WE’VE MOVED!

Please follow the discussion on our new site dontunfriendus.com

Hey Republicans “Here’s Your Sign”

And so it begins… overwhelming victory by the Republican Party instantly marred by political infighting.  In the prescient words of Dennis Prager, you have “the dangerous party and the stupid party.”  Welcome to the stupid party, get your sign at the door (thank you Bill Engvall).

Here are just a couple of beauties to get us started:

• McConnell fighting Demint to get back earmarks
• New Finance Committee Chair Bachus criticizes Palin for losing the Senate

It is unbelievable to me that we see two such strikingly bad moves so quickly out of the gate from the Republicans.  Rather than have some closed door meetings to discuss their platform and policy and how to bring it about, they drag their fight out into the street for all to see how inept they really are.  Just awful.  I have strong feeling about both of these particular issues so let me tackle each.

Earmarks:

This represents so much of what is wrong with government.  The process admittedly has some value as it does allow some money to be funneled into the actual states and districts of the elected officials, but any real conservative should recognize that these by definition represent growing government.  Furthermore, they open the door to buy-offs on votes as we have seen most notably with the earmarks on things like the healthcare bill.  Also, the money coming into those districts give those particular politicians unnecessary power to “buy-off” some local goodwill with unions, corporations, etc.  In general, they represent a distinctly unconservative approach while opening the door to potential corruption or at least the political gamesmanship that has been so roundly criticized in these elections.  The fact that McConnell wants to bring them back only highlights how out of touch he is with the electorate.  Getting rid of earmarks isn’t important because of how much money it will save from the budget (no more than a drop in the ocean) it is more a philosophical approach to governing and a statement that politics as usually won’t be tolerated.

Palin cost the GOP the Senate:

This is such an arrogant and out of touch statement I don’t know where to begin.  The GOP powers fought against the Tea Party in the primaries in places like Delaware and to a lesser degree Alaska.  They backed establishment candidates rather than let the will of the people within those states determine who they thought the best candidate would be and then put their funding into the general election.  Then when the general election rolled around they poured more money into races like Fiorina vs. Boxer that were a much longer shot than the Colorado and Washington races where less funding and coordination were poured in and then the candidates lost.  The Tea Party is a disconnected, grassroots movement without the fully established political machine that is needed to really generate quality candidates and the full pipeline to get candidates developed and elected.  Rather then help get them more organized they relied on Karl Rove and other outside sources to do this and then fought against them.  Then when things didn’t go their way they blame Palin and the Tea Party for their own failures.  Arrogant and out of touch.  They wouldn’t even have sniffed the gains they received without the Tea Party and the House would likely still be in Democrat hands as well.

So what next?  I hope that the GOP wakes up and smartens up.  They should get rid of earmarks all together as a sign of moving away from old politics and a move towards conservative ideals.  They should put Bachus in his place as he wouldn’t have any chair if the Tea Party never came around.  Really, I would like to see a better balance in both houses of Tea Party leadership.  I know some think that the Tea Party is a marginal group, but they are an important voice within the party and represent a call to conservatism.  They should have a significant part of the party makeup of leadership as this article proposes.  Perhaps they need not take over the party, but they need to shape the party towards what the electorate has asked for.  I actually think Boehner is a reasonable man and should make for an excellent Speaker of the House.  He seems to embrace the changing dynamic of the party and my hope is that he can solve the divide by splitting the power of the party to include some Tea Party candidates.  That is really the only hope or it may be a short lived victory… don’t put your sign away yet Republicans.

Boomer Politics – The Unspoken Agenda

Some of my favorite people belong to the fabled “Boomer Generation,” loosely defined as people who were born between the years 1946 and 1964, and the last thing that I intend to do with this post is to offend my parents or others who are in my life by ascribing shared attributes among them.   By many estimates, this population bulge, or “pig in the python,” includes approximately 1/3 of America, and as of 1/1/2011 this generation officially enters its “Golden Age,” and it is my premise here is not to make sweeping generalizations about an entire cohort of Americans, but rather to evoke critical thought and offer a slightly different lens to consider the national debate about politics, budget deficits, entitlements, etc.

The Boomers in America were born in an era of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. As a group, they experienced opportunities for education, health services, and opportunity than no other generation of human beings had ever been privileged to receive, given to them in part by the frugality and work ethic of their parents, known commonly as “The Greatest Generation.” They were an idealist generation who in the 1960s fought for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, and who protested the Vietnam War when it escalated in the mid to late 1960s when they were being asked to sacrifice their lives and their ideals. They came of age during the late 1970s and in many ways became the economic and political voice of America throughout the 1980s into our current time. It was the Boomers, not their parents, who vastly supported the pre-Boomer Ronald Reagan and his Conservative Agenda that brought about the past 30 years of consistent tax reduction across the board, but which heavily favored the wealthy and affluent. The Boomers also alternated between de-funding the very programs that promoted their success and upward mobility (access to education, targeted programs to address poverty, healthcare), and deficit spending to maintain these programs. In other words, Boomers wanted to have more money in their pockets yet were unwilling to sacrifice and pay for what they wanted from the government. And this political drama has ruled our national debate and will have a lasting impact that will far exceed their time left here on this planet.

I have several points that speak to the national political debate, yet cast a different hue its content when you consider the impact that the boomers have had as they re-shaped the world around them because of their numbers

• They vote, and they vote in larger numbers than other generations do
• They are increasingly “conservative,” in that they preach fiscal responsibility, yet in no way do their lives or their politics reflect that.
• They have lived their lives in relative affluence, privilege, and comfort, and have handed to the generations of Americans that are following them a degraded infrastructure (on many levels, from economic to social programs to roads and bridges) that their parents worked and paid for, which they inherited but will not be giving back to the rest of us
• They managed to take relatively successful programs (prior to the 1980s) — Social Security and Medicare — and turn them into huge problems by their self-centered inattention (i.e. The ‘Me’ Generation)
• They blame the generations that follow them for the degradation in social values that they ushered in and demanded for themselves, and for not succeeding through “upward mobility” as they had done, despite the fact that the mean income levels have not increased since they have been in power (1980s) and the free or low cost education that they enjoyed is no longer an option.  Then they blame us by calling us “slackers” for not having “achieved” what they had by their age.

My point – The Boomers’ denial of their creation of the problems that we face and willingness to make the sacrifices that they feel entitled to is the younger generations of American’s destiny.  The framework of “Conservative versus Liberal” politics is something that we need to move past in order to pragmatically address the real issues of our place in the world, both domestically and internationally.  Instead, the conversation needs to move towards sacrifice, responsiblity, and investment in the very people (younger people and immigrants) who will presumably be paying for all the debt that this generation has accrued. While this past election gave lip service to these necessities, I highly doubt, based on their past behavior, that as a generation they will take the responsibility of the degradation they have fostered since they have gained status and power. In other words, they broke it, but we bought it.

At one point, they rebelled. They were going to change the world with their ideals. Freedom was their mantra (and it still is!) They were not going to oppress like they had been “oppressed.” Now, a more appropriate quote would be from George Orwell, “No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

But what do I know, I am just an “apathetic,” “cynical,” and “disengaged” Gen-Xer!

Whatever…

Hope and Change Redux

It is kind of funny to me that we have heard quite a bit about compromise over the last week or so.  From Jon Stewart to national Democrats and even Greg’s last post.  My question is – where was this for the last 2 years?  When Obama campaigned on his so called ability to reach across the aisle to get things done and promised bipartisan policy, people believed him.  When he was having closed door meetings with Democrats to write the massive Healthcare Reform Act, where was the compromise?  Even when he decided to meet with key Republicans about the Healthcare Bill face to face and then took absolutely none of their ideas, where was the bipartisan policy?  Apparently it took a mid-term beating of epic proportions to drill the message into the head of Obama and the Democrats that their policies did not represent compromise nor the will of the people.

So what now?  There are few interesting things to watch for and some major questions that need to be answered:

• Will Obama be willing to compromise?
• Will the Republicans become more than just a contrarian party over the next 2 years?
• Has the GOP learned its lesson about conservative politics or will it be business as usual?

Let’s take them one at a time.  Nothing in his first two years has indicated that Obama is likely to compromise.  In one sense he will have very little choice as Congress does hold the purse strings so it will be tough to get any legislation that would require any major spending.  In another sense, the arrogance Obama has shown over the first term may only heighten with this and he will be less likely to work things out with both parties.  He will be in the crosshairs for each decision and now does not have the power to push things through.  This may only frustrate him and polarize the nation more.  My hope is he takes a page out of Clinton’s book and moves to the middle so things can get done and our nation can get better.  There were some hints at a desire to cooperate in his speech yesterday, but really still no acknowledgement that his ideas and policies might not be what the people want.  There was still the consistent message of angry voters not really grasping how great the things he wants to do really are.  I fear this arrogance and inability to see the unpopular viewpoints are unpopular due to philosophical content will lead to a very contentious 2 years.

As for the Republicans, they now actually have some power to try to accomplish some things.  They can no longer just run against the policies of Obama but must take some focused and actual attempts to put forth legislation that represents the will of the people that put them into power.  While a repeal of Healthcare is extremely unlikely with Dems controlling the Senate and Obama holding the veto pen, choosing certain funding controls of the bill will allow some control and that should be an important step.  Also, it will be interesting to see what else they can come up with to improve the economy as that is one of the key elements from this election.

The last question may be perhaps the most interesting of the bunch.  What is the GOP takeaway from all of this?  The Tea Party movement and the nation in general is asking for a smaller (and I would add more transparent/controlled) government.  We will see by who gets into power in the House Committees if they have learned their lesson or if they are just going to go back to their old ways.  Will they permanently ban earmarks or slide back into political games again.  My fear is that they have not learned anything and we will see the return of earmarks and moderate/liberal senior Republicans grabbing the committee chairs while the younger more conservative reps that represent the current will of the people are left out in the cold.  Furthermore, there is definitely still some infighting within the party as the establishment GOP takes swipes at people like Jim Demint who is a Tea Party type guy and has been encouraging the new class not to fall into old habits and be swayed by the political games.  Really this election could have gone even more conservative if the RNC had not tried to cherry pick primary candidates and has not been so reticent to throw money into Tea Party directions and instead focused on unlikely elections with more establishment candidates.  This will be an interesting subplot over the next two years where the Tea Party may continue to build on this victory and will have power leading into 2012 to influence primaries and again get establishment republicans out of office if they aren’t living up to the will of the people.

As a Conservative I am obviously happy about the swing back towards more conservative values.  As an American I am happy because I think it shows how people can make their voice heard.  It is going to be a very interesting 2 years where America can get better because of compromise or it can get worse because of politicking and partisanship.  Either way it is a new era of “Hope and Change”.

The Drama of Liberals and Conservatives

A fun little allegory that springboards off of Mark’s Liberalism – Disease or Mutation post.

Once upon a time, there were two brothers named Liberetor and Conservatron. They faced many challenges together, however could never seem to agree on both what the nature of the challenge was, and the solution that would follow. In fact, it seemed that neither was interested in finding solutions to problems, instead they were set on proving that the other was somehow misguided.

Liberetor believed whole heartedly that he was “special” and was able to see things that his brother could not. The world was a fascinating and magical place for him, full of opportunities and wonder, and he saw himself within it as being particularly gifted, insightful, and with a more complex perspective. At times, his view of things was distorted, as he tended to be suspicious of “normalcy” and anything that seemed to him to be “ordinary.” He avoided seeing things as they “are,” but rather was tuned into his feelings and abstract beliefs about the world. When a problem emerged in his life, Liberetor consistently engaged in a process where he first would belittle those he identified with the problem as being “average and uninformed,” offer a view of the problem as being part of some conspiracy in the form of an –ism (i.e. racism, sexism, etc.), and then he would militantly argue his case to fit his worldview that we are all “victims” of one form or another, and would offer “solutions” that tended not to solve anything, but rather reinforce his “open minded” perspective and proved to him and the world how “compassionate” and “understanding” he was. His mind was so open, that his brain seemed like it was about to fall out…

Conservatron saw things very differently and found Liberetor to be very unappealing. He saw clearly that there was an “order” to things that he had some kind of special knowledge about. This order was clear as day to him, there was a “right” and a “wrong” way to do everything. He tended to be a perfectionist, and at times this led him to want to “control” the behavior of others around him because their life was “contaminated” by subversive agendas that to him threatened his “objective” and pure way of seeing the world. Often, he was unreasonably insisted that others submit exactly to his way of doing things. He liked lists and categorizing individuals into his black and white vision of the world. He tended to hoard things that he thought were important, such as money, resources, opportunities, for people that he judged as being “deserving” because his inflexible categorization of them. He kept a ledger of all the ways that others have “harmed” him in the past and justified the anger that he felt when people did not follow his rules, order, and schedules because they were just “lazy and looking for a free ride” off of his hard work.

While they both had something to offer, neither of them were able to solve any problems in their lives because of their dramas, which they both equally were plagued by. In that way, they had much more in common than they realized. Whenever a problem emerged, both defined it “personally,” in that it said something about who they are and that it was about their “being in the world.” Liberetor saw problems as evidence that his uniqueness and special awareness was not being acknowledged, and when it came to things that Conservatron preferred, the problem was evidence that he was being persecuted by his rigidity and simple-mindedness. If only Conservatron could “see” the interplay of all complex dimensions of life that only he had because of his education, intelligence, or elite understanding of things, then he would come to his senses. Conservatron saw problems as evidence that the world is “contaminated” by the subversive elements, and in particular he saw that Liberetor was challenging his “pure and objective” vision of the right and wrong, which he had because of his moral authority. That automatically put Liberetor’s ideas in the “wrong” category.

Both Liberertor and Conservatron courted others to “agree or disagree” with them, and emphasized details about the problem that reinforced their position of “specialness” or “contamination,” while ignoring or explained away evidence that contradicted them. When both of them escalated emotionally, their often irrational behavior was justified as “proving” that how their reaction was appropriate. Liberetor was justified because he was a victim of being misunderstood (of course, because of Conservatron’s lack of empathy, intelligence, etc.) and Conservatron was justified because he and only he could “fix” the situation because he alone was “right” and deserved to be “powerful.” Unfortunately, whatever the original problem was that emerged, it got lost in the process of proving their existential identities, and therefore the original problem remained unaddressed, amplified, or unintended new problems were created.

A wise teacher named Pragmatist Prime tried to give them a way to address the process of drama that they were both drawn to. First, he suggested that they did not define the problems that they both faced “personally,” but rather “operationally.” This meant that they tried to distinguish the problem as something that does not “prove” a preconceived worldview, but rather in the context of data that could be measured and how that data both fits their shared values and hopes for outcomes. Then they both could, without judgment, offer solutions (quantity over quality) that they both could think could address the problem. The solutions would be judged by how they could be measured and how it increases the likelihood of actualizing their shared values and preferred outcomes. They would agree to try a solution and put limits on the length of time that the solution would be implemented until they had concrete, observable data that could be evaluated. Adjustments could be made along the way to address the unintended consequences of their actions, and they both would have to ultimately agree that they both would be better off if the problem was addressed over proving that the other was “wrong” or “uninformed” all along.

The question is… Can they do it? Or will the drama just continue and the problems remain unaddressed?

America’s Jester Argues Sanity

The Jester is an archetypal symbol of honesty and common sense, who was given license to speak freely and to mock those in power by saying things about the Royal Court that would otherwise be forbidden.  Sure, he wore brightly colored clothing, juggled and sang, but symbolically he could be seen as the King’s most trusted adviser because his ambitions were not political, but satirical.  Jon Stewart has emerged as our country’s jester over the past 10 years, and recently he has been named America’s Most Influential Man because of the reason that underscores his lampooning.  Yesterday, he organized the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear with his pseudo-conservative blowhard foil, Stephen Colbert (in his full Regalia Americana), and their message, which was tamed for a more general audience, was spot on.  I only wish that I could have been in DC to enjoy the spirit of the day…

There were several key moments (and a lot of filler) leading up to his sobering yet hopeful final speech.  For a brief moment, I thought that the universe was going to explode or at least the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse would have rode through town when Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) and Ozzy Osbourne shared a stage as Jon and Stephen argued about which train (Peace Train or Crazy Train) they were going to take.  I enjoyed the fact (surprisingly, based on some earlier posts) that NPR, along with many other news outlets, was called out with a “Fear Medal” because they had banned their staff from attending this apolitical rally to give the appearance of being “objective.” Equally surprising to some would be my pleasure in seeing Velma Hart, who had the most real and sobering moment with President Obama that I have seen since he took his Oath.  I am sure that the Democrats were disappointed that this rally will not likely provide them a boost on Tuesday…

I was also very happy to see Jon and Stephen also sang a great song that mocked liberal and conservative patriotism in a way that highlighted the fact that we may have differences of opinion on a lot of matters, but neither pole has a monopoly on truth. I will not be surprised if above all else this song gets the most criticism, simply because of the mirror that it holds up to the political self-righteousness and demagoguery that has defined the past 20 years or so in a way that really puts our collective anxiety in sharp focus. Jon Stewart highlights this succinctly when he said in his final speech, “…we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.”

Jon goes on to make the point that when we fill our minds through our consumption of media, talking points, and narratives of Extreme Heartless Crazies and Socialist Muslim Kenyans, our problems are amplified and that solving them becomes all that much harder. By labeling and categorizing each other, and focusing on the worst and loudest among us, we miss the opportunity to hear the legitimate concerns and pragmatic solutions that both sides have to offer. Not being able to distinguish between honest differences that may be cultural, ethnic, philosophical, or otherwise and the unhealthy extremes of any of these social constructs, we actually make things worse because, simply put, we need a healthy civil debate about how to best solve our economic and geopolitical problems. Jon offers us a solution to consider

Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals. Most Americans live their lives that our just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often it’s something they do not want to do, but they do it. Impossible things get done every day that are only made possible by the little, reasonable compromises.

He then critically decries that the only place that this does not happen is in D.C. and cable TV news…

This week, we will have the opportunity to collectively have our say through our votes. I hope that, whatever the outcome, our elected civil servants do not hear a “mandate for an agenda,” but rather a call for transparency, compromise, and pragmatic problem solving. We have had too many incidents of over interpreting the results of our elections since at least 2004, and the torch of “change” has not been managed by both the Democrats and the Republicans.  I am not sure that leadership on both sides are thinking along those terms, as compromise has become such a dirty word in politics.  Instead, it has been equated with capitulation and weakness… The next two years seem like they will get worse (more partisan) and not better, unless of course we take action ourselves by getting informed, getting involved, and communicating to your representatives through phone calls and writing letters that the change we really want is less drama, realistic and fair policy, and most importantly authentic representation.

Liberalism – Disease or Mutation?

Science is a wonderful thing… it has added to it’s list of wonderful achievements by proving something that we have known all along – liberals are different than the rest of the human race.  It turns out that there is a gene linked to the likelihood that one is categorized as liberal.  Here is the article discussing this study:

http://news.discovery.com/human/is-there-a-liberal-gene.html

I am being a little tongue in cheek with my initial paragraph above, but for some reason I found this article and the possibility of genetically linked political ideology fascinating.  Perhaps I shouldn’t be really surprised by any of this.  As we learn more and more about the brain and genetic make up, we will probably see a lot more traits that have significant genetic links.  There is a recent study possibly identifying a “gay gene” as well.  I think it will just be a matter of time until science reaches the point that most traits and tendencies have some form of genetic link to them.

This is a slightly different post from prior ones as there is possibly less about current politics and more about science, but I actually had some thoughts about this that seemed interesting to me…

Assuming for a second that the above study does prove to be valid and there is in fact a genetic link to liberal ideology, there may actually be some interesting conclusions we can draw.  No matter what you believe about creation vs. evolution, this genetic trait just existing would have to serve some kind of purpose.  Either it was put there by a creator or it has evolved to the point where it is part of our current makeup in our human population.  Since it is here, it must be useful in some way, shape or form.  The supposition of the study was the idea that being open to new ideas would lead one to be more liberal and I think in general, liberals and progressives are more apt to look for change.  I think this is a pretty valid characterization and moreover, is an important trait to have in general humanity.  I think we can all agree that there is at least some value in the idea that we should be looking for change to make things better around us.

The question in my mind is how common this gene is and will be in the general population.  If it is a minority of the population and remains a minority of the population then it serves as more of a check or control of the majority.  If it is a majority of the population, then we would see society as a whole pushing more and more for change.  Generally speaking, it does not seem that we as a human race are seeking change, but rather we tend towards balance and consistency.  That is why it seems likely that it is an important minority trait that will help us push ourselves forward and keep us from getting complacent.  I can’t really see how it could ever become the true majority as it is so counter to much of the rest of our natural instincts and brings with it such volatility in the instance where an overwhelming majority exercised this trait.

Anyway, all of this is merely an intellectual game at this point, as the science offers nothing very practical for us.  I am guessing they will likely find a conservative gene at some point too and we can have another post with just the opposite points of view associated with it.  The main take away for me is the notion that different ideologies are actually critically important to the fabric of our society.  We wouldn’t be where we are without the competing view points and tensions across political lines.  It is this necessity that calls all of us to be open to opposing viewpoints not because the other side “can’t help it” but rather because they are a necessary part of what makes up a society and humanity in general.  We need to recognize the importance of diversity within a group and eschew homogeneity.  Blogs like this are great to debate points and challenge the other side to think more, but realize that on the whole, there is no perfect ideology.  It is balancing the blend that will keep us moving forward on the right things at the right pace.

(Either that or Liberals will start a new political branch known as the X-Men)

The Myth of the Independent Voter

Its no secret that the “Independent Voter” is an important group to court if a politician wants to win a state or national election. While re-districting, which will be an important process after the current election cycle, will essentially hand Republicans a lot of power for the next decade due to gerrymandering, this trick of the trade does not apply to voting with Senatorial or Gubernatorial races, and certainly not with the Presidential elections. I argue that the “Independent Voter” is not a class of voter that should be lauded, but rather viewed cynically, because the construct is somewhere between “benignly ignorant” and “emotionally populist,” which may on the one hand be helpful in terms of manipulating political messages and narratives but ultimately harmful in terms of being pragmatic and pushing our government officials to serve our nation better.

First off, not being designated as a “Republican” or a “Democrat” does not make you part of the fabled classification of voter of “Independent.” In Massachusetts, we call our unaffiliated the “undecided,” and in some ways this is accurate and in other ways not as much. A recent AP poll suggests that as many as 1/3 of voters surveyed are still unsure on who they will vote for on November 2nd, and they are consistently expressing dissatisfaction with both parties, albeit they are leaning towards a Republican vote. While it has been argued back and forth between Mark and I what this leaning might mean, I think we can at least both agree it is motivated by dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration in general and the effectiveness of Congress to legislate quickly and effectively towards positive change in the state of America’s economy. While I may advocate for a Robert Reich/Paul Krugman remedy and Mark certainly advocates more for a Paul Ryan approach, we can certainly agree that the hope and change that was promised inevitably has fallen short because of the reality of the brokenness of Congress.

And so the Democratic base will vote Democrat and the Republican base will vote Republican. TEA party folks will get enthusiastic about anyone who waves a flag and says that they are an “outsider that is pro-freedom, smaller government, and lower taxes,” and cynical liberals like myself really have no one to champion our point of view, so we will begrudgingly vote for a Democrat or just stay home (at least I can vote for Jill Stein for Governor in MA…). But the independents… give me a break! It is the Independents that vote emotionally on how they feel, are swayed back and forth by “gotcha” politics and hyperbolic TV ads, and who have no real opinions about our nation and choose to be un-informed… I don’t know, I just think that if you are going to bother to vote, you really should take the responsibility seriously and get informed. The idea that people still are unsure, and would rather vote to “send a message,” prescribed and canned by your friendly neighborhood 501 C advocacy group and paid for by God knows who, to me represents the worst of our uninformed self absorbed culture.

I understand that many people who describe themselves as “Independent” are likely disaffected Democrats and Republicans who choose not to say they can be counted on to vote for their traditional parties but likely will anyways. That’s fine, call yourself an “Independent” but realize that you really are not. While “common sense” pundrity may argue that the “Independent” voter was key in the recent few election cycles in bringing the Democrats to power in Congress and in the White House, it seems to me that the “Independent” voter tends to votes against rather than for something, and that they are disatisfied with politics but have not taken the time to commit to learning about what a “Conservative” or “Progressive” or “Libertarian” or “Socialist” style of government would mean for them in all realms of public and private life. Instead, they vote on “emotions” and do not commit for no other reason than ignornance. While populism, which in my opinion is the lowest form of all politics, may mean short term gains for a political party, it will ultimately oversell any mandates that a politician “sees” coming from this supposedly “wise” block of voters.

My point: If you have no real opinion about politics, get informed and get involved, or just stay home. Your emotions of Hope from two years ago and your emotions of Fear and/or Anxiety today are getting in the way of any real accountability and discussion of the issues. I would much rather disagree with someone but have a respectful conversation about ideas and informed opinions than have to hear you talk about how you “feel” about this candidate or that, or this religion or that, or this New/Media outlet or that.

NPR Fires a Bigot (Really?)

All I could think of when I heard this story was the Saturday Night Live “Really” skit they do during Weekend Update from time to time.  Really NPR?  You thought that Juan Williams comments violated company “ethics policy”? Really?  And really you felt compelled to have your CEO say Williams should have kept his views about Muslims to himself, “his psychiatrist or his publicist.” Really? And you really felt that somehow appearing on Fox News and giving opinions negated his ability to be a reporter/commentator on NPR?  Really?  Really?

Just for the record here is his statement (talking to Bill O’Reilly):

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Let me just ask the masses out there, is that statement far off base for you guys?  What I mean is that since 9/11 have you found yourself more likely to notice people dressed in Muslim garb on an airplane?  If I am honest with myself I would say that I absolutely do notice it more.  That is the tragedy of 9/11 for all of us.  We have lost our innocence and invincibility.

Now obviously the context of the discussion was related to some comments that Bill O’Reilly made on “The View” where he did make some sweeping statements about Muslims.  That is a completely different discussion, but obviously the fact that Williams was somewhat empathetic with his view is important to the story.  I can appreciate NPR’s desire to keep their news as “unbiased” as possible, but you also must deal in reality.  Williams also said this during the interview:

“political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”

This is the crux of the problem here.  We are so worried about offending the Muslims that we don’t allow ourselves to deal with our feelings honestly.  I would bet any amount of money that a couple if not all the members of “The View” feel the exact same way Williams does.  I would bet a lot of people at NPR that weren’t fired feel the same way.  The problem is that you aren’t allowed to say it.  Why?  We don’t want to offend the Muslims.  I appreciate all that speak with honesty so that we can confront and deal with problems rather than pretend they don’t exist.  This sort of PC mentality seems to promote disingenuous statements  and it covers rather than confronts problems.  Look, we have repeatedly talked about where we are as a country and why we have need of prominent moderate Muslims to step up and take a leadership role in the world so that we have a standard bearer we can look to for sanity.  I would think that if that person existed, they would admit that 9/11 created the very feelings Williams has and while it is unfortunate, it is still a reality.

For NPR to suppress this by firing Williams shows that they are not open to different honest opinions but rather they cow-tow to political correctness.  I am not saying we dismiss everything we hear from them, but it does make you wonder if they are selling out the “fair and balanced” label they would like to have (yes, I know that is Fox News’ slogan).

My hope is that this brings this discussion to the forefront so we don’t have to hide in the shadows about this type of feeling.  I don’t think people that feel this way are bigots and I would wager almost every single one of them wishes they didn’t feel that way.  Williams highlights the reality of 9/11, said what a lot of people think and I really hope that it helps us to move forward on the issue even if that means NPR takes one on the nose for their political correctness… Really.

Democracy for Sale

In the State of the Union address, President Obama stated correctly that, “(w)ith all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

At the heart of the issue is the Citizen’s vs. the Federal Election Commission decision, when the Supreme Court decided (in a 5-4 decision) that corporations, in essence, have the same political free speech rights as individuals, and it opened the door to a wave of undisclosed and virtually unlimited amounts of money being poured into the 2010 mid term elections. While it is no secret that big money from corporate donors, unions, and billionaires has played a significant role in our political landscapes, this SCOTUS decision has essentially degraded the ability of the electorate to fully understand how their vote is being influenced through television ads and how the elections are being shaped by “get out the vote” activities (the latter not being inherently a bad thing, but activities under this guise have put out misinformation about polling stations, requirements for voting, etc.) But what is worst of all is the blindness of the reality of our ever growing oligarchical corporatocracy, and the assurances of the majority decision that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.” As Justice Stevens stated in the dissenting opinion, this ruling goes against common sense, especially since Americans overwhelmingly oppose it (80% oppose or strongly oppose according to an ABC poll).

That was then, this is now… We are seeing all the shenanigans of past elections (lies, hyperbole, opinions presented as facts), but to a degree that is unprecedented. On the one hand, we have the “Taliban Dan” commercial from Democrat Alan Grayson, and on the other hand we have the Crossroads GPS lies about Joe Sestak. For the former, we can repudiate the source of commercial and Floridians can choose not to vote for him. For the latter, we have no idea who paid for this because of the Citizens United decision and therefore, short of voting against Sestak’s opponent, there is no recourse, in terms of citizens using the purchasing power to choose to not buy products and services from the corporate donors of Crossroads GPS, because we don’t know who did this… We know that the other arm of Karl Rove’s clandestine political activities, American Crossroads (a 527 group that has raised $52 million and counting in 2010 in contributions), is 90% funded by 3 billionaires who now have no limits to the amounts they can contribute, but not this new 501 (c) group or other such groups that the Citizens United decision benefited. Opensecrets.org is a great way to learn what you can about how much money is being spent on this election, but it is limited by the lack of transparency delivered to us by the SCOTUS.

We are quickly approaching record spending for this election, and although the FEC will show on October 15th in their quarterly report how much is being and from whom the money is coming from, within the constraints of the Citzens United decision, in all likelihood this will be only about 50% of what was actually spent because the FEC only tracks certain kinds of groups and contributions. 91% of the spending against California’s new energy law is being done by Big Oil Corporations, but because Californians can know this, they can be better informed about what they consume in terms of election propaganda. This is not the case with many other corporately financed forms of electioneering.

We cannot count on our elected politicians, because of the the way in which Campaign Finance law is currently, to take a stand against this kind of influence and to start making policy that is actually in the best interest of the electorate and not in the best interest of corporate profit (although the two are not mutually exclusive, which Mark suggests in his “Two Demons” post). My point is that we need to do what we have in our power to truly “take back America,” but not in the way that the TEA party faithful suggest (in terms of this “radical socialist agenda”). Instead, I call people out to transcend their cynicism and anger and get involved by fixing Congress first. There are some great suggestions and websites out there that are calling for a Constitutional Convention, the only way that I see right now that will change these oligarchical trends. Of the Constitutional Amendments proposed, my favorite is the proposed Campaign Finance and Speech Amendment:

SECTION 1. For the purposes of providing all citizens, regardless of wealth, a more equal opportunity to influence elections, public policy and run for public office; of furthering the principle of “one person, one vote” and preserving a participatory and democratic republic; as well as the purpose of limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption, we the people declare the unlimited use of money to influence elections incompatible with the principle of equal protection established under the Fourteenth Amendment.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election.
SECTION 3. Each state shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of elections in that state.
SECTION 4. The power of each state to set limits on contributions and expenditures shall extend to all elections in that state, including initiative and referendum elections, as well as the power to lower any federal limits for the election of members of Congress to represent the people of that state.
SECTION 5. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.