Choices, choice, Choices... Elections Have Consequences!

As I've debated countless times about the incredibly important decision of choosing a president, let's remember that life isn't only about 1 issue, generally speaking. A president and a party in power make a million decisions about policies, hire or appoint people in vital positions, promote certain values and steer the country into a certain direction.

 

For the last several years, we have one politically responsible party--yes, it's the Dems--and one anti-democracy, anti-science, anti-environment, religiously nutty parry--the Repubs.

 

 

Biden promotes workers' rights, and has passed pro-environment/science important bills. The Chinese are hoping Trump will win and kill anything that's "green" ecologically, including electric cars. He wants to get votes from the auto industry workers, and he'll get some as many people are known to vote against their economic interests.

 

Speaking of China and its leadership has been open about it: they'll keep building coal-fired plants until 2050. By 2030, they'll built 300 of them. OK, the Chinese poeple don't have a choice, but in the US we get what we deserve over all*. No?

 

 

*except when a state is gerrymandered to prevent the majority from being the ..majority, and when access to the ballot is restricted. Republican state governments now want to decide themselves--not the voters--who should win their state!

Biden's VP Choice Won't Change the Dynamics of the 2020 Election. Any Sensible Adult is Preferrable to the Dangerous, Incompetent, Most-Indecent Current President

 

Biden will announce his VP choice this week, after months of speculation and "advice", which advice is mostly what the "adviser" wants but not based on any evidence that such choice is a "must" or "will bring more votes to the ticket." There's no evidence to suggest that VPs bring any significant boost. They're part of the narrative about the main actor, and even that it's mostly discussed among the elites.

I'm mostly annoyed by those people who proclaim they won't vote for Biden because their preference (Sanders, Warren, or whomever else) didn't get the nomination. Above all, if they are not sufficiently motivated to vote to remove the most dangerous and unqualified president, then they're part of the problem, every problem they want to solve through politics. I question the judgment of such people, especially when they want to talk politics or analyze a situation.

If you're not motivated enough to vote this vile president out of office, along with his kakistocracy regime, then I don't care about your concerns. This is not normal times, and we shouldn't normalize Trump's behavior as another flavor of politics; he's so far out. And, to those who argued, in 2016, the DJT and HRC were more or less the same, you should refrain from making important political decisions. Also, if you don't vote to throw this spoiled child out, then you are NOT a progressive, for you're setting the country to continue sliding backward.

 

Now, I don't think there are many people who will not vote because of a VP choice, as they aren't that many who do vote for a ticket because someone is the VP-designee. I'm talking about significant numbers who can swing a national election, or even a state. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there isn't evidence that this has happened in the last 100 years.

For me, Biden's VP will be the next president, and therefore I want to see a competent person, who has political experience, preferably executive, someone who has won a serious election. My first choice would be Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, and, secondly, Kamala Harris.  But, the bottom line is that I'd vote for Biden, even if he was in a comma, and his VP choice was any sensible adult.

How the Least Politically Informed Can Have a Huge Impact

Are we appealing to the least informed among us? It appears so. In a close election, like the one in 2016, a 2.5% can have a huge impact. This country has a 2-party system, like it or not, when only the two major parties have a chance of winning. You may not want to vote strategically, I get it. But, I can't do that. If I vote for one candidate or party that has no chance of winning, I'm in effect helping the other. Often this is totally unacceptable, because of start differences between the two viable options.

In a system of winner-take-all, when you vote for a third party you have to be aware that your candidate/party will get nothing if they have low public support... 

I think it's a disservice to our polity for anyone to argue, vote me for because all the others are the same! Even if you're a dumb Republican, you knew there were meaningful differences among the contenders in the party's primaries. 
Similarly, do the Jill Stein (Green Party) voters really believed that HRC's environmental policies would've been the same as what we've seen from DJT?..

I personally don't find any front runner to be progressive enough. But, I couldn't possibly not have voted for HRC on the grounds she and Donnie were the same! I never liked the Clintons, but had she been elected, responsible and competent people would be in charge--you know, persons who accept science. Most probably she'd be raising her own taxes to pay for something, and the Supreme Court would have had 2 liberal judges instead of 2 cons. Yeah, that supreme court that gave us civil rights, same sex marriage, and protected Roe, etc. Most reasonable people expected exactly what we're getting in terms of policy, government officials, leadership , economics, etc, from the buffoon in the White House. It was so obvious before the election.
 
Appropriately here's lots of discussion about "wasted votes", but attention should be given to the least informed voters---the self described "independents" 


First, there are very few truly independents, because most consistently would vote only for one party. There some other "independents" who know almost nothing about politics and can't tell the difference in policies between the Ds and Rs. But, these people are also too apathetic to vote. So, the truly independents are about 7%, that vote either D or R. But of those only 1/3 voted in 2018! That's 2.3%. In a presidential year election, usually the numbers go up as more voters participate, but still...

In my opinion, and not only, what wins close elections is turnout. So, doing a better job getting you're base out to vote is better than anything else. Obviously, it doesn't have to be 'either or'. But, had the Dems had a slightly greater turnout in those three states in 2016, the outcome would have been the opposite.

Here's the Pew Research findings:Six Facts About Political Independents


 _______

Another instance of the man-child in the White House. The Wall Street Journal broke the story that the White House wanted our navy ship USS John McCain out of sight during Drumpf's visit to Japan! CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 has the story, here. I haven't checked lately, but I'd imagine hundreds of Republicans in Congress are speaking out and condemning Trump... right?...

Intellectual Honesty and Our Defective Politics

As I'm writing this, May day celebrations and demonstrations are taking place in many countries, where millions of people are basically asking for a better life. Now, of course the definition of a better life is not agreed upon--especially when it involves very different cultures--but, yet, there are common desires, like to have a long, healthy life, economic opportunity that leads to meeting human needs, freedom from oppression, choice, etc. The good life is desirable.

When we disagree about something, at least we have to agree on what we're actually talking about. Agree on reality first, before we evaluate the arguments for and against. It's OK for people to have different values and priorities. For me, for example, leisure and individual liberty is more valuable and a higher priority than money and material possessions. Although, I do need money and possessions to have a good life. This is true for everyone, even if the threshold varies depending on time, place, and subjective conditions.

Paul Krugman writes in this New York Times editorial that intellectual integrity matters; acknowledging mistakes, and having an open mind. Wanting to know the truth, the facts, should be a priority, but it isn't--not in the political, not in the economic, and even in the personal universes. Indeed, people get comfortable with an idea, a situation, an image, and then resort to confirmation bias, which becomes an ordinary response that often isn't even noticed.

I normally don't republish long quoted articles, but this one by Krugman deserves a longer mention. Go to the NYT page to read in its entirety.

The 2016 campaign should be almost entirely about issues. The parties are far apart on everything from the environment to fiscal policy to health care, and history tells us that what politicians say during a campaign is a good guide to how they will govern.

Nonetheless, many in the news media will try to make the campaign about personalities and character instead. And character isn’t totally irrelevant. The next president will surely encounter issues that aren’t currently on anyone’s agenda, so it matters how he or she is likely to react. But the character trait that will matter most isn’t one the press likes to focus on. In fact, it’s actively discouraged.

You see, you shouldn’t care whether a candidate is someone you’d like to have a beer with. Nor should you care about politicians’ sex lives, or even their spending habits unless they involve clear corruption. No, what you should really look for, in a world that keeps throwing nasty surprises at us, is intellectual integrity: the willingness to face facts even if they’re at odds with one’s preconceptions, the willingness to admit mistakes and change course.
And that’s a virtue in very short supply.
 ....
Times like these call for a combination of open-mindedness — willingness to entertain different ideas — and determination to do the best you can. As Franklin Roosevelt put it in a celebrated speech, “The country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
What we see instead in many public figures is, however, the behavior George Orwell described in one of his essays: “Believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” ......

Just to be clear, I’m not calling for an end to ideology in politics, because that’s impossible. Everyone has an ideology, a view about how the world does and should work. Indeed, the most reckless and dangerous ideologues are often those who imagine themselves ideology-free ....

The press, I’m sorry to say, tends to punish open-mindedness, because gotcha journalism is easier and safer than policy analysis. Hillary Clinton supported trade agreements in the 1990s, but now she’s critical. It’s a flip-flop! Or, possibly, a case of learning from experience, which is something we should praise, not deride.

So what’s the state of intellectual integrity at this point in the election cycle? Pretty bad, at least on the Republican side of the field. Jeb Bush, for example, has declared that “I’m my own man” on foreign policy, but the list of advisers circulated by his aides included the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, who predicted that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and shows no signs of having learned from the blood bath that actually took place.

Meanwhile, as far as I can tell no important Republican figure has admitted that none of the terrible consequences that were supposed to follow health reform — mass cancellation of existing policies, soaring premiums, job destruction — has actually happened.

The point is that we’re not just talking about being wrong on specific policy questions. We’re talking about never admitting error, and never revising one’s views. Never being able to say that you were wrong is a serious character flaw even if the consequences of that refusal to admit error fall only on a few people. But moral cowardice should be outright disqualifying in anyone seeking high office.

Think about it. Suppose, as is all too possible, that the next president ends up confronting some kind of crisis — economic, environmental, foreign — undreamed of in his or her current political philosophy. We really, really don’t want the job of responding to that crisis dictated by someone who still can’t bring himself to admit that invading Iraq was a disaster but health reform wasn’t.

I still think this election should turn almost entirely on the issues. But if we must talk about character, let’s talk about what matters, namely intellectual integrity.

Republicans Won Big. They Do When People Don't Vote!

Now that the dust has settled, we're looking at a bright couple of years of Republican leadership in Congress. Finally most of the gridlock will dissolve, because the Democrats must compromise now--as the American people demanded through this election. We may be witnessing a new conservative wave, a take-back-America from the clutches of the libruls. Sure.

Well, fear and anger won over hope and change. Most of the people who voted don't understand how our government works--or why it doesn't. The obstructionists were rewarded, because the president did not appear to deliver. The Democrats were in retreat; they didn't want to own even the good things, like improved economy (especially considering where it has been), and millions of citizens got health care coverage while medical costs are going down over all. If you don't own or explain the good things you've done, then the voters will not choose you because you claim your opponents are worse!

Republicans Win When People Don't Vote

It's very interesting to see where the votes came from. When fewer people vote, the GOP has the advantage. No wonder why they try to make it harder to vote. The charge of "voter fraud" (despite their efforts to prove it) is without evidence. But, millions of American citizens are barred from voting, because they may not have the required identification. In Texas, the state college ID isn't good enough, though a gun license is!

Where Democratic governors and legislatures have made voting more accessible, greater numbers show up. In Oregon some 70% did, even in this midterm election, whereas about half of that number is the norm in the country. Ideally elections should fall either on a Sunday or make them a federal holiday. Open up early voting, and same-day registration on election day. There's no fraud of people voting when they're not supposed to, or for others. There's election fraud though when citizens are disenfranchised.

In the last presidential election, about 120 million voted. In this one, about 70-80 million did. This makes for a different composition of the electorate. White men, especially over 45, prefer the GOP by big margins. Women over all prefer the Dems. Hispanics and younger people also prefer the Dems, but they don't vote in big numbers, not in off-presidential elections. 

Unfortunately, many Americans are either alienated by the complicated and gridlocked system, and they don't see how an election like this one matters to their life. Several of my friends and relatives failed to vote; most of my college students didn't either. They weren't even paying attention. Up until a couple weeks before the elections, polls indicated that perhaps most Americans didn't even know there was an election whereas the whole 435 House of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate, plus governors, and local officials were on the ballot!

We have a double-think condition in which we can hold two contradictory ideas in our heads as equally valid. We brag to the world that we have the best democracy, free press, abundant freedom, etc. But, we also admit that the system is broken, or that is not responsive to the average citizen, or that the game is fixed favoring the rich & powerful, or that our vote doesn't really mean anything. 

Progressive Direction

Despite the giddiness of conservatives, the country is on a progressive path. Of course there are/will be some bumps along the way, but just remember what has been happening in the last 20 years. Indeed, even in this election, where more Republicans showed up to vote, lots of progressive ballot initiatives passed easily--like increase in minimum wage, actions favorable for the environment, abortion rights (against embryonic personhood), legalization of marijuana, etc. There are clear majorities for sensible immigration reform (includes legalization of undocumented with a path to citizenship), health care, gender rights, same-sex marriage, homosexuals in the military, and many other progressive views are now are mainstream. No, America isn't going back to the dark ages. There's no taking it back, especially given the views of the younger Americans--those under 45.

On the other hand, I'm going to enjoy the show as more crazies joined the ranks of the Congressional Republicans. The incoming majority leader, McConnell, will now squirm because those who he really dislikes are going to poop in his party--Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Rand Paul, Joni Ernst, and a few other gems. I'd advise the Dems not to filibuster and let the Republicans expose themselves for the extremists they are. Why, they should begin impeachment proceedings too.

Government has been broken because of Republican obstructionism. No compromise was good enough for them to like the Dems or this president. The latter didn't understand this. There's isn't much the two sides can agree on, so even with the Dems retaining the Senate nothing major would have come out in the "lame duck" years of Obama's term. One notable would have been to confirm more judicial nominees; now they have to wait until the next president takes office in January of 2017.

If I had a secret hope it'd be that president Obama feels liberated after this. He won't be running for reelection and since he was an unwelcomed guest at the Democratic campaigns, he could do the right thing and fight for progress, and show some gaddam leadership. But, lip service won't do.

Vote for Sanity on November 2, 2010

Politics is often the outcome of the possible under the circumstances and the people involved. The outcome can be a compromise that isn't appealing. We progressives have lots to complain about, but, again, what is the alternative? I don't want to say we have to accept what comes our way, but this is a critical election. It won't be the end of the world, obviously, though if the Republicans improve their standing, we'll see more gridlock.

If the GOP wins the House, expect investigations on whether Obama is a ..Muslim non-citizen. Expect more of the same bad ideas and policies that got us into the Great Recession under president Bush. Expect an Extreme Makeover! This article by Think Progress is an eye-opener.
 

• A Judiciary chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who has hinted at impeaching President Obama.
• Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who opposes the existence of the global warming committee he would chair!
• The subcommittee that controls monetary policy would be headed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who has called paper money "nothing short of counterfeiting"
• Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who apologized to BP during the oil spill for a $20 billion "shakedown," would control national energy policy.
• And, several others, like the tea partisans who are running for the House and the Senate; they will obstruct and destroy. The only goal publicly stated will be to make Obama one-term president. "There will be no compromise," is their mantra.

Vote for sanity, because we can't go back to failed policies and have this very conservative and backward-looking Republican party have power. I know, most people are concerned not with happened but with what's ahead and who's going to lead the country into a better place. But, the past tells you where you're coming from, and if it's the ..Dark Ages, you wouldn't want to go back.

I was going to write summary of a very nice article in Rolling Stone magazine titled, The Case for Obama, but you can read it on your own. I recommend it.

This election will be decided on turnout. Only a minority turns out to vote in midterm election, and the more energized side usually wins. The election of 2010 may be decided on local issues and personalities, but it will have huge national political implications. Even though campaigns aren't necessarily about reasonable arguments and intellectual discussions, what we're having today in this polarized country is a choice between insanity and mediocrity, between the nuts and the mainstream, between 19th century ideologues and 21st century pragmatists. Between darkness and 1 photovoltaic watt.  The latter choices aren't the ideal, but I'll take them given the options available to us.

I'm voting for sanity.

Polls Are a Snapshot of the Moment, and Right Now the GOP is Winning the House

An outside observer may wonder how the Democrats, having won overwhelmingly in the last election, can be blamed for a bad economy and government inefficiency. The stimulus money failed to convince Americans that this expensive action was worth it. It's hard to easily demonstrate that things would be worse hadn't been if these monies hadn't been spent. As for the gridlock, well, you know which is the "party of NO."

However, in reality American politics are unique in many ways. One is, that under our system of checks & balances, the lack of (appropriate) accountability. The executive is separate from the legislative branch, hence the President does not control the actions of Congress. Throw into the mix a quirky tradition of the Senate--the filibuster--and you can have a small minority obstructing at will and with impunity. 

Of course, the Republicans were never going to accept president Obama's legitimacy. It's no accident that there are so many "birthers" in the GOP Congressional delegation.  Apparently they're poised to capitalize on the effects of a bad economy--one they helped to create--and weak presidential leadership.

Midterm elections traditionally are bad for the party in the White House. All else being equal, there are a couple factors. One, that the opposition is more energized while the core supporters stay home. Two, the 10-15% of floating non-ideologues and low information voters, who have left Obama's 2008 winning coalition and are generally frustrated with gridlock and lack of clear policy from the administration.

There's a consensus today, as a snapshot of the electoral mood that the Republicans (and their tea party allies) will win enough seats [218 need for majority] in the House to control it. That's unfortunate, but the White House and the Dems hopefully will get the correct message from this: Do not try to win the minds and hearts of those who didn't vote for you in 2008. These voters will never come over. Be true to what Obama-the-candidate ran on, as most of the country still supports that agenda. Show clear objectives and demonstrate strong leadership.

This GOP has no future, unless the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Republicans will soon find out that the tea parties are their greatest enemy, because not only prevents them from winning the Senate this year but also pulling the party further to the right--where most of the country isn't! More on this later..
 

Jackson Katz: Men, Masculinities, and Media. It's Time We Pay Attention to What Its Being Said

In comparative politics an important variable and a good indicator is the status of women. If you don't know anything about a country, ask the question, what is the status of women in that society? The answer will give you a very good idea of how advanced this country is.

While the US is an advanced liberal democracy, we still have serious problems, like violence against women--a problem that often is wrongly labeled as "women's issue." It's an issue that should concern all of us, as it is all of us who have to work to solve this problem. 

We are all here because of mothers, and despite having women in close proximity in our lives, treating them with respect and as equals leaves much to be desired. Honoring Mothers By Improving the Lives of Women, as I wrote back on Mother's Day, is the only enlightened course of action.


Yesterday, I attended a very interesting & informative speech by Jackson Katz [click on the link for useful resources] of MVP Strategies, an organization that provides gender violence prevention training. Most men instinctively would say that they're not abusers so they don't really need to know how not to abuse. Well, it's true, most men are decent human beings, but the question Mr. Katz raised was, if we are against abuse then why most men remain silent when they witness abuse or hear abusive language? 


It has taken many, many years to make some common practices uncool because most people wouldn't tolerate them. We have to change our ways and elements of our collective culture when it comes to gender violence and verbal abuse. Many laws can say one thing but if society doesn't change, there's a crisis. Same with the civil rights movement, whereas the laws were on the books but states (and the majority of their citizens) refused to accept the good principles in the Bill of Rights, and adopt common decency towards every human being.

Being politicos as we are, and given this being a pivotal election season, we should closely examine the messages and statements of those who want to be elected to Congress. We have to ask the conservative religious candidates what do they mean by "a woman must submit to her husband"? What do they mean by "traditional ways"?

Also, what kind of culture and message does Linda McMahon bring to our discourse? Why haven't we seen her being challenged about the kind of message she was putting out while being the president of wrestling entertainment?  Jackson Katz, I've heard, will remedy this soon. [check the Huffington Post this weekend]  I've seen a preview of what WWE has been doing with women on its shows and it's ugly.

Stay tuned, and be alert!

Simple Truths & Clear Messages. The Tax Cuts: Who Gets them and Who Pays for them.

Simplicity is not always possible when it comes to complicated issues, but without people being informed their impressions about reality affect their behavior, including how the vote--if they do--which is a problem for the Democrats this election.

Our president has the intellectual ability to grasp complicated issues but he needs to improve his message, because he doesn't speak to a captive audience in an academic auditorium. The noise by Fox, the Tea parties and the GOP paint Obama and the Congressional Dems as ineffective leaders. It's incredible, isn't it, that Superman hasn't fixed yet all the problems Republicans have helped to create over a decade, so, therefore, the GOP is asking to be put back in (more) control of the legislative agenda!

The video above is a clear, concise illustration of the issue of tax cuts and their effect on our budget. Such messages have to increase in frequency until the election, November 2nd.  Of course, many races will be decided on local issues and personalities, but their effect will be felt nationally for many years to come.

As soon as we see good signs that the White House is coming out actively campaigning and refining a good message, we had both the prez and his veep chastising the Democratic base as whiners and too demanding. What the hell? The White House, instead, should take a good look at its failure to push through many elements of the progressive agenda candidate Obama promised and asked the country to support. He has disappointed much of his most active members--usually the ones who volunteer and come out to vote in midterm elections!  

Obama should be saying that he'll try harder to lead the country in a more progressive direction. This was the message he ran on and the country responded enthusiastically.  It was not just about voting down the incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous Republican rein, but it was about universal health care, end the wars, energy independence, immigration reform, controlling the excesses of Wall Street, etc. All these issues still have the majority support of the country. Maybe with the imminent departure of key high-level White House staff, the president will re-evaluate his strategy and message.


There are 4-5 weeks left during which things can change. The country still doesn't trust the Republicans and don't like their new (old) policy proposals. But, uncertainty about the future and present economic stagnation make voters uneasy. Some reminders and comparisons are necessary to be made soon. In politics one should always ask, what's the alternative?

The Changing Demographics and the Backpedaling of the US Conservatives

I read just recently that for the first time ever we're about to have more non-white babies born in the US. It can happen this year, or the next few, but the fact is that the demographics of this country have changed and will change more.  Is this politically significant?

There's lots of speculation about the prospects of the Democrats in the upcoming election in November. Some Repubs are salivating, believing that they could capture the House, at least. They point to the MA special Senate election where a Repub (Scott Brown) took over Kennedy's seat.  There may be a big Repub gain but I'm willing to say it now, way in advance. Assuming there's no new war or terrorist attack, the election will hinge on the state of the economy. 

The conservatives and their loud mouthpieces are creating a lot of noise by being against president Obama and Congressional Dems. They have no new ideas besides worn rhetoric about "freedom" ,"states' rights", security, etc. And, they want to repeal what the Dems have passed through Congress since 2009. A recession or a bad economy with high unemployment isn't good for any incumbent. There will be loses for the Dems, but they may not be catastrophic.


The conservative base is much more excited right now. The doom and gloom--including rhetoric that can lead to violence--can serve them politically in the short term. It's not a good long-term strategy.  

What is the Impact of Political Campaigns?

Campaigns do the following. Energize the party loyalists, bring home the voters that have supported the party before, discourage the opposition from voting, and, most importantly, make connections between the voters' preconceived notions and the candidate or the party.  

Here's a fact: Most people don't change their minds during a campaign. They may look for reasons to vote in a particular way, but being educated about the issues and then rationally deciding what to vote for is a myth we like to tell about our citizenry. A masterful campaign is to make connections between voters' preferences and the candidate. 


Here's another interesting fact: There is more partisanship in the US that we're being told. Even the majority of "independents" have strong leanings. They may occasionally vote for the other party but they tend to identify more with one that they frequently vote for. Some of the INDs are true swingers and often decide elections. They are low-information voters and can be undecided right up to the election if they're exposed to a balanced bombardment from the two sides!


INDs and Swingers have another trait: they tend to prefer a strong leader who may be wrong to a weak leader who may be right!  This is why many of us have been extremely critical of Obama for wasting a whole year trying to be a ..community organizer from the White House.

The Future Has Begun

Ah, I almost forgot about the demographics.  Can you identify any main plank in the Republican platform and core policy proposals that has a long-term future with the changing demographics? Also, if other advanced democracies provide some kind of an example, can you identify those US conservative stances that will be adopted by the majority of Americans in the near (or distant future)?  Things like outlawing of abortion, more theocracy, no regulation of the marketplace, no social safety net, military might over diplomacy, environmental issues, climate change, immigration, rejection of science and the scientific method? Just wonderin'