The Road to Marriage Equality in the State of Independence

When President George W. Bush visited northeastern Pennsylvania several times in the 2004 presidential campaign, he highlighted his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage. Bush proudly touted that he was the only president in American history to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages. Playing to socially conservative voters of both parties in northeastern Pennsylvania, Bush figured he could capitalize on this issue here, and elsewhere, to stoke enough fears - combined with his emphasis on national security issues - to achieve a narrow win. Bush was reelected but ultimately lost Luzerne County in 2004, succumbing to Kerry by a 49 percent to 51 percent margin in this heavily Democratic yet swingy county that Ronald Reagan won twice. However, it's likely that his margin was closer than in 2000 - both countywide and statewide as Bush lost Pennsylvania in 2004 by less than he lost it four years prior - in part because of his strongly anti-gay marriage stance.

A decade later, this position of opposing equal marriage rights for gay couples is so politically toxic in Pennsylvania, including in northeastern Pa., that our state's GOP governor, Tom Corbett, imperiled in his reelection bid, withdrew his efforts to appeal the recent court decision legalizing same-sex marriage here. This political progress is nothing short of incredible but it is not by mistake. It is the result of hard and determined work on the part of gay rights activists, gay and lesbian couples who fought against a discriminatory law in the federal courts, and public servants willing to stand up for equal rights even when it was politically risky. This collaborated experiment on the part of such individuals in changing public opinion and ultimately changing the law is a reflection of the best of America: people working together at the grassroots level to rally public support to pressure individuals in power to expand equal rights. This phenomenon, as historians and political scientists and social policy experts (most notably Howard Zinn) have pointed out numerous times, is what our history is all about in fact.

Locally, people like John Dawe and Bill Browne worked to gather public support for marriage equality, public officials like Rep. Phyllis Mundy and Congressman Matt Cartwright were the first out of the gate at the state and federal level, respectively, to embrace gay marriage thus further legitimizing it in a sense, and the alliance that all of these individuals provided to the couples fighting the Pennsylvania DOMA in court ultimately helped allow it to fall. As a result of their work, happy couples who have waited years to marry can finally do so -- and a majority of the public, both statewide in PA and here in NEPA according to several public opinion polls, is finally on board as well. Cheers to Judge Jones, the folks who worked so hard to make marriage equality a reality, and to the people of Pennsylvania.

Understanding America's Social Ills

In two separate appearances at the Historic Sixth and I Synogauge here in Washington, Politics and Prose Bookstore hosted Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Both individuals were touting their new books, A Fighting Chance and Six Amendments, respectively, while discussing their broader belief systems. In addition to listening to Warren and Stevens, I had the privilege of meeting and introducing Vice President Joe Biden, who we as GW College Democrats alongside the Program Board and the Student Association booked as our end of year speaker, as he addressed GW students. Biden addressed the Democratic criticisms of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal. All three of these public servants demonstrated that they firmly grasped the social ills facing the country, the plight of working class and middle class individuals shafted by special interests and a broken political system, and the need to utilize social and political levers to alleviate inequality. However, action is required beyond words in order to ensure that real social change is achieved.

Nevertheless, it is comforting that there are longtime public servants who understand the true injustices that have visited hardworking, decent people and who have the know-how, experience, and tenacity to see through it that these injustices can be reversed. None of these individuals are perfect by any means. Each of them have made flawed judgments that, in some cases, are not reflective of the interests of working class and middle class individuals. However, all of them fundamentally understand that it is these people who are the backbone of the economy, that it is their success that is inextricably linked to broader national prosperity, and that progressive public policy is necessary to advance their interests.

This understanding on their part was reflected in the language Biden, Warren, and Stevens used to make their cases. Vice President Biden powerfully made a compelling argument against the House GOP budget, outlining how philosophically, the Republican viewpoint is at odds with the history of our country being one in which economic success is driven by the middle class. Ryan and his acolytes believe in "this incredibly narrow mindset that presumes that wealthy investors are the sole driver of the economy - that all employers work solely by the grace of the shareholders' capital gain," Biden asserted. Senator Warren railed against the "system being rigged" in favor of the wealthy and the well-connected who, in the last three decades, have had a ladder up while folks at the bottom rung of the economic ladder have been denied such opportunity thanks to decades of laws pushed by big corporations to enhance their political and financial power. Justice Stevens scolded his former conservative colleagues on the Court for crafting decisions that have been favored by the Chamber of Commerce and big business interests, such as Citizens United in which he penned the dissenting opinion, and marginalized those with less.

It is reassuring that Biden, Warren, and Stevens articulate well the social ills facing the country and that they comprehend the disturbing outsized growth of power of the very wealthy as opposed to the meager growth of those making less. Further, the policy prescriptions they propose are ones that will materially improve the lives of those struggling to make ends meet. These ideas include a budget that rewards lower and middle class people while eliminating loopholes for the rich, more robust rules and regulations to constrain the financial sector from wreaking havoc, and a strong reaffirmation of core civil rights and civil liberties. In order for these policy initiatives to be implemented into law though, mass collective action is required to put pressure on politicians to make these changes. As Elizabeth Warren demonstrated in her successful fight to create a consumer protection agency, which the President embraced and fought for as well, it is worth a fight even if the interests seem stacked against you. Ultimately, the power of the masses yearning for the realization of full economic equality for working class and middle class people has, historically, won out, even after periods in which we had terrible inequality. It requires public mobilization though because as FDR said, "I agree with you, now make me do it." Make them do it.

The Beauty of Redemption and Why I Love Easter

Generally, I am a huge fan of all holidays so this blog post may ring hollow for those who know me best considering how much I fawn over other celebrations too, namely Christmas. Honestly though, I love Easter. The underlying story regarding the rise of Jesus Christ who rose today and who I, as a Christian, believe is the Lord and Savior of humanity, is one that ought to give human beings tremendous hope (or "Omeed" in Farsi). We all make mistakes in life. That's what makes us human. The fact that God, reflected in Jesus in human form, could still forgive us, give us a chance at redeeming ourselves, and ensure us the opportunity to start over with a clean slate with the promise of eternity in heaven is remarkable. Above all, God is a magnanimous, loving deity and no day better reflects that than Easter. Rather than being condemned to destitute and eternal punishment for the errors of our ways as humans, we have a shot at redemption through him. To just think of the awesomeness of this chance at renewal and cleansing makes one realize that you are not defined by your shortcomings and your worst moments but instead judged on how much you demonstrate good towards others. We are greater than that and through Jesus and because of his rise, we have the chance to prove to the world our ability to put our transgressions behind us and be more generous, productive, and selfless members of our communal society. The joy, love, and boundless opportunities that chance at forgiveness provides us are worthy of celebration and that is why I love Easter.

LBJ, Sebelius, and Colbert

This brief post will be the first multi-pronged, genuinely short post I've ever done on this blog but there's a first time for everything. First, I wanted to say that I love the celebrations of LBJ happening this week at his library, in news articles, and in our collective national political discussion. Yes, Vietnam escalation was truly, truly horrible -- horrendous in its consequences for millions and millions of people. Nevertheless, the profound good that LBJ accomplished at home is still huge. It's remarkable in scope, size, and scale especially given the fact that his two immediate predecessors in office, Eisenhower and JFK, did not achieve anywhere near the level of his accomplishments in the domestic policy front. Contemporary political observers will often note LBJ was aided by enormous Democratic majorities in Congress, a sweeping landslide in 1964, and the national mood following JFK's tragic assassination. All of these facts are true and what is certainly true is, as the current president alluded to in The New Yorker in a David Remnick interview, the LBJ victories faded once the 1966 midterm election resulted in significant Democratic losses and Johnson's popularity declined amid Vietnam. However, none of these facts should diminish Johnson's impressive, progressive legacy. The Great Society was nothing short of tremendously ambitious, unabashedly liberal, and fundamentally transformative for the United States. Johnson could have utilized his enormous mandate to do just about anything. That he spent it pushing legislation that improved the lives of millions, like the Civil Rights Act and Medicare and Medicaid to name a few examples, reflects a willingness to use the levers of power to advance the common good in Washington. That's something that should be a trait in all of our politicians. He worked hard at it too which wasn't really necessary in some cases given his huge majorities and the massive victory he won but he did it anyway because he passionately, emotionally invested himself in these causes -- a kind of leadership that stands tall among presidents. For these reasons, he is certainly one of our greatest presidents and should be remembered as such.

On Kathleen Sebelius, I wanted to say that though the initial rollout of Obamacare was obviously horrible, she came out strong in the end. That's why she'll ultimately have a positive legacy. She presided over the creation of a law that is going to be a significant aspect of our social safety net and she ultimately made it work as the administration surpassed pre-rollout enrollment goals. That's no small achievement. Through it all, she displayed determination, strength, passion, and grit and her impressive final month in office is all the vindication that the President should need to know she did a fine job.

On Letterman and Colbert: For one, I want to note I am a huge fan of Letterman and his style. His quirky, weird but lovable style may be silly but it's a unique kind of funny that is "irreplaceable," as The New Yorker put it. Further, the cultural significance of his show is profound when considering his venerable Top 10 Lists and his marvelous interviews as well as the stellar musical performances. Simply put, TV is losing a real giant. On the other hand, I am conflicted about Stephen Colbert taking over for Letterman. Colbert out of character may be unusual and I can't see him being the earnest personality that one typically characterizes for a late night host. Nevertheless, I must say Colbert surprised me, and a lot of critics, when he knocked it out of the park on The Colbert Report once it launched. I have no doubt that given his talents, skills, quick wit, and sharp humor, he can devise a successful formula for his stint on The Late Show. Time will tell.

A Fitting Ending to How I Met Your Mother

SPOILER ALERT

Life can be pretty complicated with its unexpected twists, turns, trials, and tribulations that reshape our grand plans. At the same time though, some aspects of life are really seemingly driven by fate. To borrow a popular quote, many folks out there sometimes have a "rendezvous with destiny." The series finale of How I Met Your Mother, easily one of the best TV comedies of the last decade, reflected these elements of our lives. In this way, the conclusion was both realistic and sentimental. On the one hand, the complications of life were aptly displayed in events such as Barney and Robin's ultimate divorce (a kind of experience millions of Americans are familiar with), Barney eventually becoming the father of a child - perhaps inevitable, though appropriate, after being a proactive womanizer, and the mother, whose name is revealed to have the same initials as Ted's, dying of a terminal illness, a kind of pain all too many people have experienced in their families. On the other hand, the sentimentality of the show was at its best in the finale. The scene in which Barney holds his new child in his hands and tells her he will love her forever is incredibly heartwarming and satisfactorily humanizes Neil Patrick Harris' self-aggrandizing yet ultimately affable character. The finish, though disappointing to some critics and viewers who thought Ted and the mother (Tracy McConnell) were perfect together, was emotionally charged as well as Ted finally really did end up with Robin after all. This scene demonstrated brilliantly how the oft used axiom "everything happens for a reason" holds some truth to it as some things were just meant to be.

For these reasons, though Seinfeld was obviously a superior series, the series finale of How I Met Your Mother was actually better than the 1998 series finale of another popular, nine-year network sitcom, Seinfeld -- an opinion that will likely not sit well with some of my readers. The finale of HIMYM was an appropriate and fitting finish to a colorful story that, as the kids pointed out in the end, was really all about how Ted loves Robin. It brought it all "full circle," as my friend George Dobbins noted on Facebook, all the way down to the blue horn being presented by Ted. Further, as aforementioned, the finale was both totally realistic, in the depiction of unanticipated events that reshuffle people's lives like unexpected pregnancies and divorce and serious sickness, while still asking us to believe in some predetermined fate, as demonstrated in Ted finally ending up with Robin, for instance. However, the Seinfeld finale was, on the flip side, quite unrealistic which is important since that show was ostensibly all about the quirks that befall people in their daily lives so if any shows ought to have a realistic finale, it was Seinfeld. Ending up in a jail cell was just a bizarre way to close, as many critics and viewers pointed out at the time, as it was not realistic and somewhat abrupt.

Nevertheless, there will be those who will criticize the HIMYM series finale as maddening because the mother died and Ted ended up going after Robin years later anyway thus making the mother even more of a minor character in this whole series than we initially thought. Further, many of us viewers probably didn't want to think it was possible for Ted to fall in love with anyone else as Tracy was seemingly the genuine love of his life and nobody could ever match that. The show proved us wrong though in testing a hypothesis that Vice President Joe Biden raised in a spring 2012 address to the families of fallen U.S. soldiers. In recounting the devastating loss of his own wife, the mother of his first three children, one of whom died with her in the car accident that killed them in 1972, Biden noted that he thought he been "to the top of the mountain" and would never come back because Neilia Hunter was seemingly the only woman he could ever love with all his heart. After five years though, he met Jill Jacobs, now known to most Americans as Dr. Biden, and was able to find love again because as he put it in the hypothesis he laid out to families of the deceased, "there will come a day when the thought of your husband or wife brings a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye." In his memoir, Promises to Keep, Biden expands on this notion to demonstrate that your heart can find true love again while that smile can come to your lips when you think of the past -- almost the exact experience Ted had as he connected with Robin but still was able to happily recount to his kids how he met their mother.

Everyone Agrees: Time to Freak Out About Democrats Losing the Senate. It's Avoidable:

The Beltway punditocracy is in near-universal agreement now that the Democrats will almost certainly lose control of the Senate this fall. Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, and Robert Gibbs have all declared it is evident that this result is, if not inevitable, at least extremely likely. The crazed hype surrounding these predictions notwithstanding, it is important to note that the Democrats' Senate majority is tenuous at this point. Several of the Democratic Senators up for reelection this year represent deep red states where President Obama is not only extremely unpopular but in which he also lost in November 2012, when he was at the peak of his national popularity. Further, the rollout of Obama's signature health care law, combined with the "you can keep your plan" controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act, has not only hurt Democrats' standing nationwide but it has also not been helpful to Democratic senators running for reelection. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted for Obamacare, including the conservative Democrats up for reelection this year, so they are already facing political attacks from the right for their votes for the ACA. However, the analysis that is being done now as we examine Senate Democrats' chances fails to take into account several key factors.

For one, though Senate races are increasingly nationalized in nature, local factors are still vital, as Tip O'Neill would tell us. For instance, Mark Begich remains well-liked in Alaska, Mary Landrieu has a famous family name in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan may benefit from the liberal uprising known as the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina. Second, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has proven adept at fending off GOP efforts to retake the Senate in the previous two election cycles as they recruited stellar candidates in open seat races, protected incumbents well, and exposed Republican rivals for their ultraconservatism. In 2010 and 2012, observers and pundits of all political persuasions predicted that a GOP takeover of the Senate was not out of the realm of possibility. Instead, Harry Reid and Michael Bennet retained their seats in 2010, the Democrats had a net gain of seats in 2012 thanks to wins like Elizabeth Warren's victory in Massachusetts, and those same pundits reacted with surprise the morning after the elections. Third, the Democrats actually are in a good position to potentially win back two GOP Senate seats in Kentucky and Georgia. In these states, the party has fielded exceptional candidates in Alison Lundergan Grimes and Michelle Nunn, both daughters of political heavyweights in their state's Democratic parties, and their GOP rivals (Senator McConnell and the litany of inane Republican congressmen Nunn may face) are not very popular. Public opinion polls are surprisingly showing statistical ties in these states.

Nevertheless, it is crucial that Democrats stay alert this year, show up to vote, and be mindful that a lot is at stake here. The final two years of Barack Obama's presidency will be crucial in determining his legacy as he seeks to remake the federal judiciary, now that the filibuster for presidential appointments is gone, and in order to do that, he needs a majority in the Senate to approve his nominees. If the Republicans take over control of the Senate, dysfunction in Washington will only worsen. In 2010, when millions of Democratic voters failed to show up to the polls, the result was devastating as we've now seen what GOP control of the House, various state legislatures, and a majority of governorships has done to the country: imposed painful austerity that has weakened the recovery from the recession while states enact a plethora of laws restricting civil rights in an array of issues. The Democrats would be wise to employ the following pieces of advice if we wish to avoid another disastrous midterm:

1. The party should emphasize the genuinely popular, populist ideas and policies that President Obama and the party has advanced and championed this year. These include an increase in the minimum wage (as well as highlighting Obama's move to raise the wage to $10.10 for federal contractors), reforms to overtime pay, boosting anti-poverty programs like unemployment insurance, protecting the social safety net, and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. Public opinion polling finds that these progressive policy prescriptions are enormously popular, even among GOP voters in red states. Smart candidates are already capitalizing on these issues to boost their chances, such as Grimes, who is underscoring her support of a minimum wage increase and equal pay for equal work for women in Kentucky. On the other side of the country, Senator Begich was wise enough to be one of 16 Democratic Senators to sign a letter to the President urging him to avoid proposing unpopular cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in his budget. Polling shows that Grimes and Begich have benefited from these moves while in Arkansas, Senator Mark Pryor came out against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and the evidence does not point to any boost for his campaign after making this announcement. The fact of the matter is that economic populism is both good public policy and good politics. Undertaking these issues as core elements of a candidate's agenda will help vulnerable Democrats because these policies can attract Independent voters who are concerned about the economy and will excite the base that typically does not turnout in midterm races as much as they do in presidential years.

2. Tie the GOP candidates in your races to unpopular congressional leadership, expose their unpopular ideas for what they are, and follow them carefully to catch any gaffes. This kind of effort is a must because the last two cycles have proven that when weak, extremely conservative Republican candidates in swing Senate races are revealed for what they really are, they lose steam from their initial seeming inevitability. In 2010 and 2012, this was the case for candidates like Ken Buck and Todd Akin, respectively, as their gaffes and repulsive ideas regarding women's issues sunk their campaigns. The Democratic candidates in tough Senate races this year ought to relentlessly shed light on their GOP rivals' seriously unpopular ideas like cutting social safety net programs and repealing even well-liked parts of the Affordable Care Act. They would further be wise to employ talented and energetic opposition researchers who can pound on the weaknesses of Republican candidates in order to make clear that these races are not referenda on the state of the country but rather choice elections. Beyond that, Democratic Senate candidates would be smart to associate their rivals with GOP congressional leadership, given that Congress is extremely disliked. This is quite easy for some candidates, such as Grimes who is conveniently running against the Senate Republican leader - an unpopular figure nationally and in his own state.

3. If you are an incumbent, demonstrate real work you are doing in the Senate on behalf of your constituents. History has shown that voters reward workhorses, not show-horses in Senate races. For example, Senator Al Franken appears in solid shape for reelection in Minnesota, despite the President's declining popularity in this state he carried easily twice, in large part because of his impressive record of legislative efforts and achievements. On the other hand, in 2006, when Senator Rick Santorum failed to win reelection in Pennsylvania, one element of his loss was undoubtedly his showmanship as a national GOP social conservative hero which overshadowed any kind of other legislative work he was undertaking. Therefore, Democratic Senators who are running for reelection ought to highlight their efforts in the Senate to achieve legislative accomplishments on behalf of their constituents. By doing so, they will show that constituents in their states will be sorry to lose them.

In the end, Democrats have reasons to be worried this cycle but it doesn't mean that they can't employ wise political strategy to avoid losing our fragile majority.

Why the Oscars Matter, the Case for My Favorite Film of the Year, and My Predictions

Despite losing a significant chunk of viewership amongst the key demographic of 18-49 year olds, the Academy Awards are still a culturally significant, exciting, and important celebration of excellence in film. In the United States, our mastery of movies, acting, and the thriving nature of the Hollywood industry has fueled economic productivity, livened our culture, and has made us a beacon of free expression and art in the world. Further, the films that are recognized at these ceremonies are ones that capture our imagination in the most inspirational, heartwarming, tragic or enlightening ways. They are the best of the best -- movies that, in some cases, can reshape our thinking and understanding of life. For these reasons, the Academy Awards are still very much relevant, important, and worth our attention.

This year's films are among those movies that inspire us, challenge our thinking, and boggle our minds. 12 Years a Slave reminds us of the horror of slavery and why we should never forget, dismiss or understate the brutality and gruesomeness of America's greatest sin. American Hustle makes us laugh at the comedic nature of the corruption of the ABSCAM scandal while making us cognizant of the dangers of pay for play politics. Her dares us to imagine the unthinkable possibilities of a future of constantly expanding technology. Of all of these films though, the one that deserves Best Picture, and the one for which the lead actor deserves Best Lead Actor, is The Wolf of Wall Street and Leonardo Dicaprio.

The criticisms of the film are understandable - mainly, that it glorifies the excess and bad behavior of Jordan Belfort and that there are sexist undercurrents in the portrayal of the characters involved. Perhaps I am biased towards liking the movie only because I saw the film with my best friends on my birthday but I don't think that explains my belief that it is worthy of Best Picture.  Far from glorifying Mr. Belfort's despicable actions, the film vividly illustrates the dangers of his way of life, the heartache and misery his decisions cause for his family and for so many working individuals he duped along the way, and the horrible consequences of greed.

Beyond that, The Wolf of Wall Street is an incredibly timely film, a movie that tackles head on many of the most pressing issues of economic justice that have dominated our national dialogue in the years since the financial crisis. It superbly demonstrates the deranged yet self-serving mechanisms, motivations, and mindset of the worst of Wall Street financial titans whose desires and decisions are entirely driven by their own well-being. The film shows these actions are wrongs, as seen in its demonstration of the pain that these decisions cause for many, many people, while indicating that justice is attainable. The final scene, in which the FBI agent on the subway appears satisfied and content looking at the faces of middle class Americans he looked out for in going after Mr. Belfort, encapsulates the movie's overriding message that levers of power, in this case that of the government's, can be utilized for good to squash power that is used for bad and that, ultimately, justice can be served. Further, the film also includes extremely talented acting on the part of Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill, both of whom deserve the respective awards tonight for which they are nominated. They electrify the screen, brilliantly capture the spirit and personalities of their characters, and have a rapport in the film that is masterful and wonderfully orchestrated. These actors, combined with the compelling nature of the story, make for a truly great film that, despite being three hours long, keeps you excited, alert, and involved for the entirety of its duration. It is a film like The Wolf of Wall Street  - relevant, entertaining, and defined by skilled acting - that makes watching the Oscars still an important annual ritual.

Now, for my predictions:

OSCAR HOST: Ellen DeGeners will do a fantastic job as emcee of the Academy Awards. She is extremely funny, down to earth, and virtually universally well-liked. She'll do a better job than Seth MacFarlane, without question, though it remains to be seen if she'll top her own 2007 hosting performance for which she won an Emmy.

BEST PICTURE: 12 Years a Slave

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club)

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE: Judi Dench (Philomena) 

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Frozen

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Gravity

BEST DIRECTING: American Hustle

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: The Act of Killing

BEST FILM EDITING: American Hustle