentive.

But ObamaCare won’t do a thing to rein in the insurers. Quite the contrary: for-profit healthcare stands to gain up to 30 million new customers.

Alas, these new clients will not be happy.

Under the Obama/Senate plan, the poor—individuals who currently earn under $14,500—would be required to go on Medicaid. Unless they don’t qualify for whatever reason, in which case they would have to pay at least two percent of their income to private insurers, or get dinged $750 a year.

The working poor, meanwhile, would get charged a percent of their income on a sliding scale. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, federal subsidies for poor workers would be too low. People who earn between $14,500 and $43,000 a year would pay between four and 12 percent of their annual income to private insurers. (That’s right: someone who makes $43,000 would have to shell out $430 a month. If they live in a high-tax place like New York,that would leave them about $2,000 a month to live on after taxes.)

And let’s not forget about deductibles.

As anyone who has ever dealt with private insurance knows, deductibles are the odious practice of official non-coverage—insurance doesn’t start paying (if they don’t deny your claim for some BS reason) until you’ve already spent a certain amount that year.

I don’t know why conservatives aren’t talking about deductibles. They are one of the biggest secrets of ObamaCare—and one of the most damning. Like the subsidies, the “actuarial value of coverage”—the percentage of medical bills your policy would pay every year—would slide on a scale. The more you earn, the more you pay and the less you get.

Under the Senate bill, for example, a family of three earning less than $27,000—we’re talking poor people here—would be fairly well covered. ObamaCare would cover 97 percent of their bills. But a family of three earning between $45,000 and $73,000 would only have 70 percent coverage. In other words, they’d have to pay a third of their medical bills out of pocket.

There would also be co-pays: $20 per doctor’s visit, $250 if you had to go to the hospital, and lab tests and X-rays would come completely out of your wallet.

Faced with a slow-motion disaster like this, America needs opponents on the Right ready, willing and able to fight back. What we’ve got instead—incoherent Tea Partiers, idiotic lawyers like David Rivkin, and Rush Limbaugh, who claims that the existing system is perfect as it is—might as well be working for Rahm Emanuel.

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.”)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

“The Hurt Locker” Supports the Troops—and the Lies

The Motion Picture Academy’s choice of “The Hurt Locker” as best film of 2009 is a sad commentary on the movie business as well as America’s unwillingness to face the ugly truth about itself nearly a decade after 9/11.

“The Hurt Locker” is about a U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit operating in U.S.-occupied Iraq in 2004, one year after the invasion. They get called in to disarm improvised explosive devices (IEDs) of all shapes and sizes: homemade chemical explosives, old bombs looted from Iraqi military arsenals, even roadside bombs planted inside bodies. The EOD unit in “The Hurt Locker” also comes under fire from Iraqi resistance fighters.

The setting is inherently political, yet director Kathryn Bigelow studiously insists that her movie isn’t. “Did you want to make sure that the film didn’t divulge into choosing a political stance?” an interviewer asked her. “I think that was important,” she replied. “There is that saying, ‘There is no politics in the trenches,’ and I think it was important to look at the heroism of these men.”

Soldiers exhibit extraordinary courage in every war, on every side. Sam Peckinpah’s searing 1977 film “Cross of Iron” successfully makes the case for heroic behavior—bravery, anyway—on the part of Nazi forces participating in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1943. So there’s nothing wrong with Bigelow’s basic assumption. It should be possible for a moviemaker to “look at the heroism of these men” despite the fact that the cause for they’re fighting is evil.

The trouble with “The Hurt Locker” is that it, like too many other American war films, whitewashes history.

In this film neither the EOD unit at the center of the film or soldiers belonging to other units ever make a mistake that kills or seriously injures an Iraqi civilian. You keep waiting for it to happen, and you’d almost be OK with that one stray shot. Like the camera that put the audience behind the killer’s mask in “Halloween,” Bigelow has created a claustrophobic, soldier’s-eye view ominous with paranoia, all too justifiable. It’s hot and dusty. Everyone’s dog-tired. You can almost taste the stress. Her camera jumps from one potential threat to another: is that garbage on the side of the road just litter? Why is that guy on the roof of the building across the street staring so intently?

Even the perfect set-up for the accidental killing of an Iraqi civilian—while defusing a roadside bomb, an observer goes for his cellphone—turns out to be justified. The Iraqi was an insurgent, using the phone to detonate the charge.

And this is where a supposedly apolitical film turns into a nasty bit of pro-U.S. propaganda. As the film critic Andrew Breitbart writes, “The Hurt Locker” stripped its Iraqi characters of their humanity “and turned [them] into story-props: villains, victims, foul-mouthed hustlers, or strange alien beings who keep an awkward distance and mourn the dead by yelling savagely at the sky.”

For the purpose of this small film about a group of guys, one of whom is (laughably, as though such a character would be tolerated in an elite bomb squad unit) a go-it-alone cowboy who makes his comrades understandably nervous, it doesn’t matter that they/the U.S. shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place. That can be for another film. (Indeed, it already was. David O. Russell’s brilliant “Three Kings,” a 1999 effort set in the 1991 Gulf War, presages the 2003 invasion and serves as its ultimate cinematic rebuke.)

Yet creative liberties have limits. One is historical truth. Unless you’re making a live-action cartoon like “Inglorious Basterds,” you can’t make things up wholesale. But “The Hurt Locker” does. It creates an alternate universe to the one real Iraqis lived under in 2004, in which U.S. troops took as much care not to hurt civilians as AIG took with our taxdollars.

In the real world of U.S.-occupied Iraq in 2004, American soldiers were blowing away anyone who failed to slow down at (often unmarked) highway checkpoints. They were raping, robbing and murdering civilians for the fun of it. Countless soldiers recounted driving through towns and villages, randomly shooting at houses and people standing on the street. According to Iraq Body Count’s extremely conservative estimate, between 8,000 and 10,000 Iraqis had been killed by April 2004. The truth was probably fiftyfold.

Marine Sergeant Jimmy Massey, 26, testified in December 2004 that men under his command killed “thirty-plus” civilians within 48 hours while manning a checkpoint in Baghdad. “I do know that we killed innocent civilians,” Sgt. Massey said, stating that his unit fired between 200 and 500 rounds into four separate cars. Each had failed to respond to warning shots and hand signals.

In September 2004 the Knight-Ridder News Service reported that more Iraqi civilians had been killed by U.S. forces at checkpoints than by insurgents. “At the Baghdad morgue, Dr. Quasis Hassan Salem said he saw a family of eight brought in: three women, three men and two children. They were sleeping on their roof last month because it was hot inside. A military helicopter shot at them and killed them: ‘I don’t know why,'” said the wire service.

The reason for the bloodshed was simple: U.S. troops had been trained to shoot first, ask questions later. They didn’t care about the civilians they were supposedly there to liberate. “My platoon had to learn [checkpoint techniques] on the fly,” wrote Marine Captain Nathaniel Fick in The New York Times in March 2005. “For example, once while driving through a town, we cut down a traffic sign—a bright, red octagon with the word ‘stop’ written in Arabic—and used it at checkpoints. Who knows how many lives this simple act of theft may have saved?”

We don’t see any of this in “The Hurt Locker,” only good, confused American boys in uniform trying to muddle through a scary situation as best they can.

It is sad that a film so devoid of texture can earn critical plaudits. It is sadder that so few Americans can watch such a picture without losing their lunch. Not only is the history it seeks to revise ridiculously recent, one can only shudder in horror at the thought of what Iraqis and other Middle Easterners will think when pirated copies start showing up at local bazaars.

“The truth is ‘The Hurt Locker’ is very political,” wrote Michael Moore. “It says the war is stupid and senseless and insane. It makes us consider why we have an army where people actually volunteer to do this.” That’s true. But the politics are terrible. And that’s the wrong question.

We need to stop wallowing in self-indulgent, sentimental pap about how bad war is for the U.S. military forces that fight them. After all, the U.S. has started every war it has fought since 1945. What we should be considering is what our forces do to others in the course of invading and destroying their countries.

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.”)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

A Different Take on the Italian Google Verdict

Should I be allowed to smear you?

That’s the question journalists ought to be asking in the wake of an Italian court decision that found Google criminally responsible for content uploaded to one of its sites. (The case revolved around the video of an autistic boy getting beaten up in Turin. The father sued, successfully arguing that his son’s privacy had been violated. Three Google executives were handed six-month suspended sentences in absentia.)

Instead, the story has been framed as an attack on freedom of speech.

“The Web as we know it will cease to exist” if the ruling stands, claim Google’s lawyers.

“It absolutely is a threat,” affirms Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “If intermediaries like Google or the person who hosts your website can be thrown in jail in any country for the acts of other people and suddenly have a legal obligation to pre-screen everything anyone says on their website before putting it online, the tools for free speech that everyone uses on the Net would grind to a halt.”

Even the State Department has issued public statements supporting Google.

The more I think about it, however, the more I think it’s time to civilize “the Web as we know it.”

Let’s return to the question I asked at the beginning of this column: Should I be able to libel you as, say, a drug-addicted child pornographer?

This column appears in print newspapers. If I were to write that you were (for example) a drug-addicted child pornographer, my editors would ask me if it was true and demand that I source my allegation. Worried about getting sued, they’d either redact the relevant section or refuse to run the piece entirely if I couldn’t answer them satisfactorily.

And editors should be worried—publications are legally liable for what they print.

On the other hand, there are no gatekeepers online. Because there are pesky editors worried about getting sued online, I can post that atrocious lie about you being a drugged-out kiddie porn entrepreneur to my blog and to my Facebook page in a matter of seconds. I can sum it up on Twitter. Within a few hours, thousands of people will have read it. They might forward it to tens of thousands of their friends—two of whom might be your spouse and your boss. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Of course, you could sue me. But because I’m not rich, there’s no big paycheck down the road. You’ll have a hard time finding a lawyer.

Not in Italy, though. Lawyers, juries and judges would look at my blog, which is hosted by Blogger, which owned by Google. They’d ask: what difference does it make whether Ted Rall’s column ran on Blogger or appeared in The New York Times? Answer: there is no difference. Without a medium—printed or online—the libel wouldn’t have occurred.

In Italy, these Internet companies would have to dig deep into their very-deep pockets and pay you for the harm done to your reputation if the column ran.

Google and other self-styled “intermediary” online companies argue that they shouldn’t be held responsible for material hosted and posted on their services because they don’t have editors and aren’t selecting the content. “They didn’t upload it, they didn’t film it, they didn’t review it and yet they have been found guilty,” said Google’s senior communications manager, Bill Echikson, of the three execs.

This reasoning is common in the online world. Several years ago I learned that NYTimes.com didn’t have editors—it had programmers. It was astonishing. Syndicated and wire-service content was uploaded directly to the site without anyone at the Old Gray Lady’s online version bothering to even take a look-see and make sure things were spelled correctly, much less check to be sure it’s accurate or, say, non-libelous. Among this unedited content were my cartoons. Naturally, one or two a year—out of 150—were controversial. If they’d had an editor, they probably wouldn’t have run those particular pieces. But editors cost dollars, and newspapers are pinching pennies. Ultimately the paper canceled all of my cartoons. It was easier and cheaper than hiring an editor.

I suspect that courts, and not just in Italy, will see Google’s “free speech” argument—”We don’t review content! We let anyone post anything they want whenever they want!”—as less of a defense than an admission of culpability. After all, Google chooses not to review content, at least in part to reduce their costs.

It might be different if Google and other Internet aggregators weren’t for-profit enterprises. It also might be different if they were what they say they are: service providers. You can’t sue a service provider for the nature of the content it carries. The phone company merely provides a platform; it can’t be sued if someone uses their lines to slander you.

From a legal standpoint Google is an old-fashioned content provider, relying on a business model that is no different from The New York Times. They post content—much of it stolen—in order to generate ad revenue.

Of course, Google is a little edgier than The Times. A late 2009 study by the Fair Syndication Consortium found that the company was responsible for 53 percent of the overall piracy of copyrighted newspaper articles online. Google illegally scanned millions of books without asking the authors’ permissions. And the ad money rolled in—$1.97 billion in profits during Q4 of 2009 alone.

It’s not like Google can’t afford to hire an editorial staff. Shouldn’t they have to make sure that, for example, I don’t libel you as some crazy porn gangster?

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.”)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

In Defense of Tiger Woods and Good Fun Sex

Why does Tiger Woods owe us an apology?

Let’s assume that all the accusations of serial philandering are true. That no waitress was safe from his charms. What right do we, the public, have to be upset?

Woods never presented himself as a pillar of moral virtue. He marketed himself as a great golfer. His job was to knock balls into holes—which he did. He didn’t cheat at golf.

Nowhere in America lives a kid who looked up to Tiger because he thought he was faithful to his wife.

Woods wasn’t some right-wing hypocrite. He didn’t preach. His church was the Chapel of Sports Excellence.

Apologize? What for?

I’m not even sure he owes his wife an apology. According to various reports (although I fathom not how said accounts were sourced), Woods’ wife lost interest in sex after having kids. If she turned colder, oh well. Things happen. Tiger didn’t have the right to demand that she put out. But he had every right—the duty, even, if there was to be any chance of his keeping his family intact from divorce—to have some fun on the side.

If Mrs. Woods wanted it ten times a day, on the other hand, he owes her an apology. Her. Not us.

Yet the media is tearing Tiger a new one. “The fact that he isn’t allowing questions and is positioning his friends and handpicked reporters as props [at his tele-apology] is the height of arrogance,” publicist Nick Ragone told The New York Post. “At some point, he’ll be shamed into doing a true mea culpa.” Another PR flack said: “He didn’t think enough of his fans back then [three months ago, when the scandal broke] to do the right thing.”

“Mea culpa”? What for? “Think enough of his fans”? How is Tiger’s sex life the business of his fans? Although, personally, I was surprised to find out he was straight. But I digress.

More than 150 years ago, Nathaniel Hawthorne posited that America’s original sin was its Puritan heritage. Isn’t it time we grew up?

Several years ago a book appeared with a provocative title: Against Love. Who could be against love, I wondered, and why? Not the author, Laura Kipnis. “Clearly no one can be against love,” she writes. It turned out that she was actually against monogamy. Monogamy, Kipnis argued, stifles passion.

“Adultery is basically a referendum on the sustainability of monogamy, which means a referendum on the basic premises of modern coupled life, namely that desire will persist throughout a decades-long relationship, ” writes Kipnis. “If it doesn’t apparently you’re supposed to either give up sex, or ‘work harder’ at it. Adultery is the collective—if secretive—rebellion against these strictures, but also a backdoor way of experimenting with possibilities for more gratification than what we’re officially allowed, a workshop for wanting “more” that what current social institutions provide.”

So why did she choose that title? I don’t know for sure, but I bet the fact that opposing love is less controversial than opposing monogamous relationships had something to do with it.

What’s surprising is that people act so shocked when you speak out against monogamy. If a make of car failed as often as monogamy does, if it burst into flames half the time you took it out for a ride—that’s the divorce rate—it would be recalled. Monogamous marriage is so widely recognized as a lemon that it has spawned countless pop culture parodies (“The Lockhorns” comic strip, the “Married with Children” TV show).

People talk about elderly married couples who are still happy and in love in the hushed, reverential tones used while standing in front of the “Mona Lisa” the first time or witnessing a UFO landing in front of the White House. If a car almost never worked, its manufacturers would be thrown in prison.

Tiger Woods, in other words, is merely the latest of billions of human beings who have been victimized by a crummy, worthless system that has only been around less than one percent of human history, one that everyone hates but is afraid to admit. He hates it, his wife hates it, most of us hate it. Yet we all pay it lip service.

Truth be told, the Tiger Woods “scandal” exists mainly in the minds of media gatekeepers. The topic was discussed in bars and break rooms and cafes, but nary a “what a pig!” has been heard. The reason is obvious: most Americans have cheated. Some have as many lovers as Tiger.

Against logic and reason, the fidelity hoax goes on. Tiger Woods isn’t a sex addict—he’s a human being who likes to have sex. Lots and lots of sex.

Tiger Woods shouldn’t apologize—he should teach classes.

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.”)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL

Time for Progressives to Reclaim Populism

Huey Long would know what to do.

Angry people were the Kingfish’s stock in trade. People dispossessed and victimized, pissed off at a government that only cares about them on Tax Day. The populist Louisiana governor channeled the rage of the poor into political support, wielded power on their behalf. And he delivered.

Born of the Great Recession and ongoing economic collapse, the Tea Party movement is America’s latest contribution to a long tradition of populist agitation.

The Tea Party doesn’t have a platform. Which makes sense, since it isn’t a party. The Tea Party movement is a loose, decentralized coalition of radical libertarians, Goldwater Republicans, Sarah Palin-loving populists, black-helicopter militia types, nativist Minutemen obsessed with the New World Order, members of the retro John Birch Society, even a group of sheriff’s who swear not to obey “stupid laws.” Some of them hate Obama. They say they hate his policies, but some use racist rhetoric. They are almost all white.

[The Tea Party also doesn’t have a media spokesman. Or one willing to talk to columnists, anyway. I reached out; never heard back. If any major Tea Partiers want to chat, please get in touch.]

What unites the Tea Party, which is more or less symbiotically affiliated with the so-called “Patriot” movement, are three issues. First, they’re Constitutional purists. Second, they want the federal government to shrink or go away entirely. Third: they want lower taxes and government spending.

So why is the Tea Party seen as a right-wing movement?

To be sure, many Tea Partiers fiercely deny that they’re a branch of the Republican Party. Tea Partiers have declared jihad against Governor Charlie Crist of Florida (because he accepted federal stimulus money), and have forced Senator John McCain of Arizona, no liberal he, to tack right in his reelection bid. But, from the Palin connection to the openly stated goal of “taking over the Republican Party, the GOP-Tea Party overlap is undeniable.

Which makes no sense.

True, America First immigrant-bashing doesn’t fit in with the politically-correct Democrats of the 21st century. Liberals find the backwater cultural touchstones of Tea Party—country music, NASCAR, county sheriffs as celebrities, for God’s sake—as alien as Muqtada Al-Sadr.

On the big issues, however, the Tea Party belongs on the Left.

Tea Party followers are obsessed with privacy rights. They want the government out of their lives. Worried about creeping totalitarian tyranny, they’re against Obama’s healthcare reform proposal in part because they believe it would grant the feds access to heretofore private medical records. “In New Mexico, Mary Johnson, recording secretary of the Las Cruces Tea Party steering committee, described why she fears the government. She pointed out how much easier it is since Sept. 11 for the government to tap telephones and scour e-mail, bank accounts and library records,” reported The New York Times.

Doesn’t she remember who was president after 9/11?

Americans have good cause to fear the Democratic Party on privacy rights. During the 1990s Clinton Administration ramped up the NSA’s Echelon system, which supposedly intercepts and automatically analyzes every single email, phone call, fax and wire transmission on the planet. Obama has kept the USA-Patriot Act and Bush’s domestic wiretapping program in place.

But on privacy rights Republicans have been at least as bad. The Patriot Act was their idea. They abolished habeas corpus. They created the Total Information Awareness data-mining program; after Congress protested, they canceled it, renamed it, and quietly reestablished it. As much as Tea Partiers hates Democrats on privacy rights, they ought to hate Republicans more.

The same goes for Constitutional purity. Probably the greatest subversion of the Constitution has concerned war. Only Congress has the right to declare war, but one president after another has stolen that right away. Both the Ds and the Rs deserve equal blame. But the Rs deserve it most recently. The three biggest wars of the last two decades, Iraq twice and Afghanistan once, were started by Republican presidents. Surely, when it comes to respect for the Constitution, the Tea Party should look elsewhere than the GOP.

Most baffling is the Tea Party’s willingness to look the other way as Bush ran up record deficits between 2001 and 2009. Yes, part of it was the wars—and guess what? Wars count. A real deficit hawk would have called for cuts equal to the cost of the wars or, better yet, not have fought them in the first place (since they were strictly optional and not required for defense).

If the Left were smart—hell, if it existed—it would talk to the Tea Party folks. “To hell with the Republicans,” they’d say, “and to hell with the Democrats too. We might not like the same music, and we might talk a little different, and we sure don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job or that the Bilderbergs control everything, but we’re all tired of getting ripped off and lied to by a bunch of government scumbags and their dirtbag pals on Wall Street and corporate America. And we’re going to stop them.”

(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the new graphic memoir “The Year of Loving Dangerously.” He is also the author of the Gen X manifesto “Revenge of the Latchkey Kids.” His website is tedrall.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL