Tag Archives: elections

Difference making.

There’s little that can be said about the 2014 election that hasn’t been repeated seventy or eighty times by now. Did we get the Congress we deserve? Perhaps so. It’s the largest Republican majority in the House since the Second World War. So, expect the same — and more of it — as you saw from the present Congress. It also means that Barack Obama will soon be the only thing standing between us and massive cuts in social programs, vastly expanded militarism at home and abroad, and reactionary policies on a range of fronts, from abortion rights to immigration to health care and beyond. That’s where we stand.

Still just a numbers game.At least, that’s what’s left to us after a remarkably lackluster election in which about 37% of the American voting populace voted. That’s the lowest turnout since 1942, and it bears remembering that a lot of voting age men were in he military at the time. So if we can’t summon the will to vote, do we have the right to complain about the outcome? Sure, the Democratic party — including many of last Tuesday’s also-rans — is less than inspiring. But there is a small difference between the parties, and small differences can sometimes have an enormous impact on the nation’s most vulnerable. We owe it to them to go and mark the ballot, even if it means voting for some jerk-ass.

Of course, in my own upstate New York congressional district, our Republican House member ran unopposed. The Democratic party didn’t think the race was worth contesting, probably because our last Democratic congressman, Michael Arcuri, only held the seat for four years (2007-2011), barely winning a second term in 2008 and losing narrowly to Richard Hanna in 2010. Sure, the national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee probably didn’t want to throw good money after bad, but the upshot is that we had no one to vote for. That was not the case everywhere. In Syracuse, Democrat Dan Maffei lost by close to 20 points to a Republican who pledged independence, moderation, and a commitment to aiding inner city communities.

Bullshit. Maffei’s replacement will vote to make Boehner Speaker once again. That will produce austerian policies that will extend and deepen the misery in Maffei’s district. The only way to avoid that was through voting. If I’m wrong, tell me how, exactly.

luv u,

jp

Vote, etc.

We live in what’s casually referred to as a democracy; more specifically, a representative democracy dominated by a “two party” system that is, in actuality, a single party with two wings. One wing is a wholly owned subsidiary of the wealthiest individuals and corporations on the planet. The other is an actual political party with a relatively broad base but that’s sluiced full of cash from many of the same players. I am not going to sit here and suggest that voting makes all of the difference in the world – it obviously doesn’t. But I will say that it’s something we must do (among many other things) if only to keep things from becoming exponentially worse than they are right now.

Vote because of these guysI know – that doesn’t sound like a gee-whiz, hyper positive, up-with-people rallying cry of the sort we have all grown to expect since our kindergarten days. It’s merely the truth – the vote is a right people have died defending in this country (see Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney), and we need to exercise it. We also need to encourage those around us to do the same thing. Because if we stay home, sit on our hands, choose to watch the game instead of marking the ballot, our opponents – those who are part of the wholly-owned corporate subsidiary known as the Republican party – gain even greater influence and power. Elections always have consequences.

Indeed, the evidence is all around us. We are still living with the fallout of the 2004 presidential election; specifically, every reactionary 5-4 Supreme Court decision from Citizens United to Shelby County vs. Holder is the product of the second Bush term and the appointment of what may be a permanent activist conservative majority with justices Alito and Roberts. The outright disaster of the 2010 mid-terms will be with us for at least the next decade, with Republican-biased redistricting, severe limits on abortion rights, attacks on voter access,  forced budgetary austerity, and persistent denial of and inaction on climate change.

So listen, friends … you may not love your congressional, gubernatorial, or down-ballot choices, but you need to vote for them, then work for more progressive alternatives. That’s the only way things ever change for the better in this country. So go do it.

luv,

jp

Beer hat politics.

This past week, on The Daily Show, Patrick Stewart made an appearance as the Chinese moon probe “Jade Rabbit,” complete with ludicrous spacecraft headgear. He was reading the strangely lyrical farewell message advanced by the Chinese government as having come from the probe. Now, that was funny, but I’m afraid it barely meets the level of ridiculousness attained by political pundits now deployed across all media, busily framing in this fall’s election as a bounty-in-waiting for the Republicans and basically a replay of 2010.

Punditus domesticus

Here we are, nine months from casting the first votes and it starting to sound like the election’s already over. Part of the problem is that the 24 hour news cycle has a voracious hunger for news that’s easy to report on. The horse race of political contests is a particular favorite, so election season never, ever ends. The moment 2012 was settled, the pundits were talking about 2014 and even 2016. Now the talk is constant about the upcoming mid-terms, and how historically the president’s party does particularly badly on second-term midterm elections. Nothing can ever be different. Rinse and repeat.

It’s like they’re planting this beer-hat on all of us, with blinders on either side. This is what you can expect, they say. Just drink your beer and don’t deviate from the usual course. People don’t turn out for mid-terms, they tell us over and over. People aren’t interested in politics or governance, we are reminded. Move on, people – nothing to see here.

Reactionary politics at any level relies on the non-participation of the majority of the electorate. The pundit class actively encourages this non-participation. The only defense for the rest of us is to get actively involved in the mechanism of politics. There are a million different ways of doing this, from participating on the precinct level in local party politics to working with your neighbors and broader community on specific causes. But the minimum bar for this is to vote, under any and all circumstances. Especially …. especially when they don’t want you to.

And trust me … if you are non-white and living in a now-red state, they don’t want you to. All the more reason to do it.

luv u,

jp

W.B.G. (We’ll be gone)

Back before the start of the financial crisis in 2008, the guiding principle of Wall Street bankers was i.b.g./y.b.g. – when the whole thing comes crashing down, “I’ll be gone and you’ll be gone.” We will get away with it. That was prescient, to say the least. They pretty much did get away from it, except a handful of bad actors that hurt the wealthy as well as the ordinary. (Bernie Madoff is one of those.)

As we stand at the cusp of another presidential election, witnessing the terrifying aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, it’s clear that for the “conservative” (i.e. statist reactionary) side of the political equation, i.b.g./y.b.g. appears to apply to the climate crisis as well. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has adopted his party’s Luddite stance on global warming, advocating massive expansion of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and use and joining the crackpot consensus on the right that sees extreme weather as a series of unfortunate (and wholly unrelated) accidents best ignored.

That the G.O.P. standard bearer can maintain this position after a year of unprecedented extreme weather is remarkable. That he can do it in the wake of Sandy’s devastation is pathological. Madness though it may be, it has a goal: profit. Romney is fighting for his class, and fighting hard. He is the champion of short-term gain, narrowly shared.

His beloved Keystone pipeline is case in point. Romney speaks of this project as a means of “energy independence”. I’m guessing he’s not ignorant enough of global markets to think that any resulting fuel would simply be shared amongst Americans. Any oil produced in the U.S. goes into the global market. Even more importantly, Keystone would carry tar-sands sludge, mixed with toxic chemicals, down to refineries on the Gulf coast where it would be refined into diesel fuel and shipped to China. The bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Who cares if it contributes mightily to the collapse of our ecosystem? They make their money, then i.b.g. / y.b.g., right?

Trouble is, w.b.g. (we’ll be gone), too. That plainly won’t do. Do the right thing on Tuesday, and send Romney back to his mansion and his $100 million I.R.A.

luv u,

jp

Crying thief.

My guess is that Marco Rubio is speaking now as I write these lines, serving up a fitting introduction for the nominee – or Rominee – of last resort for the Republican party. A speech filled with platitudes about freedom from, I don’t know, the tyranny of a pension or reliable health insurance in your old age, spoken by the son of escapees from communist Cuba. As Ryan put it on Wednesday night, the present-day G.O.P. sees everything to the left of Ayn Rand as sclerotic socialism, including legislative initiatives – like the individual mandate and cap and trade – that they themselves invented only a handful of years ago. (Ryan himself couldn’t even stick to his Randian creed for three minutes, decrying a nanny state where “everything is free except you” then paying tribute to the Medicare his mother purportedly depends on.)

I don’t know about these guys, but that “everything free” part probably sounds pretty attractive to a lot of Americans right now. While they equate Obama with Castro, Barry is much, much closer to them than he is to the bearded one in Havana. Would that he had put his shoulder behind expanding Medicare instead of this republican inspired, Heritage Foundation formulated health insurance scheme they call “Obamacare”. Would that he had committed himself to full employment along the lines of what Robert Pollin is recommending, among others. Those are positions worth defending. The problem Obama has right now is not the Republicans … it is his own flaccid liberalism, hopelessly compromised from the first stage of negotiation.

In truth, the Republicans, led by millionaire Romney, should be easy as hell to beat. They have zero credibility on the economy, no track record to speak of. Obama at least had the Clinton years – what does Romney have? The Republicans crashed the economy; now they want the driver’s seat back. They nearly destroyed the empire it took decades of rapacious interventionism to build. They have an ex-president, a mere four years out of office, that played no role in their convention. Did anyone mention him even once? They appear to think that by disowning the historically incompetent Bush/Cheney and pretending not to remember their tenure that they can induce amnesia amongst the rest of the body politic. They believe that by pointing elsewhere and crying “thief”, they can rob again.

Now that the balloons have fallen on Romney/Ryan (and we have been treated to the spectacle of evident dementia-sufferer Clint Eastwood rambling aimlessly on national television), it’s fair to respond to that question they always ask four years into an opponent’s presidency – namely, are you better off than you were four years ago. Four years ago, we were in free fall, the credit system of the world’s largest economy was shutting down, and hundreds of thousands were being thrown out of work. Four years ago, Bush’s war of choice in Iraq was still killing young soldiers by the dozen. Unless you’re as demented as Clint Eastwood, you probably remember all that.

Yes, we’re better off than we were in 2008. Still not good, but it takes a lot of work to get out of a hole as deep as the one Romney’s party dug us into.

luv u,

jp

American taliban.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Rep. Todd Aiken is some kind of outlier or “knuckle dragger,” as Boehner might put it. He represents the core of where the Republican party is on women’s reproductive rights today. The tea party-fueled G.O.P. has been on a mission about abortion since they took power in January of last year, advancing radical anti-abortion legislation on both on the federal and the state level. The 2011 “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion” act – HR3 on the docket, meaning this is literally the third bill they got to since taking power – included in its original form a redefinition of rape that established the somewhat dubiously defined category of “forcible rape”. The final version would ban federal funding of abortions in cases of “statutory rape”, meaning that rape victims would have to undergo some kind of audit to avoid bringing the child of their rapist to term.

The motivation behind this is pretty obvious. Attempts to ban abortion have always run into three exceptions that block an outright ban – rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. Of these three categories, anti-abortion fanatics see rape as the least problematic to game. They keep trying to find ways around that exception, resorting to narrowing the definition of “legitimate” rape, junk science theories about female reproductive biology, and so on. Aiken got his theory from a crackpot preacher that served as a surrogate for Romney during the last election.  This same guy has met with both Romney and Ryan this year.

The Republicans do not want to have this conversation. But the simple truth is that they are committed to this notion of no abortion, no exceptions. They are becoming the American / Christian version of the taliban, adding a “no exceptions for rape or incest” anti-abortion plank to their national party platform just this past week. They are running away from it, but it is not going anywhere, and if you dig deep enough, you will find plenty of true believers like Aiken who will say what they believe, no matter how extreme. And this is an extreme position by any measure – the most extreme advocated by a national party on the subject of abortion since it became a national issue in the 1970s.

Extremism has gone mainstream. This should be an interesting convention, if it doesn’t get washed out by that hurricane.

luv u,

jp

Eyes wide open.

I suppose if I’m going to rant about anything this week, it’s going to be the election. Election years are always nerve-wracking, like a slow-motion train wreck. They make me feel, more than ever, that we as a nation are sleep-walking into history. The notion that we can be on the knife-edge of electing someone like Mitt Romney president – that working people of any persuasion (to say nothing of retirees) would ever consider voting for that overpaid fichus tree in a suit – is simply flabbergasting.

To be certain, Obama has not acted boldly enough on the economy, on basic issues of human rights, and so on. That’s a given. But let us not forget how we got into this hole in the first place. We had eight years of Dubya Bush, during which time he and his fellow cartoon pirates started two wars, established torture as an open instrument of foreign policy, blew an enormous hole in the federal budget with two rounds of wartime tax cuts, let New Orleans be destroyed, crashed the economy into what has turned out to be a milder version of the Great Depression, and quite a bit more. They did so with the full cooperation of a Republican led congress for six full years, and effective Republican control for the remaining two. (The Dems’ razor-thin majority 2007-2009 didn’t buy them much.)

I find it hard to blame anyone for falling into cynicism with regard to the two-party duopoly we call American democracy. In too many ways, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. But there are enough differences to make it worth the time and effort (and in some states, it will take both time and effort – I’m looking at you, Ohio!) to cast a decisive vote against Romney and the G.O.P. congress. Not that this is all one has to do to move the country in the right direction – far from it. But the consequences of doing nothing on election day are … well, we’ve seen them. (See paragraph #2.) The Republicans get worse every cycle they hold power. If they take it again this time, they will gut the remaining social safety net (frayed as it is), throw millions out of work through forced austerity, drive us into recession, start another war, build a transcontinental pipeline to carry toxic sludge to the gulf where it can be turned into diesel fuel and sold to China, and… well, you’ve heard the rest.

I’m not asking you to ignore Obama’s failings. Resist, of course. But don’t think replacing him with a clueless millionaire won’t drive us into a deeper hole. We can’t afford to take that trip again. Vote with your eyes open … but for @$%# sake, vote.

luv u,

jp

Mitt’s excellent adventure.

Did you hear it last week, over the noise emanating from the London Olympics? That collective groan from points east? That was the world reacting to the man who might be president next January. There are, I’m sure, millions in Europe and the Middle East thinking, Really, America? So soon after Bush, you’re going to elect yet another ham-fisted idiot? Really? In many respects, our president is president of the world, if only because he (and thus far, it’s always been “he”) wields enormous power – military, economic, and diplomatic – over virtually everyone else. (They should probably get a vote in the matter, but then here in America we’re not even guaranteed that right, depending upon which state we live in.)

Though his spinmeisters have been working overtime to put a positive gloss on it, Mitt’s softball trip to friendly nations was an unmitigated (or un-Mitt-igated, perhaps) disaster, from the crypto-racist tone of the adviser referencing our shared “Anglo-Saxon heritage” with the British, to the Olympic gaffe, to name-checking MI6 (psst, Mitt: it’s supposed to be a secret), to blaming Palestinian poverty on their “culture” or lack of same. That last comment is something of a bookend to the Anglo-Saxon trope he started off with, making Romney seem strangely fixated on issues of ethnic identity. (He later doubled down on the Palestinian remark in an essay in National Review online.)

Of course, the stop was another opportunity to signal his willingness to countenance war with Iran, whether started by Israel or by the United States. In this we hear his neocon Bush-era advisors speaking, such as Dan Senor, former military flack during the early days of the Iraq invasion, who said on Romney’s behalf that the governor would “respect that decision” if Israel chose to strike Teheran militarily. No doubt. I hope everyone over here is listening closely to what Romney and his campaign are saying about foreign policy. They seem anxious to get another war started, having tasted what they seem to consider “success” in the Iraq catastrophe. And for those who say the economy is the only issue that matters, it’s worth considering what yet another pointless war would do to the federal budget.

Mitt’s got FoxNews syndrome – too much time spent with friendly media. He just doesn’t know how to behave in the real world. Ergo, his press availabilities were practically zero during this trip. I’ll bet he’s glad to be back home, in the comforting embrace of Sean Hannity.

luv u,

jp

Austeritarianism.

The international consensus on forced austerity was soundly rejected this past week in both Greece and France. That’s what happens when you let people speak their minds – they sometimes opt for inconvenient solutions. As much as I love Jon Stewart, even he got this one wrong – the Greeks are not political confusniks addicted to cradle-to-grave government benefits. Their financial train wreck is as much a function of wealth privilege over there as it is over here. When they went to the polls this past weekend, they chose the parties that opposed the Euro zone plan, both on the left and the right. That’s not surprising; the bailout basically benefits that country’s financial sector, at the cost of Greek workers. There have always been political groupings on the extreme left and right in Greece, so everyone went for the candidates who (a.) opposed the bailout and (b.) aligned with them politically, generally speaking.

The bankruptcy of what Greek and French voters rejected couldn’t be more obvious. Greece has gone through several cycles of austerity-driven budget cuts, massive layoffs, rate hikes, etc., and the result has been the same. Step 1: You cut budgets, you throw government workers out on the street, and there’s less money in the economy. Step 2: Lower aggregate earnings and consumer spending means less revenue into the government, which in turn widens the budget deficit. Step 3: The Eurozone demands more cuts.  Step 4:  see Step 1. Mix and repeat. Can you say “death spiral”? This is, in essence, what is happening in England and in the United States in slightly less dramatic fashion, though on a much grander scale since their economies are so much larger than Greece’s.

So… the people have spoken. And the markets are reacting. Not real fond of democracy, the investment community. It involves way too much uncertainty. The fact is, they are grappling with many of the same problems that are plaguing us. We had an overinflated housing market, blown up even further by derivatives speculation, then when the whole house of cards came crashing down, our deeply deregulated banking system left some of our largest financial institutions almost fatally exposed. Their crisis was in part precipitated by ours, but because they have a monetary union and not a political union, it seems like 20-odd different crises rather than one big conglomerated one. And just as austerity is lengthening the depression (yes, depression – ask Krugman) over here, it will bring only misery to the continent as well.

This system is obviously broken. Cutting spending may serve other political ends, but it will not fix the problem.

luv u,

jp

Moral hazard, part II.

Know what I hate? Well, I’m going to tell you. It’s when people intrude upon your deepest personal life, and then when you object, they accuse you of denying their right to – I don’t know – have everything exactly their way, I guess. That’s how I see the hyper-religious crowd who have been complaining about the mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception. Obama carved out an exception that should satisfy anyone – one that goes way beyond any necessary relief from what’s required, in my view. And still they are crowing about it, comparing it to religious persecution, even Nazi-ism in the more extreme cases.

The latest round has been in state legislatures from Georgia to New Hampshire, where the crackpot tea-party majority has proposed a “conscience” exception so broad it practically guarantees legal challenge. (These are the freaks who insisted, bizarrely, that all legislation be rooted in the Magna Carta, even though few of them have ever read the document in its entirety. Next, they’ll demand all proposed laws draw on neolithic cave paintings.) Then there are the fetal “personhood” statute and vaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia, scaled back in the face of massive protests by women in that divided state. This … from the party that was all about jobs, jobs, jobs during the 2010 election. See what happens when you trust them?

It should surprise no one that Republicans used the economy as a trojan horse to conceal their deeply unpopular, highly regressive right-wing social agenda. It was, after all, GOP-driven policies (aided, of course, by watery Democrats) that blew a massive hole in the federal budget back in 2001, expanding it in subsequent years with undeclared wars and unwarranted tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. Those tax cuts were supposed to have expired by now, but as every politician knows, that ain’t gonna’ happen … because no one has the spine to allow it. Meanwhile, we all pay the price. My city in upstate New York is starved for funds largely because the Feds are starving the States, and the States are passing the cuts along to municipalities. That and inaction on health and retirement reform (not privatization, but the kind that would work) is resulting in massive tax hikes at the local level – close to 20% for the coming fiscal year. This just to spare the Romneys of the world a return to the favorable income tax rates of the 1990s, when they gained plenty enough wealth, thank you very much.

The Republicans have nothing to offer on the economy. And unless we push them, neither will the Democrats.

luv u,

jp