DF's Blog

American Politics in One Lesson

2009-11-17T21:28:36Z

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.

]]> Many Americans seem to be fond of a sort of ersatz independent politics, though for the most part these people are transparently partisan. Glenn Beck claims he is independent. Lou Dobbs calls himself Mr. Independent. The list goes on.

But Glenn Beck, who criminally lifted the name of Thomas Paine's revolutionary pamphlet for his book, won't tell you that Tom Paine was one of the first Americans to advocate progressive taxation, even going so far as to draw up his own tax schedules. How's that for American socialism? Lou Dobbs will seethe over reforming our immigration policies, but have you ever heard him suggest that we erect an economic wall by criminally prosecuting those who employ illegal aliens? Nope, of course you haven't. That's because that would harm Dobbs' friends in the business community.

With so many transparent pretenders to the cause of "independence" it behooves us to ask what they're really trying to sell us. Superficially, it's easy to observe that partisanship is seen as the greatest of all political evils at present. Even our Democratic President eschews the trappings of partisanship, openly pining for a post-partisan politics.

But why is this the case? Why is partisanship so evil and independence the sought after position? If I'm to believe the polling data, Americans are in fact sharply divided on a number of issues. Especially when it comes to social issues, "independence" doesn't seem like something people desire at all.

Yet on other issues, like healthcare reform, it seems clear that the American people do want to change the system. Even beyond the polling data, Americans made their choice known in the polling place when they elected Barack Obama, who campaigned at least partially on what, at least last year, was being discussed as "universal healthcare."

What's amazing though is that this reform seems so difficult. You would think that if the majority of Americans want it, then politicians would get it done for them. Right?

It's okay. I'm laughing, too.

Nevertheless, here we are in a place where Congress can't pass legislation that the majority of people want. Why is that? Furthermore, what have the great "independent" voices to say on this issue?

Oh, that's right. It's a socialist endeavor that's rapidly bringing on the downfall of Western Civilization.

But I still don't understand what this "independence" is. The one thing that I do observe in claims of independence is that it's always preface to a political position, as if to create an air of credulity. "Hey, I'm an independent, so you can trust that I'm not being partisan at all when I tell you that Barack Obama is the spawn of Satan." Something like that.

What exactly are people distancing themselves from when they claim independence from partisan affiliation? Perhaps for the more right-wing examples, the answer is "George W. Bush." But then there's the President himself, unquestionably the top Democrat in the nation, denouncing partisanship.

I have a suggestion as to what is generally driving this phenomenon: When people are making claims of independence from partisan affiliation, they are trying to distance themselves from the obvious corruption in the American political system without addressing it. You see, this way you don't offend your keepers, whether they be lobbyists or advertisers, and you can keep espousing your view in order to forward your agenda, which is, after all, the reason for politicians and pundits to exist.

And this is perhaps no more clear than when we examine the world of finance. Last year, I blogged in favor of the nomination of Barack Obama. One of the things that I was most excited about was his apparent penchant for transparency and his shunning of so-called "soft money." I have to say at this point that those views were at least somewhat naive. It's not that I was wrong about soft money, but the nearly $1B election of Barack Obama tells me that the soft money ain't running the system.

No, despite Obama's dismissal of soft money, he collected and spent a fortune. And like pretty much every other politician that's successful at the national level, plenty of that money came from the financial sector. In fact, the only sector that sent more money his way (by one popular breakdown) was lawyers and lobbyists. However, it's very important to point out that he's not unique in this respect. The same can be said of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, etc.

It's been about a year since Hank Paulson's magnum opus, his criminally broad bailout proposal, was drafted. How has team Obama done when it comes to dealing with the banks? Apparently, not much better.

I'll summarize the findings of the federal government's negotiation with AIG counter-parties for you:

Geithner proposed that counter-parties take a haircut.
Counter-parties said, "Umm, no."
Geithner said, "Okay!"

That's all folks! I bet those dumb auto-manufacturer bond-holders are really kicking themselves right about now. All they had to do was refuse to take less than they wanted! Okay, in fairness they were actually faced with the offer the government gave them or the almost certainly worse scenario they'd get from a judge, but this only serves to underline the stark difference in the way these business entities were treated. Why? Because there was never even the slightest hint at the pretense of a suggestion that the i-banks were going to end up in bankruptcy court. Receivership, like impeachment, was off the table.

This underscores what I would argue is the single biggest problem in American politics. It's not crazy Republicans. It's not one party or the other. That much is true. The ersatz independents might even glean that much. However, it's obviously not that there's no difference between the two parties. All you have to do is look at their issue platforms to understand that. No, the problem is that the two parties are little different when it comes to one issue, but that's because it's a systemic issue and they function within that system. The issue is that the system is hopelessly corrupt. The issue is, as I summarized above, that what we would call bribery on an individual level is simply how we do business at the national level.

I like the idea of no PAC money. What I didn't bargain for is that this new era of hard money politics was going to double-down on the flows of capital into the political system. That's not the right direction to head in. Americans from every part of the political spectrum ought to be mad as hell about this. Partisan demagogues in the robes of the Independent aren't going to get the job done. In fact, people don't even need to give up their political views to rally around the cause of getting the money the hell out of our political system. If we don't do that, then I think you can take all of the hope and change, flush it right down the toilet and let it float down the Potomac and out to sea.

People need to wrap their heads around this: If the currency of politics is the dollar and not the vote, then those with the most dollars have the most political power, votes be damned.

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com where we get our money for nothin' and our clicks for free

Trial by Blitzer

2009-11-12T01:00:00Z

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 easy for me to hold figures like Anderson Cooper in contempt. His typically pedestrian infotainment niche is papered over by rare, redeeming incidents like his reporting on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but Cooper is, in a sense, just giving the people the show they want. Not too heavy, plenty of witty banter with the equally easy-on-the-eyes Erica Hill. It's a perfectly supeficial bedtime send-off after Larry King.

Blitzer's boffo brand of bullshit is something entirely different to behold. The above clip puts this on full display. Notice Blitzer's Fox-like use of ambiguous "someones" who supposedly put him up to this question. It's utterly obvious, especially with Blitzer's attempted closing salvo, "I'm sure he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gun downed the other day," that Blitzer is sharply editoralizing here, but he's a complete and utter coward hiding behind the pretense of "journalism" and so slinks furtively behind contrived anonymity of unnamed persons. This is exactly what Fox News does with their infamous refrain of "some people say."

Worse than this though is Blitzer's utter contempt for the very notion of American justice. In Blitzer's estimation, Col. Galligan needs to morally justify the defense of Hasan because Hasan has, after all, been accused. That's more than enough for Blitzer.

Due process isn't for people like Hasan. His trial is to take place in the court of public opinion. His should be a trial not with representation and by a jury of his peers, but a trial by CNN, the honorable Justice Wolf Blitzer presiding.

Blitzer is not only unconcerned, even superficially as a journalist, with due process, but views the notion that Hasan would receive it as disgusting. The remedial explanation offered by Col. Galligan is frankly beneath anyone with even the vaguest notion of due process of law. Blitzer's line of attack is no different than the equally vicious attacks against former Attorney General Ramsey Clark for his representation of figures like Milosevic and Hussein.

The presumption of innonence is not even a factor here. How could it be that Hasan is innocent? Why should there be a burden of proof on the government? Why should Hasan even be represented? It's unnecessary because Blitzer knows that he is guilty. The justice system is nothing but a perturbing speed-bump on the road to revanchism for Blitzer.

Nor is it apparently important to Blitzer that we be able to hold up as just a verdict on Hasan's actions after the final gavel fall. Given the sharp line of Blitzer's questioning, Hasan no longer even holds his military rank in Blitzer's eyes. After all, why else would it be relevant to ask Col. Galligan how he, as a former member of the military, could possibly defend Hasan? The only context in which this question even makes sense is to assume Hasan's guilt and thus strip him of his rank.

In Blitzer's mind, Hasan has already been convicted by a court martial. Pests like Col. Galligan are not agents of justice, but intemperate fools to be goaded into standing out of the way of the inevitable "guilty" verdict.

Blitzer's entire modus operandi is precisely about stomping all over the very notion of justice. Everything he says in this clip contributes to the difficulty that will ensue in this case in trying to carry out the due process of law. Nothing that should be his concern as a supposed journalist, namely the facts of the case (which remain elusive) or the specific mechanics of due process in this proceeding, are of the slightest concern to him. To the contrary, these are notions that he holds in utter contempt.

Wolf Blitzer shows us plainly here that he is not, in fact or in practice, a journalist, but rather a vicious shill against the very notion of American justice.

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where we like our oatmeal lumpy

You Can't Hate Government and Love the Constitution

2009-11-07T20:21:42Z

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.

]]> Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly valid to criticize that institution and its operations. Not only is it valid, but it's necessary for the health of the system in my opinion. However, that's a debate that acknowledges the question of whether or not to have a government at all as settled. We can disagree with specific things that the government does, but that's different than attacking the very notion of government itself.

Now, you could be a bona fide anti-statist. Hey, that's fine. You're entitled to that point of view. However, you can't be an anti-statist and claim allegiance to the Constitution at the same time. It's fundamentally nonsenscial. The Constitution establishes a state government. If you really believe that the state is fundamentally evil, then the Constitution is the bane of your existence.

And this goes for people who make silly claims like it's un-Constitutional to pass a healthcare reform bill. If you're referring to the Constitution that I know and love, then you know that Article I gets the party started by establishing a legislative body and describing how that body will be selected and proceed. Well, that body is using the power vested in it by Article I to pass law. Again, you could be somebody who fundamentally disagrees with this scenario or the power of legislators to legislate, but their doing so is anything but un-Constitutional.

And lest we think that the people who make this argument are just random callers into C-SPAN, I listened to a Republican member of the House again invoke the notion that a healthcare reform bill is un-Constitutional as I typed that last paragraph.

In closing, I would go one further and put it that fundamental hatred of the government is un-American. America is nothing if not a state. Again, you're perfectly entitled to hold the idea of state in question, but debating how that state should function and whether or not there should even be a state are different things. I'm fine with having both debates, but it's either terribly erroneous or perhaps even disingenuous to confuse the two. And that confusion seems to underline a sense of alienation from government rather than ownership of it.

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where the snozzberries taste like snozzberries

The Public Option Option Option

2009-10-09T19:01:06Z

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.

]]> That gave rise to the notion in the House of the "robust" public option, otherwise known as Public Option Original Scent. While Ms. Pelosi has insisted that the People's House will most assuredly go all robust on your ass, the floundering in the Senate, aka the Keeper's House, has taken center stage, which has pretty much looked like deja vu all over again circa 1994, with characters like Max Baucus doing their best to scuttle reform while raking in contributions from the healthcare sector hand over fist.

But, hark, what's this? Rumors abound of Senate Democrats proposing an "opt-out" version of the public option whereby states could individually decide not to participate. Even though the White House and Congressional leadership have little to say about the proposal, the raving, left-wing, liberal blogosphere has already given it the stamp of approval, with everyone from Josh Marshall to Ezra Klein to Nate Silver pretty much giving it the thumbs up, mostly on the basis that it gets us most of the way there and could be a likely pathway to getting all the way there.

They could be right. However, there's one thing about the public option option that is just obvious crap, which is this: It was already an option. What the "opt-out" clause would do is allow states to effectively bar their citizens from participating in the plan. Why should this be done? Ostensibly because their politicians aren't willing to go along with Public Option Original Scent. But the left-intelligentsia has ruminated on this and decided that the hold-outs will have to come along eventually, so it's just a matter of sooner or later.

However, there are several interesting things to note here. One is that the public option gets its power from numbers. The bigger the pool, the more powerfully risk distribution and collective bargaining can be leveraged. When you shrink the pool, you inexorably shrink the effect of these tools. Shrink the pool too much, and the public option becomes powerless. That, after all, is the motivation behind shilling for demonstrably poor systems like regional co-ops. Those who favor co-ops know they won't be very effective.

Furthermore, it's almost certain that the opt-out states will be red states with smaller populations and uncompetitive insurance markets, like Max Baucus' Montana. These are arguably the people who need healthcare reform the most because they literally have as few as one company from which to purchase insurance in some cases. You'd think the Mickey Mouse Club Freemarketeers would have knives out for such markets. Of course, they don't, but this doesn't change that, as a matter of policymaking, leaving the people who need reform the most out in the cold isn't exactly the moral thing to do.

Then again, it's likely that this is less a matter of policymaking and more a matter of positioning, such that the process can move past committee through a floor vote and into conference where a filibuster in the Senate isn't the lynchpin. That might be the case, but it even seems weird as a matter of positioning. Think of it this way: The red staters that won't get on board with a public option, which is intended to give their constituents choice, will supposedly be appeased by being able to deny them choice. Huh? I thought the state's rights issue was all about protecting the little guy from the big, scary federal government, not telling him that he can't have something that most other citizens have been given as a matter of federal law.

Of course, it isn't lost on me that the state's rights mantra has more often been used to deny people their liberties, like civil rights and access to abortion, than it has gone to defending citizens against the trespasses of the federal government. So, this is really in keeping with that tradition, but how do they sell this to their constituents? You can sell denying civil rights to minorities when your constituency is mostly white and at least somewhat racist. You likewise sell denying abortions to women if your constituency is predominantly godfearing. But how do you tell your constituents that you're going to fight to deny them choice?

In that sense, JMM, Klein and Silver might have a point. If this gets the votes and is a political impossibility to sell to people back home then it might end up being a win, at least in the long run.

But by this time, all of this political hokey-pokey has my head spinning. It's started to feel like some sick version of one of Zeno's paradoxes, where we'll somehow be able to achieve our goal by constantly cutting the remaining distance in half. After all, people are seriously talking about a proposal to opt-out of an option. If that doesn't start to get surreal, I don't know what does. Is Joseph Heller pulling the strings somewhere?

Seriously, I'm waiting with marked anticipation for the next compromise compromise. What will the public option option option be like? Anyhow, I'm hungry. For some reason I feel like pizza pizza.

***

Cross-posted at dagblog.com, where you can get your scissors sharpened for half the price!

A Few Bad Apples

2009-09-17T19:00:16Z

You've probably heard by now of the videos being promoted by Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and Fox News that purport to show Acorn employees engaging in some rather unethical behavior. I don't know to what extent the videos have been edited, because they have clearly been edited, but there certainly seems to be some rotten behavior on display. The SF chronicle has reported that that these employees have already been fired, although the same article also notes that there were other cities that booted the videographers, with the Acorn office in Philly even filing a police report, something that Breitbart and Giles, one of the videographers in question, patently denied on Hannity. ]]> But my purpose here isn't to get a real sense of the accuracy of these videos. I've searched around a bit and my general sense of all this is that there's some truth to the videos, but that there are also some things obscured. And it seems that the most important thing that's been obscured is that while this behavior doesn't seem limited to any particular Acorn office or city, there do appear to have been a number of spots that got left on the cutting room floor because they showed these people the door.

And that's really what I'm interested in. Let's allow that what we see in these videos is accurate and that these Acorn employees did exactly what they appear to have done. Does that amount to an indictment of Acorn on the whole?

If it does, it would appear to violate the conventional wisdom of "a few bad apples" that I thought we all knew and loved so well. After all, that's what I heard back in the days of companies like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco being embroiled in major accounting scandals. This wasn't some kind of systemic disease, we were told, but was rather the work of a few bad apples.

I heard the same thing when the photos of abuses at Abu Ghraib surfaced. We were told that it was wrong to think that this was the manifestation of a system designed to produce these results (HA!), but rather the work of a few bad apples, acting alone.

So, in light of the old "bad apples" chestnut, how shall we view the actions of these Acorn employees? Do we employ the bad apples rule in this case or do we extrapolate from what is seen in these videos a wholly corrupt organization?

PS - Beyond playing the game that I'm engaged in here of attempting to consistently apply the rhetoric of the right is the fact that Acorn has received a whopping $54 million in federal funding since 1994. That's about $3.5 million per year. To put that in perspective, MIT receives about four times that per day in research funding for defense. Some ten billion dollars just up and vanished in Iraq. Even if we assume that every last dollar given to Acorn was misused, is it wrong for me to expect to see a level of outrage commensurate with the level of misappropriated tax dollars?

UPDATE: Josh just linked this to the front page. Highlighted for "bad apples" content.

***

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com

A 9/11 Every Two Months

2009-08-17T18:57:26Z

That's what we have in America today in terms of the casualties caused by our corrupt insurance regime. About 18,000 deaths occur annually in America due to lack of health insurance. That's 1,500 deaths per month, or a casualty total equalling all of the casualties of September 11th, 2001, every two months. ]]> The opponents of reforming this system have raised a stink over the last couple of weeks about fictitious "death panels", but the reality is that these people have formed their own national death panel. They are saying, quite plainly, to the uninsured: Go ahead and die. They're saying that they don't mind one bit if you die from a disease that could have been prevented. They're saying that they don't care that your condition could have been treated early and affordably. They're saying that they'd rather foot the free-rider costs, in the form of ever-increasing premiums, of your expensive, last-ditch treatment when you finally show up in an emergency room. They're saying to one sixth of their fellow Americans that they'd prefer all of this to reforms that would reduce costs and increase access.

They're openly applauding that healthcare expenditures continue to soar past their current level, fully one sixth of our national economy.

Opponents of reform are demanding the continuation of a status quo that sees 3,000 of their fellow Americans needlessly die on their home soil every two months.

***

Cross-posted at dagblog.com

Can I Play With Madness?

2009-08-13T22:07:12Z

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.

]]> Maybe it's because I'm now watching a small contigent of provocateurs being sold by all media as "grass roots" citizen activists. Maybe it's because I don't recall Congress feeling it was necessary to touch base with the electorate through a series of highly publicized town hall meetings before we invaded Iraq, or passed the USA PATIROT Act or the MCA. Maybe it's because I'm seeing people with guns making obvious threats to the life of the President and his family right in front of the watchful eye of television cameras. Maybe it's because I can't seem to reconcile the seemingly insurmountable power of a Republican majority in contrast with the inexplicably impotent nature of a Democratic majority.

Maybe I'm the one who's crazy.

Maybe.

***

Cross-posted at dagblog.com

Tips for Right-wing Nutbars: Watch Colbert

2009-08-13T22:01:04Z

Last night, Ann Coulter was a guest on Hannity. During her appearance, in typical Coulter fashion, she made the over-the-top claim that she was just fine with "death panels", which in her interpretation sound more like execution panels, so long as she was a panel member. Oh, and she apparently has a list of people she'd like to kill, Zeke Emanuel being among them. Watch: ]]>

Of course, Coulter has made her career out of spouting sensational nonsense. However, she may have been out-played this time. I say that because the night before her appearance on Hannity, Stephen Colbert had already used the "I'm just fine with death panels as long as I get to be on them" line during his interview with John Cohn:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jonathan Cohn

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Meryl Streep

So, note to career nutters: Stephen Colbert has turned aping you into a science. You may want to spend a couple of hours a week watching his show to make sure that he hasn't already made a mockery of the ridiculous things you haven't yet had a chance to say.

***

Cross-posted at dagblog.com

President This Guy?

2008-12-05T18:02:06Z

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.

]]> To that end, allow me to re-introduce George Prescott Bush, son of Jeb and potentially the next, next President of the United States of America. Now, before you say that I'm getting ahead of myself, allow me to get ahead of you by saying that I'm getting ahead of myself. Good, that's out of the way. May I continue, please?

Thanks. Why George P. Bush? Could this handsome fella really be the future of the GOP? Let's take a look at some the possible factors:

Factor the first: Age. George P. is young. Born in 1976, he'll be 40 in 2016. However, at the tender age of 12 he spoke at the 1988 Republican National Convention that nominated his grandfather. He also campaigned prominently for his uncle in 2000 and, somewhat less prominently, in 2004. Though it has been speculated that his relatively low public profile of late may have had something to do with this military service record during wartime, or lack thereof, rest assured that by 2016 he will have completed his eight year contract as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve. If 40 sounds young, let's remember that Barack Obama was just barely 47 this November 4th. Also, if it is true that a generational shift either is occurring or has occurred, then we should probably be willing to entertain the thought that this could potentially be a plus for George P. rather than a minus.

Factor the second: Race. George P. is the son of Jeb Bush and Columba Bush. His mother is from Mexico. George P.'s heritage has already proved popular among Hispanic voters. Also, if Wikipedia is to be believed, he went to high school with Enrique Iglesias. Okay, quit swooning and consider this: The U.S. Hispanic population is the second largest after whites and it is growing. George P. could conceivably enjoy a very comfortable electoral environment in states like Texas, Florida and, quite possibly, California. California's population is one-third Hispanic by recent estimations. If a red California sounds improbable to you, then perhaps you've gotten too complacent with a California that seems perennially blue. When was the last time that California went for the GOP? 1988, when George P.'s grandfather won a ticket to the big chair in the Oval Office. If Barack Obama's election truly marks a break with the past in terms of what the face of political power looks like, then George P. will be in good graces come 2016.

Factor the third: Dynasty. Even in the world's oldest democracy, you cannot discount the role of dynastic power. If you doubt this premise, then I will ask you if the names Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton or, ahem, Bush ring a bell for you. No?! You are hopeless. Have some more cheese. As I was saying, though we'll have to wait and see what the elections between now and 2016 look like, George P. may just be the perfect candidate for a post-Obama GOP. He's the old boy who looks like the new boy.

Factor the fourth: Bush fatigue? As of right now, George P. is a Texas attorney and real estate developer. He's working on his military credentials. He's young enough that he's got time. 2012 is too soon. In fact, 2016 might even be too soon. However, he'll be 48 in 2024. That gives him 16 years to make a name for himself. That's plenty of track to run. His uncle didn't seem to be too hurt by a bit of a late start, but he's got an even bigger advantage in several respects. Perhaps being so young actually works in his favor here by giving him some distance from what appears to be a very dismal conclusion to his uncle's presidency.

So, is George P. Bush the face of the future GOP? I'm going to go ahead and say: Absolutely. That way, if I'm right, confirmation bias will allow you all to think back and say to yourselves, "Damn, that DF was like some kind of blogosphere Nostrodamus or, to a lesser extent, Jim Cramer." Either that, or I will be dead wrong and no one will remember this by-then-ancient blog entry.

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where you can read what Genghis has to say about the future of Polish Olympic athletics and something or other about Canada. Oh, Canada!

Blaming Blacks

2008-11-14T00:04:07Z

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.

]]> Though reported here in an LA Times blog, as being from the AP, and here at CNN, this data all comes from one source: Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. In case you're too lazy to click that link, allow me to make it plain:

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International will again conduct all exit polling in 2008 for the National Election Pool, comprised of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press.

Though I couldn't find a similar statement from CNN, the AP confirms this in black and white. You may remember how well this organization did with the exit polls in 2004, though I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether this was the result of poor polling methodology or poor election practices.

The general veracity of exit polls aside, how good was this one (since that's all we've got to go on here)? I'll let Edward Champion from Reluctant Habits take this one:

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the team behind the 2004 polling botch, and this dynamic duo also spearheaded this week's California exit polling. The hard data is not yet available at the Edison/Mitofsky site. But the Associated Press has reported that 2,240 California voters (of these, 765 were absentees interviewed by landline telephone), interviewed in 30 precincts, represented the total number of people that Edison/Mitofsky interviewed. Which means that some percentage of these voters were African-American. Let's give Edison/Mitofsky 50%. That leaves us with a mere 1,120 voters.

A quick jaunt to the California Secretary of State's website reveals that there are 25,423 precincts in California and that 10.5 million people turned out on Tuesday. In other words, Edison/Mitofsky is making a major claim based on 0.11% (a little more than one-tenth of 1%) of the total precincts, and a sample of voters smaller than a crab louse dancing in a thorny thatch of hair. Is this really large enough?

Of course, this would be a pretty radical over-sampling of African-Americans. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, African-Americans make up a mere 6% of likely voters. So, even if black voters had turned out at 100% and voted for Prop. 8 at 100%, the maximum effect they could have had would be minimal.

One more thing: The last polls the week before the election that published race information showed the black vote split down the middle on Prop. 8. SurveyUSA even shows a trend towards the "No" vote.

So, in summary: The now oft-repeated narrative about a once oppressed minority group rising to the highest office in the land only to become oppressors themselves is a whole lot of bullshit. It's based on a single dodgy exit poll, which doesn't come close to agreeing with pre-election data, by an organization with a tenuous record for accuracy. AND: Even if they got it right, we're talking about 6% of all likely voters among this particular ethnic group at best.

As such, I will say to Sullivan and others who were quick to jump on this narrative: Knock it off. You're better than this.

Finally, there is one thing that we can draw from this data with a much higher degree of certainty. You know who really voted for Prop. 8 in a big way? The elderly and the religious. Overwhelmingly. Why people aren't talking about this, I do not know. Maybe it's because it's all an old story: The seat of bigotry is occupied primarily by old people with old ideas.

I'll leave you with this clip of the always entertaining Dan Savage, who appeared on Tuesday Night's Colbert Report.

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where we usually get it right the first time!

1,000 words

2008-11-06T12:55:36Z

—-

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com

For the Forty-Fourth

2008-11-05T05:34:32Z

---

Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where the times, they are a changin'.

Today.

2008-11-04T19:52:49Z

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.

Pre-Election Omnibus

2008-11-01T00:14:04Z

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.

Heed My Screed

2008-10-22T00:52:46Z

"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