Here's how American politics can be swiftly summarized:
If I give you five dollars in exchange for consideration in your decision-making process in the voting booth, that's illegal. If I give a member of Congress five-thousand dollars for the same purpose, that's politics.
I don't subscribe to cable or satellite television. The reason for this is that I basically see no value in it. Pay television doesn't really seem to offer me much. For one thing, it's rife with advertising content. Why do I have to watch ads constantly when I'm paying for the service? Furthermore, much of the content available to basic cable subscribers is now available for free on the Internet.
However, cable news content is not entirely available on the Internet at this point in the game. I'm really okay with that. When I've had cable in recent years, for example last year when I was living at a residence where cable was included, I end up watching cable news. This is regrettable because I really dislike cable news.
So, I'm happy that my exposure to cable news is limited to what I encounter on the Internet. That's usually more than enough to remind me about how awful it is.
While it's easy to hate on Fox, the other networks are in many ways different only in degree and not in kind. Case in point is CNN's Wolf Blitzer who recently engaged in this astounding display:
It's probably a fool's errand to make attempts at parsing the paranoid, hysterical rhetoric that's been flying around in the healthcare debate, but that's never stopped me before. So, I'm watching the fun on C-SPAN this afternoon. Listening to some of the "against" calls, I noticed something that I probably should have noticed before, which is this: The bizarre dichotomy of professing your undying love for the Constitution, while breathlessly spewing venom at the fundamental evil of the government.
Folks, I have to tell you that I love you very much for your dogged support of the Constitution. I'm with you. I believe that it's been a net positive for humanity despite its flaws, which in many cases have been adjusted over the years in a manner that, I would contend, has been largely for the better. Through our history, we've righted some serious wrongs by broadening and deepening our commitment to the ideas that are embedded in that oft referred to document. And we may yet have some way to go in that respect.
However, it should be noted that the one thing the Constitution does, first and foremost, is establish a government. I must say that the people who cling tenaciously to the Constitution while hurling invective at the very institution that the document creates have perhaps missed the point.
So, perhaps you've heard the buzz about a shiny, new compromise compromise in the battle for healthcare reform reform. First, there was the notion of single-payer. Of course, this proved to be far too unpalatable for anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich, so then we were given the notion of the public option. This would create a Medicare-style system for anyone who wanted to buy in. It was certainly a compromise, but the merits of the compromise, as well as the general notion, were clear - it's publicly run and anyone can opt in. Public. Option.
Of course, then came the deluge of counter-offers and distortions. It quickly became the "government option" or "government takeover of healthcare" or "Barack Obama wants to kill your grandmother by way of ripping your children to shreds and force-feeding her to death with the pieces like the Sloth guy in Se7en." Oh, and the further compromises. For some, the public option was still not enough of a compromise, so it needed to be sliced up into 50 parts or converted into regional co-ops or hooked up to triggers.
I am baffled.
Maybe it's because I can remember things that happened more than five minutes ago. Maybe it's because I remember when my country rushed into a war of choice in Iraq. Maybe it's because I remember attending massive protests in major metropolitan cities with hardly a mention in any newspaper or on any television program or in any other outlet that exists as a part of the ostensibly liberal media establishment. Maybe it's because I remember seeing pictures and reading accounts, all distributed on the Internet, of protest marches that were at least as big, if not bigger, also with no mention in any major media outlet. Maybe it's because I remember protestors being cordoned off in "free speech zones" during public appearances by George Bush, sometimes miles out of the watchful eye of television cameras.
With all of the early prounouncements about what kind of president Barack Obama already has will have been, along with all of the hand-wringing about the future of the GOP, I feel that I have to weigh in on the issue of the moment. What's that you say? Deuteronomy lupus? Lobotomy cupid? I can't understand what you're saying when you talk with your mouth full. Say, what's that you're eating? Gubberman cheese? I'm not sure I've had that variety. Wait, what? "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, I don't appreciate your tone one bit. Besides, I'm trying to talk about the future here.
Many of you out there share my disappointment in California's approval of Proposition 8. However, over the last week I've heard too many voices, even those rising from prominant gay communities like the Castro district, that have been far too quick to blame black voters for the proposition's passage. The evidence being offered here, we are told, comes from exit polls. How solid is this data? As it turns out, not very.
Today, I voted for a baby-killing, crypto-muslim, socialist, arugula-munching, elitist, black radical activist.
And it felt good. It felt damned good.
—-
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.
I've had a number of things on my mind over the last couple of weeks, but I've been quite busy. There are several topics that I've wanted to write about. However, I really won't have the time before Tuesday. I also doubt that anyone will care as much after that, so I've decided to plow through a few them of them as haphazardly as possible. Here we go!
***
First, a burning question in my mind: Given that John McCain came into the general election with a built in advantage, what happened? He already had a long-standing and oft-sold narrative about being a very centrist type of politician. This is the sort of story you want in the general, but all he's done since the conventions is tack harder and harder to the right. Was that really the way to distance himself from the more right-wing policy blunders of the last eight years? I'm forced to wonder how much better the McCain of yesteryear might have fared.. unless we're really seeing McCain as he is now.
Also, note to John: The pundits didn't decide you were behind. The pollsters did. This might seem like a minor quibble, but I believe that a careful examination of this difference earlier on might also have yielded dividends. Oh well.. live and learn!
Moving along...
***
This one has been bugging me for weeks. I had intended to write about this much more extensively, but I'm just going to go with the condensed version.
"Hi, I'm a journalist. Candidate A has issued statement X. Candidate B has issued statement Y. Well, having given equal times to both sides of the issue, my work here is done. See you tomorrow!"
False equivalence has been mighty abundant as of late. This piece in the WaPo does a fair job of describing some of what it calls "the symmetry of sin." We've all seen it. (Personally, Candy Crowley is my favorite player of this game. She acts as if every election is the same on both sides for as far back as history can recall.)
Much has been said about this topic, but there's another culprit in this game that's been on my mind: The AARP. They run a national ad campaign called "Divided We Fail", which you've probably seen if you watch any cable news. The ads all have a similar theme, that being lack of action on the part of the Federal government, and they all place the blame on the same scapegoat: Partisanship.
There's always talk about bipartisanship (or lack thereof) during an election. Everyone promises to be less partisan, which is amusing at a time when politics are arguably at their most partisan. Even so, there's a similar sort of false equivalence at play here.
One of the "Divided We Fail" ads deals with the lack of action on health-care, which, par for the course, they blame on partisanship and gridlock. Of course, there's a problem here. The ad campaign makes it look as if there's a lack of agreement on how to improve the health-care situation. The problem is that this isn't the case. One party doesn't even seem to think there's a problem.
Hopefully you know that I'm referring to the Republican party. If you think I'm being unfair here, then I would challenge you to show me statements from prominent Republican leadership that indicate that there is a problem with the American system of health-care, what they think the problem or problems are and what, if anything, they are willing to do about it in terms of policy. I've looked myself, so I'm confident that you won't really be able to find many convincing examples. By and large, you'll find opposition to programs like SCHIP and even Medicare. You won't find Republicans who think that a private, for-profit system is fundamentally problematic. You'll find many who think that the current system of HMOs and private insurance are fine as they are and even some who think that the problem is that privatization isn't extensive enough.
There couldn't be a clearer contrast on this issue when you go to the other side of the aisle. Nearly every major contender for the nomincation of the Democratic Party proposed some brand of extensive reform to health-care. You can quibble about the details of implementation, but the consensus was clear.
So, what's with the AARP on this one? I think it's fair to point out that the AARP is the most well-moneyed lobby in America. It's also 501(c) tax exempt and therefore cannot engage directly in political activities, such as openly endorsing a candidate. Even so, why the false equivalency? The AARP has been criticized in the past for advocating Medicare Part D. It also engages in the marketing of private health insurance to its members.
Perhaps there's a conflict of interest at play here. Regardless, if one party says that 2+2=4 and the other that 2+2=5, the solution is not to demand that they compromise on 4.5.
Side note on health care: Back during the primary-that-would-not-end, Barack Obama was criticized on the blogosphere as well as by some prominent supporters of Hillary Clinton, not the least of whom being Paul Krugman, for his supposedly less aggressive proposals on health care reform. However, there's a very good reason for his proposal: It's what most Americans want. While nearly two-thirds of Americans support government guarantee of health coverage, they are split on whether it should require it. The numbers in the article I linked are a year and a half old, but recent data from Pew is consistent. This shows that Obama has his finger on the pulse of what Americans want in terms of health-care reform: Guarantee, but don't require. Whether or not you, as an individual, believe that this is the best system, it's what can be achieved. That's important.
***
This has been an historic year in electoral politics by any measure. I know that I've seen and heard many things that I simply did not expect. Apparently, the ivory tower of the rich white male is under a bit of siege this year. That's just fine by me. There are a lot of things that you couldn't be in Presidential politics before 2008 that just don't seem so radical anymore.
And it looks like we may just elect the first non-white President in United States history next week. It's an exciting time. There will be a lot of kids out there that will take the old line about being able to do anything you put your mind to very seriously. You can be a dark-skinned kid from a single-parent home and still have a realistic aspiration to the highest office in the land.
But there's one thing you still can't be in American electoral politics: An atheist.
If you've been following the Hagan/Dole race at all, then you're seeing a bit of this reality play out right now. Did Kay Hagan consort with atheists? Hell no! She's a good Christian.
And maybe she is and that's fine. But doesn't the Powell response apply here? I don't expect to hear it, but shouldn't someone be saying, "So what if she did?" Atheists are Americans, too. Despite the protestations of certain cretinous bloviators, America is not a "Christian nation".
I'll repeat that: America is not a Christan nation.
The United States of America is a democratic federal republic. Christianity, or any other religious affiliation for that matter, is optional.
As an atheist, I'm fine with Obama. While I'd like to have the option of being represented by someone who sees things as I do, it's not a requirement for me. What I do require is reciprocity of tolerance. I've mentioned it before, but Obama hit all the right notes for me in his Call to Renewal speech. I'm not concerned about him using political power to enforce his personal religious beliefs. After all, his mother was a non-believer and, as such, he doesn't entertain foolish notions about secular persons lacking morality.
Even so, ask yourself this: Thinking back to when Obama supposedly had a "pastor problem", how much worse would it have been for him if he had a "no pastor problem"?
***
It's been a pretty crazy year. I probably won't have time to write again before then, so I'll just say good luck to all and here's hoping for a big Obama win on Tuesday.
***
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, home of the DagBurger.
"Anti-American" is ideological rhetoric which is intended to engender fear, hatred and division among the citizens of this nation. It is equating a difference of political opinion with treason. It is drawing craven ideological lines between which Americans are "real" and which are not. It is what Joe McCarthy did. It is what Michelle Bachmann, Nancy Pfotenhauer and, by extension, John McCain et al. are doing. Their rhetoric flies in the face of the fundamentally inclusive ideals on which America was founded and, as such, they are not allowed to designate anyone, save themselves by way of their own actions, as "anti-American."
Socialism is about state control of the means of production. If you can't explain what this means or how it relates to what you're discussing, you aren't allowed to call anything "socialist." If you are a Republican and you cannot explain how this relates to a recent law, voted on affirmatively by your Presidential candidate and signed into law by your President, which allows for potentially extensive nationalization of private sector debt-assets, you are not allowed to use the words "socialism" or "socialist."
Islam is an Abrahamic faith akin to Judaism and Christianity. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prior to establishing protections for free speech and peaceable assembly, establishes freedom from state imposed religion or any restriction by the state on the free exercise of religion. "Anti-American" is using "muslim" as a slur, just as is so when "jew" is used in such a manner. If you do not believe in the separation of church and state or the free exercise of one's chosen faith, you hold an ideological point of view which is "anti-American" by definition.
We will have our political differences. We will have vigorous debate about these differences. We will have hard fought electoral contests. At times, we may not find ways to agree. But what we cannot have is a bellicose intolerance of difference. We have far too much in common, far too much at stake to define ourselves in this way.
---
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com
