... perhaps because it favors Democrats. Like FDR before him, President Obama really did save capitalism from itself. Statistics prove it. And a leading capitalist is proudly willing to admit it.
Mr. President, when they tell you to "change course," throw their own putrid words back at them, and say "HELL NO!"
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Predictable Bragging, And Why It Should Be Ignored
The pundits aren't the only source of hot air about the election results. There are, of course, the politicians themselves, for whom hot air is, as slavery was to the landholders of the Old South, a peculiar institution and a cherished way of life (which apologies to Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, the authors of "1776").
The soon-to-be Republican leaders in the next House of Representatives have taken to the airwaves (and cable lines, and Net servers) to inform the world that the 2010 election is nothing less than an anti-liberal referendum, and a demand by the American people that all conservative wishes be enshrined into law. Anyone who dares to say otherwise is guilty of the capital crime of national approval--not "getting it."
Never mind the fact that their own approval ratings are not much better than the President's--or the fact that the Democrats still control the Senate as well as the White House. Being elected is always the by-product of many factors beyond the control of any candidate--the economy, in the case of this election, for example. It is never a ringing endorsement of all of the winning candidates' "ideas." (See my previous post regarding the question of whether many of them have any real "ideas" in the first place.)
When it comes to a number of key issues, such as health care, and airport scanners, the public isn't on their side. When it comes to the overall tax-and-spend question, the best they can get are mixed results. Even on the question of whether their majority even exists, they strike out.
Perhaps this is why the putative Speaker of the House is so willing to let President Obama set the agenda. It gives him and his party the freedom to go on doing the only thing they really do well--say "no."
The soon-to-be Republican leaders in the next House of Representatives have taken to the airwaves (and cable lines, and Net servers) to inform the world that the 2010 election is nothing less than an anti-liberal referendum, and a demand by the American people that all conservative wishes be enshrined into law. Anyone who dares to say otherwise is guilty of the capital crime of national approval--not "getting it."
Never mind the fact that their own approval ratings are not much better than the President's--or the fact that the Democrats still control the Senate as well as the White House. Being elected is always the by-product of many factors beyond the control of any candidate--the economy, in the case of this election, for example. It is never a ringing endorsement of all of the winning candidates' "ideas." (See my previous post regarding the question of whether many of them have any real "ideas" in the first place.)
When it comes to a number of key issues, such as health care, and airport scanners, the public isn't on their side. When it comes to the overall tax-and-spend question, the best they can get are mixed results. Even on the question of whether their majority even exists, they strike out.
Perhaps this is why the putative Speaker of the House is so willing to let President Obama set the agenda. It gives him and his party the freedom to go on doing the only thing they really do well--say "no."
Predictable Punditry, And Why It Shouldn't Be Heeded
Every setback for the Democrats in the polls predictably leads to calls from various members of the talking-heads class what I call the "two Republican Parties" solution (with apologies to the late David Brinkley, from whom I have borrowed the phrase). All the Democrats need to do is to become more "moderate" (translation: more conservative), and all will be well with the two-party system and, therefore, with democracy itself.
The persistence of this line of argumentation is amazing, inasmuch as it amounts to saying (in the face of massive evidence to the contrary) that Republicans have such a monopoly on good ideas that we should take every possible step to ensure that there's no such thing as a national political debate. Ever.
Of course, they have no such monopoly. And the greatest proof of this is the fact that even they don't believe in their own alleged ideas.
For example, they oppose public health insurance for the American people, but want to make sure that they get it as quickly as possible for themselves.
Their supporters claim to be the voice of ordinary Americans, but are in fact financed by the super-rich--and oppose any effort to change that.
They pretend that President Obama and the Democrats are nothing but liars, while they systematically engage in spreading their own poisonous lies.
Perhaps worst of all, when it comes to criticizing specific laws, programs and policies, they openly admit to applying one standard for themselves, and another to their opponents. It's bad enough to lose a civil liberties champion like Russ Feingold; it's even worse to lose him to a four-flushing hypocrite who uses the Patriot Act to effectively say that Republicans should have one set of laws, and Democrats should have another. Such an individual has no real concept of the United States of America-- and is certainly under both a moral and intellectual disability when it comes to taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Somebody needs to ask the George Wills, Michael Goodwins and Mickey Kauses of the world: which one of these perfidies do they want the Democrats to adopt first?
The persistence of this line of argumentation is amazing, inasmuch as it amounts to saying (in the face of massive evidence to the contrary) that Republicans have such a monopoly on good ideas that we should take every possible step to ensure that there's no such thing as a national political debate. Ever.
Of course, they have no such monopoly. And the greatest proof of this is the fact that even they don't believe in their own alleged ideas.
For example, they oppose public health insurance for the American people, but want to make sure that they get it as quickly as possible for themselves.
Their supporters claim to be the voice of ordinary Americans, but are in fact financed by the super-rich--and oppose any effort to change that.
They pretend that President Obama and the Democrats are nothing but liars, while they systematically engage in spreading their own poisonous lies.
Perhaps worst of all, when it comes to criticizing specific laws, programs and policies, they openly admit to applying one standard for themselves, and another to their opponents. It's bad enough to lose a civil liberties champion like Russ Feingold; it's even worse to lose him to a four-flushing hypocrite who uses the Patriot Act to effectively say that Republicans should have one set of laws, and Democrats should have another. Such an individual has no real concept of the United States of America-- and is certainly under both a moral and intellectual disability when it comes to taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Somebody needs to ask the George Wills, Michael Goodwins and Mickey Kauses of the world: which one of these perfidies do they want the Democrats to adopt first?
Saturday, November 27, 2010
An Example Of What I'm Talking About ...
... when it comes to not sitting around and feeling sorry for yourselves. Frankly, if I have a vote in the debate described herein, it would be for investing in attack ads, not think tanks. We don't suffer from a lack of ideas. We suffer from a nearly-terminal fear of punching, in a country that expects nothing less.
25 Days Later ...
... well, first of all, I have to admit I didn't expect to stay silent for this long.
Frankly, even though I thought I was braced for this year's election results, the reality of it hit me a lot harder than I thought. It's not me, the Democrats (and certainly not the ones in Congress), or progressives in general for whom I'm depressed.
It's this country. And its seeming inability to to think, and to treat voting as something worth thinking about.
Why else would you vote back into power (or, more precisely, one-third of power) the same gang of lying thieves who trashed this country in the first place?
In fairness, the voters in this election were enabled by three factors:
1. The Supreme Court, which decided that corporations are people with unlimited rights to buy elections;
2. Wall Street, which thanked the Democrats for saving capitalism by investing their record profits into buying said elections, instead of creating jobs for voters (except for Tea Party organizers and promoters); and
3. Last, and certainly not the least, President Obama, who in hindsight has largely conducted an in-box presidency, allowing everyone but him to define the debate--its substance, its terms and, sadly, its conclusion. Unwilling to see, until too late, that Republicans in Congress had no sense of national self-interest, he allowed Congress to do all of the heavy lifting, with the result that both he and Democrats in Congress paid a steep and perhaps tragic price.
As I've said previously, there's no reason to give up. The nature of our political system, at its best and at at its worst, allows both sides to win their share of battles. But this is ultimately a war of ideas, even if it is often fueled by raw and ugly emotions, and our side has the ideas that work.
But we're not going to get there from here to there without changes. And the biggest change of all has to come from us.
We can't count on elected officials to do it all. If history teaches us anything, it's that we've never been able to. Real change in this country has always flowed up from the streets. Only then does change trickle down from Pennsylvania Avenue.
And we might as well take a page out of the other's sides book. They never sleep. They never go away. And they certainly don't wait a generation or two for the "right" candidate.
We had a rough 2010, but it wasn't 1994. We still have the Senate, as well as the White House. We've seen major changes in health care, student loans, and financial regulation--and we may yet get the DREAM Act for immigrant students, as well as the end of "don't ask, don't tell."
The future is still waiting for us. But it's not waiting for us to cry and feel sorry for ourselves. It's waiting for us to work, sacrifice, organize and stay together.
And, above all, to never, ever go away. Presidents and Congresses come and go. The American people and the American dream are forever.
Frankly, even though I thought I was braced for this year's election results, the reality of it hit me a lot harder than I thought. It's not me, the Democrats (and certainly not the ones in Congress), or progressives in general for whom I'm depressed.
It's this country. And its seeming inability to to think, and to treat voting as something worth thinking about.
Why else would you vote back into power (or, more precisely, one-third of power) the same gang of lying thieves who trashed this country in the first place?
In fairness, the voters in this election were enabled by three factors:
1. The Supreme Court, which decided that corporations are people with unlimited rights to buy elections;
2. Wall Street, which thanked the Democrats for saving capitalism by investing their record profits into buying said elections, instead of creating jobs for voters (except for Tea Party organizers and promoters); and
3. Last, and certainly not the least, President Obama, who in hindsight has largely conducted an in-box presidency, allowing everyone but him to define the debate--its substance, its terms and, sadly, its conclusion. Unwilling to see, until too late, that Republicans in Congress had no sense of national self-interest, he allowed Congress to do all of the heavy lifting, with the result that both he and Democrats in Congress paid a steep and perhaps tragic price.
As I've said previously, there's no reason to give up. The nature of our political system, at its best and at at its worst, allows both sides to win their share of battles. But this is ultimately a war of ideas, even if it is often fueled by raw and ugly emotions, and our side has the ideas that work.
But we're not going to get there from here to there without changes. And the biggest change of all has to come from us.
We can't count on elected officials to do it all. If history teaches us anything, it's that we've never been able to. Real change in this country has always flowed up from the streets. Only then does change trickle down from Pennsylvania Avenue.
And we might as well take a page out of the other's sides book. They never sleep. They never go away. And they certainly don't wait a generation or two for the "right" candidate.
We had a rough 2010, but it wasn't 1994. We still have the Senate, as well as the White House. We've seen major changes in health care, student loans, and financial regulation--and we may yet get the DREAM Act for immigrant students, as well as the end of "don't ask, don't tell."
The future is still waiting for us. But it's not waiting for us to cry and feel sorry for ourselves. It's waiting for us to work, sacrifice, organize and stay together.
And, above all, to never, ever go away. Presidents and Congresses come and go. The American people and the American dream are forever.
Monday, November 1, 2010
This Time, They're Both Right
On WHAT Planet Has He Been Living?
Wow!
Social Security was passed doing a time of prosperity? The last two years have seen American become more liberal?
It's official: conservatism is now a fact-free zone. Get ready for two years of non-stop lies.
Social Security was passed doing a time of prosperity? The last two years have seen American become more liberal?
It's official: conservatism is now a fact-free zone. Get ready for two years of non-stop lies.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
An End-Of-The-Month Rant, As America Prepares To Throw Itself Off The Cliff
I find myself thinking, not without a little bit of nostalgia, about Election Night two years ago in real time and an eternity emotionally. For me, and for many my age, it was probably the happiness Election Night in the forty-plus years that I've followed national politics. The ups and downs that I've seen in that time, however, gave me a cautionary feeling about what two years later (in other words, now) might look like.
I told myself that another 1994 could not possibly happen. Obama, unlike Clinton, was neither a plurality President nor a morally compromised one. The Republican leadership in Congress was of a lesser political caliber than it was in the Gingrich-and-Dole days. And the voters, it seemed, had finally seen through the smoke and mirrors that has characterized conservative politics and policies over the past 30 years.
And yet, as I write this, America seems to be on the verge of shooting itself in the foot--or perhaps, this time, in the head--one more time.
Why? In the end, an unsurprising conflux of causes. Obama somehow believed that leadership on most issues could be delegated to Congress, and in the process lost the opportunity to lead from the White House and use Congress as a competitive foil (as most successful Presidents have done). Congressional Republicans stayed united around the word "No" (and found, in a climate dominated by fear and a leadership vacuum in the White House, that "No" was a good substitute for having ideas). The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case created an extended, months-long holiday for corrupt campaign spending.
But, frankly, all of this will probably not be ultimately enough to blame.
What will be enough?
WE will. By WE, I mean progressive voters who think that sulking is an effective campaign strategy. Let the American people have a few more years of the Republicans, they feel, and they (as well as the Democrats) will be begging us to come back. After all, it can't get worse. Can it?
I know a lot of people who thought that way in 1980. And 1994. And 2000. But guess what? Each time, it got worse. And, each time, the problems that all of us face (whether we realize it or not) have gotten worse and worse. When it comes to solving many of them, we may already be past the point of no return.
We live in an age of increasing scarcity, whether it comes to natural resources or capital. As a consequence, our moral and economic leadership here and abroad is being crippled, perhaps irreparably. And yet, America is on the verge of turning to a political party it hates, not as a reasoned decision but as a panicked one.
Sulking, like failure, is not an option. This is a democracy; we all need to opt into it, not out of it. If we do otherwise, we contribute to the vacuum our President has helped to create, and ensure the destruction not only of the nation, but perhaps the world as well.
Things are not perfect today. And there have been many blown opportunities. But we can't afford to blow the few we have left.
So VOTE! And, if that doesn't work, get up on the morning of November 3rd and organize, fundraise, e-mail, blog, and generally FIGHT LIKE HELL! We're worth it. And so is America.
I told myself that another 1994 could not possibly happen. Obama, unlike Clinton, was neither a plurality President nor a morally compromised one. The Republican leadership in Congress was of a lesser political caliber than it was in the Gingrich-and-Dole days. And the voters, it seemed, had finally seen through the smoke and mirrors that has characterized conservative politics and policies over the past 30 years.
And yet, as I write this, America seems to be on the verge of shooting itself in the foot--or perhaps, this time, in the head--one more time.
Why? In the end, an unsurprising conflux of causes. Obama somehow believed that leadership on most issues could be delegated to Congress, and in the process lost the opportunity to lead from the White House and use Congress as a competitive foil (as most successful Presidents have done). Congressional Republicans stayed united around the word "No" (and found, in a climate dominated by fear and a leadership vacuum in the White House, that "No" was a good substitute for having ideas). The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case created an extended, months-long holiday for corrupt campaign spending.
But, frankly, all of this will probably not be ultimately enough to blame.
What will be enough?
WE will. By WE, I mean progressive voters who think that sulking is an effective campaign strategy. Let the American people have a few more years of the Republicans, they feel, and they (as well as the Democrats) will be begging us to come back. After all, it can't get worse. Can it?
I know a lot of people who thought that way in 1980. And 1994. And 2000. But guess what? Each time, it got worse. And, each time, the problems that all of us face (whether we realize it or not) have gotten worse and worse. When it comes to solving many of them, we may already be past the point of no return.
We live in an age of increasing scarcity, whether it comes to natural resources or capital. As a consequence, our moral and economic leadership here and abroad is being crippled, perhaps irreparably. And yet, America is on the verge of turning to a political party it hates, not as a reasoned decision but as a panicked one.
Sulking, like failure, is not an option. This is a democracy; we all need to opt into it, not out of it. If we do otherwise, we contribute to the vacuum our President has helped to create, and ensure the destruction not only of the nation, but perhaps the world as well.
Things are not perfect today. And there have been many blown opportunities. But we can't afford to blow the few we have left.
So VOTE! And, if that doesn't work, get up on the morning of November 3rd and organize, fundraise, e-mail, blog, and generally FIGHT LIKE HELL! We're worth it. And so is America.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
How Can A President Who Can Accomplish This ...
... be so unpopular and hated? I mean, apart from blatant manipulation by well-heeled fascists and their friends in the main-stream media? Especially since the latter are basically too lazy to dig for real stories, and are rooting for a Republican Congress so that the nightly news becomes an endless stream of This-Versus-That stories. (Always remember: it's easier to cover politics if you treat in like a sports event, rather than as a process by which to build a better society).
Today's link comes by way of the Christian Left, an excellent source for religious and political news and information on Facebook (disclosure: I've "friended" their page on FB). To make it easier for you to do so, click here.
Today's link comes by way of the Christian Left, an excellent source for religious and political news and information on Facebook (disclosure: I've "friended" their page on FB). To make it easier for you to do so, click here.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
And I Don't Mind Admitting ...
... that I predicted this would happen. After all, it happened to Truman and Kennedy. Hasn't quite happened to FDR and Johnson, however. When you beat them in a landslide, or in four elections, I guess they never forgive you. I have a hunch, however, that it will happen to Obama, who is only a radical in the context of Republican rhetoric (in which Jesus and the Framers would also be viewed as dangerously subversive).
The fact that this ... well, dare we call it a flip-flop? (Holy John Kerry, Batman!) ... happened this quickly, I think, validates the view that, in a completely wired society, change happens even faster than ever. Which is why, if Republicans do win big in November, they shouldn't plan on getting comfortable. The real majority won't let that happen.
The fact that this ... well, dare we call it a flip-flop? (Holy John Kerry, Batman!) ... happened this quickly, I think, validates the view that, in a completely wired society, change happens even faster than ever. Which is why, if Republicans do win big in November, they shouldn't plan on getting comfortable. The real majority won't let that happen.
Proof That Help Comes From The Unlikeliest Places ...
... and that politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. Take a look.
Why In The World Does Anyone Still Listen To Him?
So Newt Gingrich doesn't like liberal math? Maybe it's because it's superior to GOP math, under which taxing less and spending more equals "paychecks," as he would put it ... except when it doesn't (during the last GOP administration, for example).
Republicans: the fact-free party. If you really believe the road to prosperity and peace runs through their lies, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with it, too.
Republicans: the fact-free party. If you really believe the road to prosperity and peace runs through their lies, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with it, too.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
It's The Debt, Stupid!
Two recent pieces I've encountered on the foreclosure crisis (this and this) are worth a read. They both, however, miss two things: the ultimate source of our crisis, and a sad political irony in the way our political leaders have responded to it.
The ultimate source is debt--not just government debt, but private-sector debt carried by individuals as well as businesses. For the past thirty years, instead of practicing thrift and acquiring capital with which to build new wealth, we've simply borrowed wealth and hoped that the means to pay for it would show up (disclosure: I'm far from an exception to this rule). All of us, to varying degrees, are guilty of this. And that is way all of us are failing to gain any kind of economic traction as we try to get back on our financial feet. Everyone is crippled by debt, and no one has any true capital to build new wealth.
Presidents Bush and Obama, and members of both parties in Congress, meanwhile, have focused on transferring money borrowed by the government to bail out Wall Street, thus preventing the operation of capitalism's most moral principals: failure has consequences that must be born by the failed capitalists. Government exists to serve the people, not the economy, and true wealth is built not by the financial elite creating and manipulating debt, but by hard-working people actually doing things that benefit others directly. Frankly, it would have been better to take all of the aid for the financial sector, divide it by the number of American households, and cut each household a check. It would have benefited the economy much more. (I am talking about programs like TARP, not the stimulus package, which did much more good that it is generally credited for doing, and in fact was a form of the type of aid I am suggesting here.)
What would be best? Personally, I'd like to see a worldwide conference of leading economic powers to draft an international agreement for debt forgiveness (public and private). Why don't all of us just admit that we can never really repay any of this, and just give one another a fresh start? After all, this concept is even Biblical (the jubilee year). And, like the Biblical version, all nations could restrict the use of this approach to once every seven years, so that it would not become an easy-way-out for spendthrift nations and their equally spendthrift peoples.
Have a better idea? I'd like to hear it. But don't pretend that private debt, as well as the public kind, isn't the 800-pound gorilla we need to get off all of our backs.
The ultimate source is debt--not just government debt, but private-sector debt carried by individuals as well as businesses. For the past thirty years, instead of practicing thrift and acquiring capital with which to build new wealth, we've simply borrowed wealth and hoped that the means to pay for it would show up (disclosure: I'm far from an exception to this rule). All of us, to varying degrees, are guilty of this. And that is way all of us are failing to gain any kind of economic traction as we try to get back on our financial feet. Everyone is crippled by debt, and no one has any true capital to build new wealth.
Presidents Bush and Obama, and members of both parties in Congress, meanwhile, have focused on transferring money borrowed by the government to bail out Wall Street, thus preventing the operation of capitalism's most moral principals: failure has consequences that must be born by the failed capitalists. Government exists to serve the people, not the economy, and true wealth is built not by the financial elite creating and manipulating debt, but by hard-working people actually doing things that benefit others directly. Frankly, it would have been better to take all of the aid for the financial sector, divide it by the number of American households, and cut each household a check. It would have benefited the economy much more. (I am talking about programs like TARP, not the stimulus package, which did much more good that it is generally credited for doing, and in fact was a form of the type of aid I am suggesting here.)
What would be best? Personally, I'd like to see a worldwide conference of leading economic powers to draft an international agreement for debt forgiveness (public and private). Why don't all of us just admit that we can never really repay any of this, and just give one another a fresh start? After all, this concept is even Biblical (the jubilee year). And, like the Biblical version, all nations could restrict the use of this approach to once every seven years, so that it would not become an easy-way-out for spendthrift nations and their equally spendthrift peoples.
Have a better idea? I'd like to hear it. But don't pretend that private debt, as well as the public kind, isn't the 800-pound gorilla we need to get off all of our backs.
Burn, Baby, Burn!
So, it turns out conservatives do believe in this, after all (in addition to "Drill, baby, drill).
Robertson's piece really says it all, not only about the depths of selfishness to which contemporary conservatism has descended, but the extent to which those depths are related to the writings (to describe them politely) of Ayn Rand, the patron saint of narcissists. What he really nails is the extent to which Rand's real target audience is teenagers, the most narcissistic age cohort on the planet. It was certainly true when I was a teenager. I never did more than thumb through a copy of "Atlas Shrugged," and concluded that you don't have to stick your head too far into the sewer to know how bad it smells. Many of my friend weren't so lucky; in their yearbook blurb, they'd list "The Fountainhead" as their favorite book.
Self-reliance is a great philosophy--except when it isn't, which is most of the time. Like it or not, we are an interdependent species, living on a planet that is being squashed by our selfishness. At the rate we are going, pretty soon Atlas will have nothing left to shrug.
Robertson's piece really says it all, not only about the depths of selfishness to which contemporary conservatism has descended, but the extent to which those depths are related to the writings (to describe them politely) of Ayn Rand, the patron saint of narcissists. What he really nails is the extent to which Rand's real target audience is teenagers, the most narcissistic age cohort on the planet. It was certainly true when I was a teenager. I never did more than thumb through a copy of "Atlas Shrugged," and concluded that you don't have to stick your head too far into the sewer to know how bad it smells. Many of my friend weren't so lucky; in their yearbook blurb, they'd list "The Fountainhead" as their favorite book.
Self-reliance is a great philosophy--except when it isn't, which is most of the time. Like it or not, we are an interdependent species, living on a planet that is being squashed by our selfishness. At the rate we are going, pretty soon Atlas will have nothing left to shrug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)