I want to make a quick note here:
In the last decade or three of governance, a disturbing trend has arisen in politics. The "size" (and in this case, it is prudent to indicate that I mean "relative power") of the Federal Government is increasing rapidly in my estimation.
Now a good historian will stop me here to point out that the size of the Federal Government has been growing since the drafting of the Constitution and the emergence of the Federalist Party. Although I will not disagree with this point, nor the point that in the 19th century Abraham Lincoln and his predecessors probably issued in the largest advance of federal powers in US history-- see: Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (depending on where you live)-- it is important to examine party politics since the last great re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Reagan era because it can provide a reasonable prediction of the future of Federal Government growth.
I expect that my educated readers understand what I mean when I say that there are three ideological categories that with relative simplicity all political positions can divided. These are National Security Policy, Social Policy, and Economic Policy (the way I have broken this down, to demonstrate a point, allows 'foreign policy' to have aspects apply to all three of these categories).
For the most part, the Democratic Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Liberal Social Policy, a Liberal Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-choice, they support gay rights, they support clear separation of church and state, (Economic) pro-business regulation, pro-federal spending, pro-federal market intervention, pro-environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.
For the most part, the Republican Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Conservative Social Policy, a Conservative Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-life, they support traditional definitions of marriage and family structures, they are think church/state separation has gone too far, (Economic) pro-market capitalism, in favor of deficit reduction, in favor of business de-regulation, against environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.
Sorry for the review for those who were already clear on this point. The Government grows in power when these perspectives are applied: Conservative Social Policy (government control of society), Liberal Economic Policy (government control of the economy), and Conservative Security Policy (government control of security and privacy).
Although the parties disagree about whether the government should have control of the economy or society, it turns out that the Federal Government will increase its share of power regardless.
For Democrats, the primary issue that their coalition is built upon is a Liberal Economic Policy. At all costs, they will hold Republicans hostage on this issue, ensuring blockage of legislation that might decrease Federal powers in this regard. The reason for this is because, for the most part, the American public is in FAVOR of the Democrats' economic message (by and large Americans like federal control of medicare, social security, government oversight of wall street, higher taxes on the wealthy, unemployment protections etc.). It is unlikely, even with the brief sojourn we are having over in Tea Party land, that there will be substantial changes on these issues; in fact, it is reasonable to say that the US will continue to socialize (very, very slowly) it's economy-- socialist rhetoric is not popular, but socialist policy tends to be.
Meanwhile, liberalism in Social Policy has been stagnating, partially because Americans tend to be socially conservative as a rule. Very few Americans care passionately about advancing Social Policy in general, but it people on the Religious Right tend to have the larger megaphone on this issue, and it becomes disadvantageous for Democrats to focus too much on this area. Republicans, however, love to use social policy as a wedge issue (bringing up controversial subjects like the NYC Mosque in order to break up the Democratic coalition) because Republicans tend to be on the winning side on this subject. To a large degree, social policy isn't moving either direction right now, which retains Federal powers at their current levels.
Then, finally and most importantly, in practice, both political parties are in favor of increased government powers in Security Policy, which means that whichever party is in control, you can expect government growth in this area. Period. The continued and increasing reliance on the Military-Industrial complex, citizen surveillance, and anti-terrorism rhetoric will guarantee the more powers for the Federal Government.
These details and ideological demographics of the American electorate are providing a unique situation where there is little political upside or chance for political success for either party to pursue a decrease in federal powers. Couple this with the fact that elected officials in the Federal Government will tend to support the increase of their own powers in one way or another, and small-government proponents like Libertarians are finding themselves without much leverage.
A recognition of the inevitable movement in this country toward more 'larger' Federal Government seems to be the main motivation for the development of the Liberty movement and the Tea Party which I mentioned in the post before last. I think that this group or any others will soon find that they will not be able to stop the inexorability of Government growth, absent another major party re-alignment, a major change in American attitudes toward policy, or the emergence of a real and influential third party.
There might be a reasonable argument that this perspective is short-sighted or ignores area of Federal contraction, and I am open to these criticisms. In general, we will simply have to see what happens as the future approaches, but perhaps I have convinced you of what is likely to happen, for better or worse.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Election Forecasts 2010: Senate
I will be, over the next several days and weeks, producing my own forecasts for the new makeup of the U.S. Senate. I will admit, I rely on my own research and instincts for different races, but I also rely on Nate Silver's calculations over at Fivethirtyeight.com, polling calculations provided by Real Clear Politics, and other varied sources. I AM NOT a statistician, nor a polling professional, but I do have a reasonably astute understanding of the political environment. Eventually I'll be attaching maps of these races.
There are 37 seats up for election; only 15 to 20 are considered to be "in play". The Republicans need to win a minimum of 9 seats of those 15 or so in order to win control of the Senate, and this is if Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) from CT decides to caucus with the Republicans (unlikely). Therefore to be reasonably assured of Senate control, Republicans should make sure at least 10 seats are in their column. At this time, there is not evidence to support that case.
At this time there are only 9 seats that I would consider to be competitive, they are as follows: WA, CA, NV, CO, IL, WI, WV, FL, CT. If you don't live in these states, sorry, the election's pretty much been closed out. Only one of these seats, Florida, is currently a Republican-held seat.
That means that the remainder of the seats are relatively safe. Given this assumption, Republicans will almost certainly win (overturn) 4 Democratic seats in the Senate; ND, AR, PA, and IN. So it is almost certain that our baseline makeup of the Senate is 47 Democrats and 44 Republicans. This means that there will not be less than 47 Democrats or less than 44 Republicans.
According to my understanding of the races, it is likely that WA, CA, and CT will go to the Democrats. It is also likely that CO, WI, and FL will go to the Republicans. That brings our (reasonably confident) baseline to 50D to 47R.
That leaves 3 races that are too close to call: WV, IL, and NV. I think one way or another they'll probably break 2-1 for the R's. That leaves us with a forecast of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. This is within the consensus of most political analysts. It should be noted though that my own forecast carries a swing of three seats. I think it's possible that the Senate could end up like this: 53D to 47R, or like this: 50D to 50R.
The good news for the Democrats in this is that it is highly UNLIKELY that Republicans will manage to retake the Senate. Even if there is a tie, VP Joe Biden can cast a tie-breaking vote. The bad news for Democrats is that if they had trouble getting things accomplished with 59 seats, they'll certainly find themselves in gridlock with only 51 seats. Couple that with the significant possibility that Republicans DO take over the House, and you can expect our government to come to a screeching halt this January.
I'll have a closer look at some of these races in the future, particularly the 9 races I've focused on for this post.
There are 37 seats up for election; only 15 to 20 are considered to be "in play". The Republicans need to win a minimum of 9 seats of those 15 or so in order to win control of the Senate, and this is if Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) from CT decides to caucus with the Republicans (unlikely). Therefore to be reasonably assured of Senate control, Republicans should make sure at least 10 seats are in their column. At this time, there is not evidence to support that case.
At this time there are only 9 seats that I would consider to be competitive, they are as follows: WA, CA, NV, CO, IL, WI, WV, FL, CT. If you don't live in these states, sorry, the election's pretty much been closed out. Only one of these seats, Florida, is currently a Republican-held seat.
That means that the remainder of the seats are relatively safe. Given this assumption, Republicans will almost certainly win (overturn) 4 Democratic seats in the Senate; ND, AR, PA, and IN. So it is almost certain that our baseline makeup of the Senate is 47 Democrats and 44 Republicans. This means that there will not be less than 47 Democrats or less than 44 Republicans.
According to my understanding of the races, it is likely that WA, CA, and CT will go to the Democrats. It is also likely that CO, WI, and FL will go to the Republicans. That brings our (reasonably confident) baseline to 50D to 47R.
That leaves 3 races that are too close to call: WV, IL, and NV. I think one way or another they'll probably break 2-1 for the R's. That leaves us with a forecast of 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. This is within the consensus of most political analysts. It should be noted though that my own forecast carries a swing of three seats. I think it's possible that the Senate could end up like this: 53D to 47R, or like this: 50D to 50R.
The good news for the Democrats in this is that it is highly UNLIKELY that Republicans will manage to retake the Senate. Even if there is a tie, VP Joe Biden can cast a tie-breaking vote. The bad news for Democrats is that if they had trouble getting things accomplished with 59 seats, they'll certainly find themselves in gridlock with only 51 seats. Couple that with the significant possibility that Republicans DO take over the House, and you can expect our government to come to a screeching halt this January.
I'll have a closer look at some of these races in the future, particularly the 9 races I've focused on for this post.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Tea Party Coalition
A lot of people don't realize that our beloved American Tea Party movement is not a group of ideologically pure individuals in agreement. It is a coalition, a group of people with diverse views on a variety of issues, but one major issue to bring them together. In this case the driving issue is economic conservatism. To explain, it can be reasonably argued that the history of what became the Tea Party actually began in 2007 with the general public backlash against the President at the time, George Bush.
Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas shocked audience members at the Republican Presidential Primary debates with his message of extreme fiscal conservatism bordering on outright libertarianism. Though most Republicans were incensed at some of Paul's 'extreme' positions, a number of people who were frustrated with the growth of government spending found for the first time in a long time a person they felt like they could get behind. A person who was unwilling to compromise, had a record of "no" votes on almost anything growing the government, and was charismatic in a folksy way. With massive online fundraising campaigns he called "money bombs" Paul managed to stay in the primary fight long after others had been forced out, picking up support from 5-15% of the Republican electorate in all over the United States. He capped off his bid with an event that took place at the same time as the Republican National Convention that he called the "Rally for the Republic" after being denied a speaking slot at the RNC. More than 10,000 people attended. The groundswell was quite impressive, and the anti-establishment sentiment was clear.
Though Paul's campaign did not result in the Republican nomination for President, and the GOP leaders dismissed his effort as extremist noise, Paul went on eventually to found the C4L (Campaign for Liberty) and went to work trying to elect what he called "constitutional conservatives" to public office. Notable persons that C4L supported include William (BJ) Lawson (R) in NC-04, Adam Kokesh (R) in NM-03, and Bob Conley (D) for SC Senate, none of whom were successful. But the string of attempts, continuing fundraising, and foundation of C4L (and YAL Young Americans for Liberty) chapters throughout the US-- efforts continued through 2008 and 2009 at which point something began to happen in American politics.
The thing that was unique about the C4L or Ron Paul movement (we'll call it the "Liberty" movement) was that it embraced a variety of socially liberal values like elimination of drug enforcement and additional gay rights. Meanwhile the movement called for a return to isolationist American values and the withdrawal of all US troops abroad with the intent of a drawdown of defense spending. We'll come back to this point later.
Some of the first protests that established the Tea Party on the national stage were in response to major bills that increased the size of government spending and bureaucracy, including TARP, the Recovery Act, and Health Care legislation. By the middle of 2009, the Tea Party had already become influential in many local races and in the beginning of 2010, the surprise upset of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for Senate solidified the group in the national dialogue. Ron Paul was considered a darling, maybe even a founder, of the movement and his son, Rand Paul, used his Tea Party and C4L roots to build the momentum for a major Senate campaign in Kentucky. The rallying cry for the movement was the same as it had been during Ron Paul's upward battle in 2008: pay down the deficit, eliminate bureaucracy, and leave American free enterprise out of the scope of the government.
During those early days, there weren't clear Tea Party leaders like there are today. Many media outlets turned to Ron Paul and his son, Rand, to talk about the movement in connection to what they had started in 2007. But within a matter of months, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann had established themselves as major "Tea Partiers" and the movement started to show some distinct colors that had been (to some degree) hidden before 2010. Suddenly the Tea Party movement organizers started talking about more things than just economic conservatism. They started talking about the corruption of the family, the evils of Islamic terrorism, and the denigration of American Christianity. Rand Paul, at this point running a very national Senate campaign, on cue began to backtrack on some of his previous socially libertarian positions, becoming hawkish on foreign policy, snapping shut on drug enforcement, and reinforcing his ties to the Christian right. His change in attitude was not just a reflection of the internal concerns of a Kentucky Senate race, but were also a reflection of major shifts in the Liberty movement.
Now the prime examples of true Tea Partiers are people like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, Joe Miller, and Carly Fiorina (look these people up if you like, you'll see what I mean). Suddenly the Tea Party made it a mission to bring down the Islamic Cultural Center in NYC by drawing on xenophobia, racism, and security concerns within the Tea Party movement. Rand Paul, at this point having defeated the establishment GOP candidate in a primary, proved his clear hard right position by coming out against the mosque.
Meanwhile his father, stubborn as ever, continued to toe his original socially pluralistic line: diversity is good in America, of course Muslims should build the mosque there, why in the world shouldn't they? But where was the rest of the Tea Party when Ron Paul was breaking with them on these issues? Rallying against the Mosque in NYC and spouting rhetoric that seemed to recall traditional GOP fear mongering.
So what happened to those original supporters of Ron Paul's? What happened to the Liberty movement? It's still alive today, as a sub-faction of the Tea Party. It turns out that the Tea Party is a coalition: eager for substantial conservative change on economic issues, original Liberty activists were glad to make room in their movement for foreign policy hawks, the Christian Right, and even members of the establishment GOP. For now, they're content to work with these other people to enact serious fiscal discipline on the part of the Government. At this point its safe to say that the Liberty movement is a minority within the Tea Party, and as long as President Obama continues in office, its unlikely that there will be any major defections from Tea Party ranks from those who would see Ron Paul as President.
But the Tea Party is now a hard right-wing movement that has essentially stripped of itself of all non-economic ideals associated with the Liberty movement. It'll be interesting to see how this coalition holds up as the future progresses. "Libertiers" will be content for now to work with people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but for how long? This Coalition and this movement are still brand new; can its leaders manage to appease its growing and diversifying membership, or will the group fall into factionalist disarray when some of the original backbone of the groundswell is neglected? The way it's going now, the Tea Party's obsession with "purity" may weed out some of its own members from amidst its own grumbling and disaffected ranks, leaving the GOP with a shrinking set of values (and voters) from which to draw upon, and perhaps leading to the break-up of the once-powerful Tea Party Coalition.
Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas shocked audience members at the Republican Presidential Primary debates with his message of extreme fiscal conservatism bordering on outright libertarianism. Though most Republicans were incensed at some of Paul's 'extreme' positions, a number of people who were frustrated with the growth of government spending found for the first time in a long time a person they felt like they could get behind. A person who was unwilling to compromise, had a record of "no" votes on almost anything growing the government, and was charismatic in a folksy way. With massive online fundraising campaigns he called "money bombs" Paul managed to stay in the primary fight long after others had been forced out, picking up support from 5-15% of the Republican electorate in all over the United States. He capped off his bid with an event that took place at the same time as the Republican National Convention that he called the "Rally for the Republic" after being denied a speaking slot at the RNC. More than 10,000 people attended. The groundswell was quite impressive, and the anti-establishment sentiment was clear.
Though Paul's campaign did not result in the Republican nomination for President, and the GOP leaders dismissed his effort as extremist noise, Paul went on eventually to found the C4L (Campaign for Liberty) and went to work trying to elect what he called "constitutional conservatives" to public office. Notable persons that C4L supported include William (BJ) Lawson (R) in NC-04, Adam Kokesh (R) in NM-03, and Bob Conley (D) for SC Senate, none of whom were successful. But the string of attempts, continuing fundraising, and foundation of C4L (and YAL Young Americans for Liberty) chapters throughout the US-- efforts continued through 2008 and 2009 at which point something began to happen in American politics.
The thing that was unique about the C4L or Ron Paul movement (we'll call it the "Liberty" movement) was that it embraced a variety of socially liberal values like elimination of drug enforcement and additional gay rights. Meanwhile the movement called for a return to isolationist American values and the withdrawal of all US troops abroad with the intent of a drawdown of defense spending. We'll come back to this point later.
Some of the first protests that established the Tea Party on the national stage were in response to major bills that increased the size of government spending and bureaucracy, including TARP, the Recovery Act, and Health Care legislation. By the middle of 2009, the Tea Party had already become influential in many local races and in the beginning of 2010, the surprise upset of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for Senate solidified the group in the national dialogue. Ron Paul was considered a darling, maybe even a founder, of the movement and his son, Rand Paul, used his Tea Party and C4L roots to build the momentum for a major Senate campaign in Kentucky. The rallying cry for the movement was the same as it had been during Ron Paul's upward battle in 2008: pay down the deficit, eliminate bureaucracy, and leave American free enterprise out of the scope of the government.
During those early days, there weren't clear Tea Party leaders like there are today. Many media outlets turned to Ron Paul and his son, Rand, to talk about the movement in connection to what they had started in 2007. But within a matter of months, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann had established themselves as major "Tea Partiers" and the movement started to show some distinct colors that had been (to some degree) hidden before 2010. Suddenly the Tea Party movement organizers started talking about more things than just economic conservatism. They started talking about the corruption of the family, the evils of Islamic terrorism, and the denigration of American Christianity. Rand Paul, at this point running a very national Senate campaign, on cue began to backtrack on some of his previous socially libertarian positions, becoming hawkish on foreign policy, snapping shut on drug enforcement, and reinforcing his ties to the Christian right. His change in attitude was not just a reflection of the internal concerns of a Kentucky Senate race, but were also a reflection of major shifts in the Liberty movement.
Now the prime examples of true Tea Partiers are people like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, Joe Miller, and Carly Fiorina (look these people up if you like, you'll see what I mean). Suddenly the Tea Party made it a mission to bring down the Islamic Cultural Center in NYC by drawing on xenophobia, racism, and security concerns within the Tea Party movement. Rand Paul, at this point having defeated the establishment GOP candidate in a primary, proved his clear hard right position by coming out against the mosque.
Meanwhile his father, stubborn as ever, continued to toe his original socially pluralistic line: diversity is good in America, of course Muslims should build the mosque there, why in the world shouldn't they? But where was the rest of the Tea Party when Ron Paul was breaking with them on these issues? Rallying against the Mosque in NYC and spouting rhetoric that seemed to recall traditional GOP fear mongering.
So what happened to those original supporters of Ron Paul's? What happened to the Liberty movement? It's still alive today, as a sub-faction of the Tea Party. It turns out that the Tea Party is a coalition: eager for substantial conservative change on economic issues, original Liberty activists were glad to make room in their movement for foreign policy hawks, the Christian Right, and even members of the establishment GOP. For now, they're content to work with these other people to enact serious fiscal discipline on the part of the Government. At this point its safe to say that the Liberty movement is a minority within the Tea Party, and as long as President Obama continues in office, its unlikely that there will be any major defections from Tea Party ranks from those who would see Ron Paul as President.
But the Tea Party is now a hard right-wing movement that has essentially stripped of itself of all non-economic ideals associated with the Liberty movement. It'll be interesting to see how this coalition holds up as the future progresses. "Libertiers" will be content for now to work with people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but for how long? This Coalition and this movement are still brand new; can its leaders manage to appease its growing and diversifying membership, or will the group fall into factionalist disarray when some of the original backbone of the groundswell is neglected? The way it's going now, the Tea Party's obsession with "purity" may weed out some of its own members from amidst its own grumbling and disaffected ranks, leaving the GOP with a shrinking set of values (and voters) from which to draw upon, and perhaps leading to the break-up of the once-powerful Tea Party Coalition.
Monday, September 27, 2010
What I meant to write in the last post
What I intended to write, briefly, but went off on a tangent anyway, was that I'll be transitioning to smaller, more concise posts like those two posts below this in the future, but I intend to write more often as a result. Also I'll have an interesting (I hope) post on the dynamics of the Tea Party as a (fragile?) coalition. That word and Tea Party have not generally been placed together, but we'll see if I can convince you of the significance therein tonight.
Oh and happy 'suddenly it's a lot colder than it has been'/flash flooding for many of those in the Southeast!
Oh and happy 'suddenly it's a lot colder than it has been'/flash flooding for many of those in the Southeast!
The nature of PL vs: "Idealism"
One of the things that we (as people who follow the political arena) find most problematic in the reconciliation of Liberal views or Conservative views with the respective political realities of the parties is that the Idealistic precepts of any ideological system are consistently in conflict with the simple ability to run a government. It is impossible, or nearly impossible to work in government and achieve an ideological Ideal. Because what this gets translated as is: NO COMPROMISE.
One of the things many passionate people find problematic with politics is that those who are considered the best politicians, most exciting, principled, and worthy of our vote are those who hold to their Ideals with a religious fervor(see Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Sarah Palin, Russ Feingold, Barney Frank, Christine O'Donnell, Bernie Sanders- all the right and left wing 'nut jobs'). Senator Barack Obama may have been included in this list just a couple years ago, but now he's seen as almost ineffectual by his base because it seems that he hasn't 'stuck by his Ideological guns' so to speak.
The politicians who are most able to make an effect are those who get to Washington, and yes, do things they told you they would never do, in order to make the government run. We should be proud of these people for calculating political reality, but we despise them for giving in to the party, or perhaps, the higher calling of governance. So these people get swept out of office, especially when there is an Idealist ideological movement like the Tea Party moving through. A successful Ideological reconciliation with political reality results in the slow-down or outright arrest of government function. And very few even Idealistic ideologists desire this.
I am not free from my own Idealistic pandering, but I find it constantly juxtaposed with my knowledge of facts on the ground. I find my Political Liberalism versus-ing my ideological Idealistic Liberalism and this is why I would find it difficult to enter politics.
As strange as it sounds, and as much as we give the other side crap for it, it's the politicians who manage to hold contradictory views, the politicians who promise one thing and then find themselves willing to compromise, the politicians who don't even necessarily believe what they are saying that are the most effective politicians in the realm of moving government forward. . As representatives, they preside over a group of people who collectively have many conflicting views, changing views, and views rooted in ignorance of how the system actually works. In order to represent those people as best as possible, sometimes its best to do things that the base hates in order to push something through. Even if it means that the electorate won't forgive, and the seat will be lost. Or even if it means lying to and manipulating an ignorant electorate to get back up to Washington to do more of that governing. These politicians who seem to represent everything at once, and therefore 'nothing at all'-- it is these politicians that, somehow, almost, deserve our praise.
If only we could remember that our personal ideologies are effective only for ourselves, and that governing means looking ideologically spineless from time to time. But compromise means the other guys win. We want our enemy clearly defined. How can we reconcile these views with what we know to be realistically true without all of us, ourselves, becoming in our everyday lives, these boring personas which we sometimes disparagingly call 'empty shirt' or 'spineless' politicians? So we keep fighting for 'purity' in politics. : )
One of the things many passionate people find problematic with politics is that those who are considered the best politicians, most exciting, principled, and worthy of our vote are those who hold to their Ideals with a religious fervor(see Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Sarah Palin, Russ Feingold, Barney Frank, Christine O'Donnell, Bernie Sanders- all the right and left wing 'nut jobs'). Senator Barack Obama may have been included in this list just a couple years ago, but now he's seen as almost ineffectual by his base because it seems that he hasn't 'stuck by his Ideological guns' so to speak.
The politicians who are most able to make an effect are those who get to Washington, and yes, do things they told you they would never do, in order to make the government run. We should be proud of these people for calculating political reality, but we despise them for giving in to the party, or perhaps, the higher calling of governance. So these people get swept out of office, especially when there is an Idealist ideological movement like the Tea Party moving through. A successful Ideological reconciliation with political reality results in the slow-down or outright arrest of government function. And very few even Idealistic ideologists desire this.
I am not free from my own Idealistic pandering, but I find it constantly juxtaposed with my knowledge of facts on the ground. I find my Political Liberalism versus-ing my ideological Idealistic Liberalism and this is why I would find it difficult to enter politics.
As strange as it sounds, and as much as we give the other side crap for it, it's the politicians who manage to hold contradictory views, the politicians who promise one thing and then find themselves willing to compromise, the politicians who don't even necessarily believe what they are saying that are the most effective politicians in the realm of moving government forward. . As representatives, they preside over a group of people who collectively have many conflicting views, changing views, and views rooted in ignorance of how the system actually works. In order to represent those people as best as possible, sometimes its best to do things that the base hates in order to push something through. Even if it means that the electorate won't forgive, and the seat will be lost. Or even if it means lying to and manipulating an ignorant electorate to get back up to Washington to do more of that governing. These politicians who seem to represent everything at once, and therefore 'nothing at all'-- it is these politicians that, somehow, almost, deserve our praise.
If only we could remember that our personal ideologies are effective only for ourselves, and that governing means looking ideologically spineless from time to time. But compromise means the other guys win. We want our enemy clearly defined. How can we reconcile these views with what we know to be realistically true without all of us, ourselves, becoming in our everyday lives, these boring personas which we sometimes disparagingly call 'empty shirt' or 'spineless' politicians? So we keep fighting for 'purity' in politics. : )
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fox News
After I spent about a week of intentionally switching back and forth between the three major 24 hour US news networks (CNN, MSNBC and Fox News), something needs to be said. I say this not as a progressive, nor as a Democrat, but rather as a member of a scholarly community that employs reason and honestly in the transmission of information. Here it is:
Fox News, not by its existence, but by its persistent claim to be 'fair and balanced', represents everything that is wrong with the world. Believing that Fox News takes a fair and balanced view of news coverage takes a certain special kind of willful ignorance, the perseverance of which in American thought should terrify all honest, reasonable-minded people, and may be the very herald of the kind of American world decline that Fox News representatives seem to fear more than anything else.
And I need to be clear, I am NOT just speaking about the commentary shows like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly which are unapologetically conservative in perspective-- these shows, even by Fox News Network's admission (and rightly so) are not representative of a fair and balanced perspective. Although the existence of these shows on FNN do not help Fox News' case, indeed, even regular news programming on Fox News is almost like a bullhorn for the Republican Party. Bringing on one liberal pundit to a discussion when the anchor and another guest are both clearly conservative is not fair and balanced, it's 2 vs 1 which can not, by any extension of reality be considered balanced or fair.
I make no claim that other news networks are free from inherent biases. The Ed Show on MSNBC does to conservatives what almost all programming on Fox News does to liberals: ganging up on the other guy. I'm even open to arguments that regular news programming on MSNBC leans left; it's almost inevitable when you bring in pundits (outside of their respective commentary shows) like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews to 'reasonably' discuss election results or news items. But MSNBC's motto isn't 'fair and balanced' and reasonable people everywhere recognize it for what it is, a safe place for Democrats to speak their message to people who already agree with them. And yet even MSNBC makes notable overtures to be evenhanded in their approach for most news programs.
The exit of Lou Dobbs from CNN might suggest for some that the network is beginning to lean left like MSNBC, but that's only if your idea of 'leaning left' is the same as 'secular, educated journalism' (which honestly for some unreasonable people out there, it does). Anderson Cooper? Rick Sanchez? Larry King? Wolf Blitzer? These are people that go out of their way NOT to take stands on major issues and to try to get truthful answers from those on their shows (ok, Rick Sanchez sometimes takes a stand on Lindsay Lohan, maybe we should just exclude him from the list). Anderson Cooper's motto is 'keeping them honest' and somehow that makes him liberal, part of the liberal media, seeking the destruction of all conservatives. If honesty would truly bring about the destruction of the conservative agenda, I have serious concerns for the GOP, but I don't think that's the case.
I do think it is the case that it should be imminently necessary for Fox News to strip their misleading motto from their network. I have no problem with Fox News existing; in fact I'm delighted that people are exercising their First Amendment rights in a way that irks others. I'm not delighted that Fox News can manage to whip up mobilized fear through manipulation of ignorance in order to push an agenda that does not have its roots in honesty, fairness, or balance-- with a motto clearly indicates the opposite.
Fox News, not by its existence, but by its persistent claim to be 'fair and balanced', represents everything that is wrong with the world. Believing that Fox News takes a fair and balanced view of news coverage takes a certain special kind of willful ignorance, the perseverance of which in American thought should terrify all honest, reasonable-minded people, and may be the very herald of the kind of American world decline that Fox News representatives seem to fear more than anything else.
And I need to be clear, I am NOT just speaking about the commentary shows like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly which are unapologetically conservative in perspective-- these shows, even by Fox News Network's admission (and rightly so) are not representative of a fair and balanced perspective. Although the existence of these shows on FNN do not help Fox News' case, indeed, even regular news programming on Fox News is almost like a bullhorn for the Republican Party. Bringing on one liberal pundit to a discussion when the anchor and another guest are both clearly conservative is not fair and balanced, it's 2 vs 1 which can not, by any extension of reality be considered balanced or fair.
I make no claim that other news networks are free from inherent biases. The Ed Show on MSNBC does to conservatives what almost all programming on Fox News does to liberals: ganging up on the other guy. I'm even open to arguments that regular news programming on MSNBC leans left; it's almost inevitable when you bring in pundits (outside of their respective commentary shows) like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews to 'reasonably' discuss election results or news items. But MSNBC's motto isn't 'fair and balanced' and reasonable people everywhere recognize it for what it is, a safe place for Democrats to speak their message to people who already agree with them. And yet even MSNBC makes notable overtures to be evenhanded in their approach for most news programs.
The exit of Lou Dobbs from CNN might suggest for some that the network is beginning to lean left like MSNBC, but that's only if your idea of 'leaning left' is the same as 'secular, educated journalism' (which honestly for some unreasonable people out there, it does). Anderson Cooper? Rick Sanchez? Larry King? Wolf Blitzer? These are people that go out of their way NOT to take stands on major issues and to try to get truthful answers from those on their shows (ok, Rick Sanchez sometimes takes a stand on Lindsay Lohan, maybe we should just exclude him from the list). Anderson Cooper's motto is 'keeping them honest' and somehow that makes him liberal, part of the liberal media, seeking the destruction of all conservatives. If honesty would truly bring about the destruction of the conservative agenda, I have serious concerns for the GOP, but I don't think that's the case.
I do think it is the case that it should be imminently necessary for Fox News to strip their misleading motto from their network. I have no problem with Fox News existing; in fact I'm delighted that people are exercising their First Amendment rights in a way that irks others. I'm not delighted that Fox News can manage to whip up mobilized fear through manipulation of ignorance in order to push an agenda that does not have its roots in honesty, fairness, or balance-- with a motto clearly indicates the opposite.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Back to Work
The Midterms are Coming, the Midterms are coming!
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)