Mike Gravel has rocks in his head

September 15, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

I’ll admit I don’t recall the Senate career of Mike Gravel.

I was a teenager then and wasn’t paying much attention to politics. But what I’ve read about him since then sounds impressive: He railed against the war in Vietnam, brokered a deal that helped end the draft and arranged for the Pentagon Papers to appear in the Congressional Record.

Not bad accomplishments. That’s why it’s sad to see Gravel now wasting his time and squandering his reputation by seeking the Democratic presidential nomination – a goal no one with even an ounce of sense believes he can achieve.

The Washington Post Magazine profiled Gravel recently as it explored the question of what makes a candidate with no chance of winning stay in a race. The picture of Gravel that emerges is kind of pathetic. He comes off as an old crank, constantly reminding his campaign manager that street parking is cheaper than garages and chiding another aide for leaving a can of trail mix in a green room.

Worse yet, Gravel seems to have forgotten how the U.S. government works. The big idea of his campaign is a plan to institute national initiatives, whereby people could vote directly on policy proposals.

There’s a reason why our government is not a pure democracy. Given a chance, a misguided majority might fall prey to momentary whims or be whipped into a frenzy by well-heeled special interests with glitzy TV ads and enact policies that are short-sighted and even dangerous.

Our republican government protects us from that.

The idea is that our elected representatives will debate and execute policy on our behalf after deliberation. If we do not like the decisions they make, we can vote them out at the next opportunity. (Yeah, I know — that’s the idea, anyway. We all know we fall short, but at least that’s the concept behind our Constitution, and maybe someday we’ll get back to it.)

I shudder to think what might become law under a system of national initiatives. Would we vote to replace teaching evolution with creationism or restrict the rights of gay people even further? Why not have Christian prayer in school every day or do away with all gun-control laws?

Gravel also proposes subjecting federal judges to a vote. Once again he does not seem to understand our Constitution. Lord knows I’m no fan of some of the people on the federal bench these days, but they are appointed for life for a reason: Enforcing the Constitution often means making decisions that are unpopular. Federal judges must be free from the pressure of a mob threatening retaliation at the ballot box.

Gravel had an interesting political career. To this day, the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers published is known as “the Senator Gravel edition.” He should proud of his time in the Senate and let that be his legacy. Gravel’s current crusade only guarantees that he’ll be remembered as a Harold Stassen-type kook and a footnote to the 2008 race. It’s an embarrassing way to exit public life.

“Our republican government protects us from that.

Just the tiniest quibble, Morbo.

I know that you used a small “r” in the word “republican,” but the sentence made me wince. I would have said “republican form of government.” Our present Republican government is an abomination that would horrify our founding fathers.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied Franklin. “If you can keep it.”

  • After seeing his silent staring ad, well… He might have some good ideas or intentions but otherwise he’s just Don Quixote tilting windmills, but with an imaginery Pancho at his side.

  • Another reason not to decide presidential “policy” decisions on the basis of the popular vote is because of the Bill of Rights, amendments to the Constitution, that protect citizens’ rights. Many people don’t even know what they are.

    The rightwing religious nuts would have the government interfering in peoples’ religion and even establish their version of Christianity as a State religion.

    Other rightwingers would have the government forbid free speech.

    Other rightwingers would have the government search and seize citizens and/or their belongings without cause.

    Some would have the government deprive American citizens of life, liberty, and their possessions without due process.

    Some people would have American citizens arrested and held without open and fair trials.

    Others would have cruel and unusual punishments inflicted on people accused of or convicted of crimes.

    I sure don’t want people VOTING on issues that are firmly protected by the Bill of Rights. We already have an American president who’s in line for eventual criminal charges because he and his administration have already violated the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

    Nobody wants mob rule except the mob.

  • Although I will whole-heartedly agre that the Gravel of today is not the Gravel that helped pull this nation from the disaster that was the Vietnam Conflict, his hair-brained campaign planks offer the the People of this Republic something fundamentally essential to the optimal functioning of that Republic—and yet, also dangerously lacking. That missing cornerstone is Civics.

    We find the United States of today embroiled in multiple “debates;” arguments might be a better term, or perhaps scream festivals would be a phrase more worthy of defining the hateful divisiveness that our political philosophy has become. We see instances, piled one atop another like a stack of blocks erected by a toddler, of soundbytes promoting a unilateral control of the population by a self-imagined unilateral executive and his scurrilous band of pundits, promoting themselves as a fair-and-balanced cadre of truth-speaking “journalists.”

    Rule Number One: Never trust someone who thinks they need to obtain a patent for the phrase “fair-and-balanced” in order to prove that they are fair and balanced. It’s identical to someone labelling the legalized commission of crimes against the Republic as a “patriot act” in order to prove that crimes against the Republic are, indeed, an act of patriotism.

    But, I digress, and therefore return to the issue of Mr. Gravel.

    Rather, as has become the political norm in this age of NCLB, unwarranted wiretapping, and extraordinary reditions, I would suggest that Mr. Gravel has offered the People of the United States a “new way forward” that actually serves as a path backwards; reversing course to the point in our political time when we provided—nay, demanded—the teaching of Civics coursework in our high schools, so that the upcoming generation of voters would understand exactly “why” a Senator’s job description and duties are so vastly different from those of a Representative, and why a Judge is appointed to a federal bench for life, rather than be subjected to a fixed term of service and mandated re-election protocols

    I will fully support the concept that Gravel is ‘now wasting his time and squandering his reputation.” I will further attest that Gravel exudes an aura of “pathetic crankiness”—apt terms to identify what he has become in the sunset of his political career. And, I will stand with the belief that “Gravel seems to have forgotten how the U.S. government works.”

    But only if that agreement includes the acceptance that the People, thus the Republic itself, have likewise forgotten how that government works. Such forgetfulness has given rise to the current administration and its policies of deceit, secretiveness, and overt criminality. Such forgetfulness has afforded a tenacious foothold on the beachheads of the American citizen’s mind by the hatemongering forces of the Rush Limbaughs; the Sean Hannitys; the Ann Coulters of the world.

    Such forgetfulness threatens the very fabric of the Constitution, and the elemental existence of the Republic itself, and offers an open door to those forces who would, for their own xenophobic prosperity, subject this nation’s population into a blended concoction of theocratic servitude, sociopolitical enslavement, and intellectual imprisonment.

    Perhaps the Quixotic statements offered by Mr. Gravel should be interpreted as an opportunity to bring forth among the People a discussion as to why our government works the way it does—and further, to address the more immediate issue as to why such a discussion is so necessary, as an alternative to the further subjecting of the Republic to the vagaries, indulgences, and ignorances that began with the rise of one Prescott Bush and his “less-than-spectacular spawn who now occupies the executive branch of this government—and seeks to either greedily possess or unconstitutionally overthrow the other branches of that government….”

  • I for one am happy to have someone out there who is not just a carbon copy, not afraid to say what they really think, and not mincing thru the tulips of pc.

    It is not that I think Gravel would make a good president, (although maybe he would…couldn’t be worse than what we have now) but I think we need Gravel in there as a reminder of truth and to offer novel perspectives.

  • “There’s a reason why our government is not a pure democracy. Given a chance, a misguided majority might fall prey to momentary whims or be whipped into a frenzy by well-heeled special interests with glitzy TV ads and enact policies that are short-sighted and even dangerous.

    Our republican government protects us from that.”

    These are the same kind of arguments that were put forth to prevent republican governments from forming as well. Have you done any research into this? When I look at how people vote on the initiatives here in California, my impression is that people are generally more fiscally responsible — while more generous where it matters — than what we have seen from representatives in recent years.

    Can you honestly say that there is a greater risk from special interests affecting the people than there is from special interests who finance political campaigns affecting the representatives?

    Can you honestly say that the likes of George W. and Fred Thompson are more trustworthy at not forming “short-sighted and even dangerous” policies than the people?

    Can you honestly say that if there was a nationwide vote on the war tomorrow, the results from the people would be worse than the results we receive from our executive and legislative branch?

    With modern technology, we are finally in a position to apply democracy on a larger scale. If we had a representative democracy that was not captive to special interests, and which was required to spend years studying policy, diplomacy, economics, etc. before making decisions, and was not beholden to parties — then you might have a point.

    But as it stands, we would do better with real democracy.

  • He comes off as an old crank, constantly reminding his campaign manager that street parking is cheaper than garages […]

    Well, isn’t it? To my mind, all that shows is that he’s fiscally responsible; cuts his suit according to the fabric he has, rather than putting it on a credit card. And I, for one, would appreciate it, if I were one of his supporters/contributors to know that my money isn’t mindlessly wasted.

    Regarding the life-long terms of the judges vs elections for shorter terms. There’s a third, middle, option. Confirmed nomintations, same as now, but with a limited term. The term could be long — say,18 yrs — but not die-in-your-boots one. That would be enough guarantee of independence of judgement. But it would also mean that someone trying to “stack” the judicial system could do it for a limited time only, which might make it not worth as much effort. As things are, we’re looking at 40 yrs or more of Alito and Roberts; never, for a minute, think their age didn’t figure in the WH calculations as to whom to nominate. With long, but limited, terms and with staggered replacements, every president would get a chance to nominate “his own”– who’d be replaced at a predictable time, by another president — whoever it was and whatever his agenda.

  • You argue the constitutionality of the National Initiative. Well, who better to argue that point than Gravel and his non-profit organization himself.

    The constitutionality of the NI4D: http://ni4d.org/constitutionality.htm

    Also you say, “He railed against the war in Vietnam, brokered a deal that helped end the draft and arranged for the Pentagon Papers to appear in the Congressional Record.

    *Not bad* accomplishments.”

    Not bad! My god, this is the definition of what a public servant is. The idealistic resume of a Senator, one that is a Profile in Courage. Not bad? C’mon now…its more than that.

  • I like Gravel’s National Initiatives. And yes, I agree that there is the opportunity for a crazy mob rule which is scary. We all know how mobilized the reichwing and it GOTV is. And we know lobbyists will run slick ads and they would be effective When I looked at his site a few months ago, I beleive they had put in some sort of checks and balances to ensure that our worst instincts would be tempered. I want the populace to talk about some of these things. I wish he weren’t so irrascible and cranky, I’d love to see him get a bit more looks, just because some of the ideas he’s talking about offer a fresh perspective from the usual DC Bubble/ Consultant vetted tripe we’re fed to on a daily basis.

  • FROM: http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/democratic-presidential-candidate-mike.html

    Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel participated in Holocaust denial conference

    Yes…you read that correctly. Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska, now running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, addressed a 2003 conference of the Holocaust denying “Barnes Review”. A photograph of Gravel at the podium is currently posted at the website of the Adelaide Institute, a notorious anti-Semitic group based in Australia. The subject of his address was the oppressive influence of America’s “power elites”.

    Fellow participants in the conference included fugitive from justice Christopher Bollyn, anti-Semitic conspiracy nut Eustace Mullins, Liberty Lobby founder Willis Carto, Adelaide Institute founder Fredrick Töben, Christian Identity preacher Dale Crowley and Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father and campaigner against a Jewish Masonic conspiracy to control the Vatican.

  • Like all of us Gravel was so outraged by the Bush administration and frustrated as hell that the Dems in office, especially since given them the majority back, have been useless to stop him and what he’s done to the constitution he probably felt that somebody has got to stand up and stop him, to make Americans aware that they ‘are’ the real power and nobody but Kucinich was doing that, so he threw his hat in the ring just to show us how to do it. But talk about ‘disgruntled’. Sooner or later he will have to bow out but he shows us all how to stand up and that we can. Still……

    Kucinich is the only candidate that will bring about “real” change. And since electability is not an issue in this presidential election for once we don’t have to compromise on candidates, for that reason and we can get what we really want .

    Kucinich/Edwards ’08…the truth ticket…make it happen…it means real change.

  • Adam at 12.
    Gravel does not deny the Holocaust. Kindly stop slandering the man and always double check such claims.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#Barnes_Review_controversy
    “Gravel has said repeatedly that he does not share such a view, stating “You better believe I know that six million Jews were killed. I’ve been to the Holocaust Museum. I’ve seen the footage of General Eisenhower touring one of the camps. They’re [referring to the Barnes Review, and publisher Willis Carto] nutty as loons if they don’t think it happened”.

    Catherine @7
    What Morbo and other critics forget is that referenda, just like regular laws, are shot down if unconstitutional. Even if the National Initiative came to pass, there’d be no mob rule.

    We MIGHT get some great laws passed though.
    Cafe standards of 40mpg by 2020?
    Congressional salaries forever fixed at 15 times minimum wage?
    Defense contractors banned from further contracts for one month for every percent over budget they go?

    None could happen in a republic.

  • “Given a chance, a misguided majority might fall prey to momentary whims or be whipped into a frenzy by well-heeled special interests with glitzy TV ads and enact policies that are short-sighted and even dangerous.

    Our republican government protects us from that.”

    Say what? It does? Since when? Seems to me–granted, i’m kind of cranky–that this is exactly, down to a science, what our republican government does to us every day. But maybe it is just me…and no, i don’t think that a Democratic government would be any better.

  • Mike Gravel doesn’t have to win the nomination to effect real change. He’s pushing the debate in the right direction, and he could easily win if all the people who complain about “politics as usual” would shut up and listen to the truth he is speaking. I don’t know enough about NI4D, but Mike’s right on Iraq, and a lot of other important issues. Mike Gravel has my support until he loses or quits.

    Morbo, Mike Gravel is the reason you’re not patroling the streets of Baghdad. You should have more respect.

  • I think there is a big risk in adopting a national referendum, but at the same time, a big reward.

    The risk is that we’ll get a bunch of uneducated rednecks voting the way the TV tells them to because they can’t think for themselves (yet), or feel they have to vote based on their party affiliation. (We can’t have put on all these “W” bumper stickers in vain. Stay the course, eventually our choice of an incompetent liar will be justified!)

    The reward is that those rednecks just might start thinking for themselves. Under the current system, when you get screwed by your elected official, you have to wait for years to do something about it, and even then your choices are limited to our two party system of “this jerk you know, or that other jerk you really can’t stand”. But under a referendum system, you could actually hold them to account, or avoid them altogether and focus on the issues. And as people realize that they actually *can* make a difference in government again, they will get more involved. Talk to their neighbors about the issues, become more civic minded, etc.

    Sure, mistakes will be made. But our representative government is making mistakes right now, often intentionally for money or polls, and is incapable of admitting wrong doing. At least the American people can make their own mistakes, for good reasons, and learn from them.

  • Gravel doesn’t want laws to be passed entire by referenda. Congress would still vote on them AFTER the people do, even under his plan. And this system already works in 24 states, and we haven’t experienced a collapse of civilization yet.

    If you’re going to do a hit job on Gravel, at least get your facts straight.

  • TO williamjacobs re #14:

    Gravel now says that he didn’t know he was addressing a Holocaust denial convention, although all the speakers, entertainment and literature was obviously of that ilk. Don’t take my word for it…click the link (http://http//translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adelaideinstitute.org%2F2003TBRConference%2Ftbr2.htm) which I included in my blog post (http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/democratic-presidential-candidate-mike.html) and look at the agenda for the meeting, which is absolutely shocking. The other speakers were literally pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic, nothing subtle about it. Gravel addressed the subject of a secret elite that controls the U.S. in its interest. To paraphrase Gravel: if he didn’t know what was happening, he’s as nutty as a loon.

  • Pingback: The Central Tabulator » Mike Gravel has rocks in his head-Opinion

  • Single handedly deciding our votes, thanks

    Thanks for this rabble, as usual you assume that our “perfect” idea of governance is the only one. Please take a moment and read of the national democracy initiative before you decide to go off and propose that it will be the downfall of society. I believe what the Senator is saying is that it would be a 4th branch, with checks and balances, as the rest have.

    I don’t presume you’ve candidly looked at the stances of the Senator either. If you’d take a look at VAJoe.com, a website devoted to veterans, and our military, you’d find that Senator Gravel is one of the most highly aligned with views in our military, which is a good representation of our population as a whole.

    Here’s the link
    http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

    Next time, before you decide to disrespect somebody with your uneducated, ignorant views, take some time to give us a little bit of proper citation.

    Thank you, Mr. Statistics, for counting my vote before it was cast.

    ~Moderate Wisconsin

    • Comments are closed.