Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Another Round...

I was asked recently why the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO last summer is generating so much anger, demonstrations, rioting, violence, etc. "Why this case? There have been so many instances of police brutality lately, what made this case different that there is so much action?" I wish I knew exactly why this particular killing of an unarmed black kid has sparked such lasting anger and continuing action. I will offer a few historical observations and some conjecture that I hope can create some threads of understanding about race and our past that could bear on the events.

Missouri is a bit of an odd case, the compromise named for the state established the line between North and South but it was the exception as a "Northern" state with "Southern" values. Those values being mainly slavery and all the attending attitudes toward equality (bad), aristocracy (good), and white supremacy as the rest of the South. This was because it was mainly Southerners who settled the state, snapping up the best land and leaving a strong impression on the institutions of Missouri. They also brought lots of slaves with them, meaning that unlike most Northern States Missouri always had a significant African-American population. Significant but always a minority, slaves in Missouri were generally treated better than in other parts of the South. However, in the eyes of the law it was just as bad with no recognition of human rights or constitutional protections.

Therefore, two trends emerge. First is that unlike say African-Americans in Chicago or other Northern cities, the black community of St. Louis and its surrounding areas have roots there. Traditions and institutions in that community have a past, a history of many generations. It is possible that a black father could bring his son to see the tree where his father was hanged, or see the site where the slave market once existed that brought his family to that area. Macabre? Horrific? Apocryphal? Perhaps, but possible. Also possible is the persistence of attitudes towards law enforcement that were designed to treat African-Americans as property. After generations of progress, we have seen a real backlash against African-American dignity and rights. And the history of African-Americans in Missouri means they are less likely to submit to degradation and official violence because it has been home for many generations.

Crane Brinton once wrote that revolution becomes more of a possibility when people perceive that progress has been made but stymied or even reversed. After witnessing a black man become president, the African-American community in St. Louis and elsewhere has seen increasing brutality and disenfranchisement directed against it by the ole' massa' class. The law has been stacked against them in the past, and seems to be again. This second trend is simply that the rioting and protest are a reaction to a reaction, that unaffected members of the African-American community will not stand idly by through so much injustice to the victims. In effect, Michael Brown was unjustly killed for a minor infraction if anything, while his killer faces no punishment for his actions. The immediate response by police to the protests, in their body armor and militarized vehicles could also have reawakened cultural memories of slave patrols, bloodhounds, and lynchings as symbols of state repression by the white majority.

To reiterate, this is all conjecture on my part. It is impossible to know the minds of so many people, whether they share an attitude about the past even remotely similar to the hypothesis presented here. Only one thing is self-evident, race relations in the United States and especially Missouri are particularly tense in 2014.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Because You Stayed Home

It is too bad your kid's [sporting event, dance class, spelling bee, doctor's appointment] "prevented" you from voting. It is too bad you couldn't take an hour away from homework, studying, or partying. It is too bad you just could not find the time to participate in the election. But now, it is too late. You may have been trying to make up some extra time at work to close the gap on your bills after the last round of budget cuts. You may have simply thought that it has been four years and nothing Scott Walker has done has personally impacted your life or your checking account. I have some bad news for you. Last time they stomped on teachers and gutted the schools, this time they are going to squeeze all of you.

Jeff Simpson posted yesterday about all the ways the criminal Republican government in WI, headed by Captain Baldspot are going to make your life harder. I hate to say I told you so, but you were probably too busy with your own life to predict just how much these thugs could get you. My exact words:
Look, to put it quite simply, republicans will make your life harder. Democrats may make bad calls, support bad policies from time to time, get persuaded of the wrong initiative, or succumb to corruption but that is not part of their platform. On the other hand, when republicans do those things it is by design. The GOP does not continue to clamor for more wars, lie reflexively about even the most trivial things, deregulate business, take kickbacks, privatize anything they get their hands on, or display stunning incompetence and fundamentalist ignorance in office because they are bad conservatives, but because they are good conservatives. This is what they want to do, and what they will keep doing every time we stay home.
 The ballots have barely been counted and the criminal government of WI is already unveiling how hard they are going to screw you and reward business. Don't worry, all you whiny, scaredy pants republican voters Scott Walker is only going to take part of your Social Security as your reward for supporting fascism. But if you have an interest in energy conservation or *gasp* drive a hybrid or dare to buy one, yeah, you're gonna get it good and hard.
The fee on vehicle purchases would be based on a percentage of the sale price and would apply to new vehicles but not used ones. It would add $800 to the price of a $32,000 car, Gottlieb said in a conference call with reporters.
In one of the most significant changes, Gottlieb is recommending altering how the gas tax — now 32.9 cents per gallon — is calculated. His plan would change the rate to 15.5 cents per gallon plus 8% of the average wholesale price of fuel. It would include a price floor to prevent the tax from dropping below a certain level.
The change would raise the price at the pump by about 5 cents per gallon, said Gottlieb. The typical driver would pay about $27 a year more in gas taxes because of it, he said.
The tax increase would be bigger for diesel fuel, rising by about 10 cents a gallon. That's aimed at having semitrailers and other heavy vehicles pay more because they put more wear on roads, Gottlieb said. Owners of passenger vehicles that use diesel fuel would be able to claim a credit to offset some of the fuel taxes they would pay.
The annual vehicle registration fee would remain flat, at $75 a year. But those who drive hybrid and electric vehicles would have to pay an additional fee of $50 a year. That is meant to ensure those drivers pay their share for roads because they use less fuel and thus pay less in gas taxes, Gottlieb said.

Why is it so hard to get through people's heads? If there is inflation, there are going to be tax hikes. It is just the nature of the beast that what government does takes labor and when prices go up people need to be paid more. Cutting compensation for public sector workers does not always fly, it usually is done subtly by increasing pay by less than inflation. It is only during special circumstances, such as Act 10 in WI, that republicans can cut compensation outright. When they claim to be "cutting government" it is usually just shifting things around such as what has been happening in education.

Deep down in their lizard brains, Republicans understand that schools are essential in some form. Not to educate children, beyond a certain point they just need to be warehoused somewhere and kept busy so parents can work and keep the economy and profits rolling. Why can't the job be done in a way that creates new profit streams? Profits that can be siphoned off into campaign coffers. Hence vouchers and charter schools and NCLB, win-win. No unions, no job security for teachers, little oversight from the community; what a great racket.

But that was last time, this time it is all about wringing any excess disposable income out of the population and deposit it directly into the accounts of major campaign contributors. First up to bat is the energy monopolies:
We Energies customers will pay a larger fixed charge on their monthly electric bills, and the utility will pay less for the power that customers generate with solar panels, state regulators decided Friday.
The increase in the fixed charge from about $9 to $16 a month was justified, the Public Service Commission decided in a 2-to-1 vote.
The decision, which will be finalized next month, came as the three PSC commissioners met in Madison to decide the Milwaukee utility's request to raise rates in January.
The preliminary bottom line for residential customers: a 1.8% increase in bills on average, though bills will rise more for customers who use less energy, PSC spokesman Nathan Conrad said. Bills will go up by another 0.8% in 2016.
Business customers will see a slight decrease in electric bills in 2015, the commission decided. Business customers would see an increase of about 1% in 2016, said Jeff Ripp, the commission's deputy administrator.
 If you are paying more for the same thing it is a tax right? This is what you get by staying home. Would things have been different under a Mary Burke administration? No one knows for sure because you were too busy to even try. This might have still occurred from inertia or the rationalizations detailed in the article, but you can be damn sure the campaign siphon still would have went to the same criminals.

Elections have consequences, and when you can't be bothered to show up the pain falls entirely on you. Not standing up to bullies might save you a bit of pain initially, but they get your lunch money all the same.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Diffusion

It takes a lot for me to be too dismal to write. There was a post-election burst like a death rattle but I really just want to crawl in a hole for the next two years. Before you protest, gentle reader, let me explain. I imagine if anyone out there actually reads this they are thinking "but The Kraken says things that need to be said, he motivates me to try and prove him wrong." Besides being naïve wishful thinking and an incredibly lame straw man begging to be knocked down, it just is not true. There are thousands of bloggers like me, and actual organizers out there working their best to make America better. Who listens to me? Is there one person out there I have persuaded in any way? If I packed up shop right now, if this was my last post, would it make any difference at all?

Let's say, just to keep the numbers neat, that there is one progressive activist for each right-winger and each one is competing for the allegiance of one of the many barely interested Americans out there. Even if it were only two neutrals for each set of partisans, who wins in this battle for souls? Who has the bigger, louder platform? That is pretty obvious, the contest is not even close. Nor is "who has the most money?" And that is the one and only thing. The everlasting battle for the minds of men is fought with money. While there is passion, determination, facts, and simple decency on the left, there is precious little money.

What drives progressives? Surely there are a myriad of reasons, but getting rich or even well compensated for your work is probably not one of them. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote in The Vital Center almost seventy years ago about the diffusing quality of democracy and it is possibly more true today in the age of social media. I hate to admit it, but all human societies beyond the level of subsistence agriculture are inherently hierarchical. We need someone in charge, American government at the time of the Constitution was revolutionary because it gave the people a role in governing. We get to pick our leaders and either give or withhold our consent to be governed in defiance of most human history. I will return to this concept but social media and the internet has both increased our options and exaggerated our sense of self-importance.

Humans, as Aristotle taught, are political animals. We need attention and competition within our society to feel a sense of worth. Social media has made everyone king or queen of their own little patch of cyberspace. Each of us gets to tweet, status, like, or blog anything that happens to be on our minds and we can broadcast our thoughts to the entire world if we so desire. So Schlesinger wrote about democracy as inherently diffusing, as opposed to concentrating, because it is open with nearly infinite options and paths.

One of those paths is indifference. We have the freedom to not care about who holds the levers of power or what they do with them. This is the second worst option because, as I stated above, someone is going to be in charge. Choosing not to participate means someone who probably does not share your values is going to represent you in government.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Oh Those Wacky Voters

This election night tweet from Ben Casselman of 538 dot com is already famous:
So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.
This sentiment is poignant and succinct. It gets to the heart of a conundrum about American politics that researchers have been asking for decades. "Why are American attitudes center-left, even social democratic, but they keep electing so-called conservatives?" Or why do the majority of Americans favor liberal policies but keep electing Republicans who do not? We could take one example, hunger, to illustrate the point on an issue that should not be partisan. The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) published a poll on attitudes towards hunger as a social problem in America.
  • The belief that the government needs to display leadership in the fight against hunger is very strong. More than 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Independents look to the federal and local government to lead, and 50 percent of Republicans believe that the federal government has responsibility.
  • 61 percent agree that “we should support and improve government-sponsored food assistance programs so that more people who are struggling can get the help they need.” Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 39 percent of Republicans agree with this statement.
  • People believe that the child nutrition programs – especially school meals and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program – are leading to better outcomes for children by helping them learn and improving their overall health and well-being. By more than three to one, Americans believe that spending on such programs should increase (50 percent) rather than decrease (15 percent). (emphasis mine)

  • So a strong majority of Americans believe you should not be on your own in this most basic aspect of life, but nearly 100% of the Republicans sent to congress campaign and win on cutting these very programs with so much support. Ok then.

    Sometimes the question is posed as such; why are Democrats so good at governing and so lousy at campaigning, while Republicans are so good at campaigning and lousy at governing? Before attempting to answer we should try to figure out what the two parties stand for and who supports them.

    According to Drew Westen in his book The Political Brain, Republicans have a simple storyline about America that is constantly told and retold to the point where we all know it by heart. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution, religion in public life will prevent crime and maintain the traditional family, etc. What story do Democrats tell?

    They don't have one. So each election season, Democrats come out of hibernation with consultants in tow to try and figure out what people want and how they should message what they plan to do about it. There is next to no storyline to transmit from one election to another, and the platform to tell that story is practically non-existent. Republicans have the (very profitable) fox news network to keep their story of hate and fear going, along with right-wing radio and publications that keep their "brand" in constant view. A big difference is who each party speaks to and how it is influenced by their governing style.

    Republicans govern only those who vote for them, therefore they have a wide range of villains to attack on their way to power. Yoda understands how fear leads to anger and hate on to the dark side, it turns out this path activates authoritarianism as well. So create an enemy, promise to punish that enemy, scare the hell out of people, and present yourself as the only one strong enough to protect the fearful. Why are Republicans so bad at governing or even addressing the problems they manufacture? Because they don't give a shit about governing really, the state is just a giant pile of money to crack open and give to their financial backers. Ok then.

    Democrats believe they actually have to govern, and govern the whole nation not only those who agree with or vote for them. Therefore Democrats also campaign in order to represent everyone. Consequently, they regularly throw their liberal base under the bus and cannot have villains in whatever story they come up with to tell voters, nothing is ever their fault the little dears. So if you cannot have bad guys in the story because it would alienate people (the ones who hate you and would never vote for you anyway) and you can't "pander" to the base because it might look like you are doing favors for special interests, what story can you tell? Something vague and pointless about being united, and what ever those expensive consultants can poll-test without alienating anyone. Ok then.

    Is it any wonder why voters are schizophrenic?

    Wednesday, November 5, 2014

    Let The Blaming Commence.

    Which is worse after an election like this, the gloating from tea bag trolls, or the hand-wringing and incestuous scalp-hunting from the left? The president is going to be impeached over [reasons], millions will lose health insurance, hundreds will probably die of preventable diseases, and if you liked the disenfranchisement this time around wait until the new authoritarian governors have two more years to wreck democratic process. But right now the important thing is to wag your finger at all those incompetent boobs who failed to stop the wrecking crew onslaught. It's the media, it's the voters, it's the candidates, consultants, party bosses, anything to put the blame somewhere.

    One status I saw this morning:
     Four years ago we had complete control and now we have lost seats every election but the recall(which they were not on board with). Leadership trio of the Democratic party has to go. That Mike Tate has not resigned yet leaves me speechless. ...
    DO not say join the party and take it over, thats bs and I have zero interest in that. Why join the party so they can use our money to pay worthless consultants? How can Joel Gratz and Beau stafford still be receiving money from the party? I hope someday when Mary Burke gives an honest interview she can admit hiring a republican lobbyist was probably not the best idea to start a campaign(who knew). THese people need to resign in disgrace and find a new line of work. NOW
    This individual is far more inside baseball than your humble narrator but seriously, it was Scott Walker vs. Not-Scott Walker the choice was pretty clear. A commenter jumped on the bandwagon almost to the point of conspiracy theorizing:
    There was no loser last night. Big money won. We have no parties. As long as we live the "delusion" that there are parties representing people we will always lose. If Democrats want to be the party of the people, the people need to force the party to swallow a laxative followed by a 10 gallon enema. Only a total cleanse will save Democrats!
    Or we can blame the president:
    Progressives need to face facts. We have a weak, ineffectual president who has been irrelevant since Nov 2012. Pretty hard to win with that spectre looming overhead.
    And poor Freebird, her first time voting, to see this train wreck.
    I am more pissed at democrats than anyone else right now....this campaign proved to me that as a whole, we really are a lazy bunch. I hate feeling this way- but it''s true. People who don't vote are being ridiculously stupid. I don't feel bad for anyone who will be negatively impacted by Scott Walker once again, but was too lazy to go vote. Actions have consequences.
     I hope she does not give up on politics, her energy and enthusiasm are infectious.

    Bob Cesca has to take the cake when it comes to finger-wagging though.
    Turnout among voters under 30? 13 percent. Congratulations, kids. This is what happens when you confuse social media masturbation for actual participation
    Doesn't that just make you want to jump up and get involved? Me too.
     

    Dubya's Revenge


    Setting aside the sense of outrage that comes from voter suppression, cynicism, dirty tricks, tampering with voting machines, endless robo-calls, long lines, deliberate sabotage, and all the rest; last night was utterly disgusting. People actually went out to vote for the very party, ideology, and in many cases the same politicians who caused the financial collapse, then obstructed and sabotaged the admittedly feeble attempts to fix their mess. Apparently this really is the human condition, deep down most people need to be exploited, need a boot on their neck. The mass of humanity really was born with saddles on their backs with a privileged minority born booted and spurred, ready to ride them. Our experiment is over, the moneyed elite killed the idea that people could actually govern themselves and now we suffer the consequences for daring to believe that "all men are created equal."



    In so far as the direct line of causation goes, a century from now historians will identify George W. Bush as the man most responsible for the destruction of the US. Sure, the list of despicable operatives in the assassination of representative government is very long but they all intersect at dubya. Sure, a country called The United States of America will continue to exist. That dismal place may even have a big entertainment extravaganza every couple years and call it an election, there may even be corporate-approved opposition candidates to play scapegoat. But this country will be a land of opportunity only for con men, grifters, gangsters, and thugs. The rest of us will simply wait our turn to be victimized.

    I can't even detail all the ways dubya's tax cuts, wasteful spending, wars, bailouts, and deregulation or simple non-enforcement of laws irrevocably tipped the balance forever into the hands of plutocrats and their henchmen.

    Get used to it.

    Monday, November 3, 2014

    Follow Up on Agendas: Marijuana Legalization






    A friend of mine recently posted that the Democratic Nominee for Governor of Wisconsin, Mary Burke, is receptive to proposals to legalize medical marijuana. I support her on this issue, I would go further and follow the Colorado model on pot. Of course it will not happen, uptight dairy state denizens would pillory a major party candidate campaigning for that. But legalized marijuana would go a long way toward rebuilding schools and social services in the state.

    Enter Libertarian Robert Burke (I can't believe that is actually his name, two Burkes for the same office?) who is also running for Governor. He does support legalization, but would do it the Libertarian way so I can't get behind his platform. Libertarians are the "too cool for you" hipster party and one day I will detail all the ways that I can't stand them. But for now it is important to note that there is an uncool group that also supports libertarianism; billionaires like the Koch brothers. 

    The columnist John Nichols wrote today about the difficult relationship between stuffy, rich, old white men; their henchmen; and insufferable young hipsters. What these groups have in common is a narcissistic, smug, sense of superiority, and a complete lack of humor or self-awareness. There are only a handful of these guys running around and they are definitely not an electoral coalition (Robert's campaign Facebook page has 1,279 "likes") but they infect everyone around them by force of will.

    It is these wannabes who are the target of new ads designed to siphon off a few votes from Mary Burke. From the article:
    American Future Fund is an enthusiastically conservative organization that each election season fills the airwaves with ads hailing right-wing causes and socially conservative Republican candidates while ripping Democratic officials and contenders.
    But, this fall, the group is also jumping into battleground states with social-media campaigns hailing third-party candidates, legalization of marijuana and "our progressive values."
    Confused? Don't be. In close races, those third-party candidates might just pull a few votes away from Democratic contenders, who are specifically attacked in the ads. Yes, that's playing the margins. But when money is no object, every strategy gets tried.
    Welcome to the brave new world of hyper-cynical, win-at-any-cost big-money politics. (emphasis mine)
    Robert Burke also shared Nichols' article and the one comment just summed up everything I hate about libertarians:
    I just watched all of these commercials for the first time. I don't know what the Democrats are afraid of. It's obvious these commercials were done by old, white people who think they know what cool is and what attracts the college crowd. The actors are poor and have dumb expressions. They remind me of the losers in college who always got so drunk, they woke up the next morning with a shaved head. I was usually the jerk who gave shaves to passed out drunks on my dorm floor. It pretty much insults the intelligence of the college crowd and underestimates their ability to see through this. Anybody dumb enough to believe these ads are most likely not going to vote at all. Too much effort to get off the couch. Why is this getting press and not the debate exclusions?
    You see, it is a pretty exclusive club. They are both bullies and victims... man.

    American Future Fund is targeting these "losers" who desperately want to sit at the cool kids table but might "get off the couch" and vote for Mary Burke. It is quite difficult to simultaneously be a libertarian and care about anyone but yourself. This "serious and sincere Libertarian" may describe the people behind this cynical ploy as "morons" but he also attracts some serious jerks to his crusade. That agenda is to completely atomize society, leaving us entirely at the mercy of our corporate masters. It is an agenda shared by both groups of libertarians, but at least we will all be able to "get blazed" man.

    Follow-Up On Bad Media Narratives

    Run for your lives! The President is unpopular!

    Take everything I wrote in the last two posts about the big picture and apply them to this story.

    The Big Lie The Media’s Telling You About Obama’s Approval Rating

    Happy cognitive empowerment :)

    Another look at the Big Picture

    In almost a perfect follow-up to my recent post on creating and examining the Big Picture, The Atlantic published this story by Norm Ornstein on the media narrative in this election season. When Conspiracy Theories Don't Fit the Media Narrative examines the maddening tendency of not just cable news, but our premier newspapers of record to report stories that conform to whatever theme for the election that surfaced arbitrarily along the way. This time around, The Washington Post and New York Times collectively determined that this season they would push the narrative that Republican establishment types have reclaimed the party for conventional nominees as opposed to wacko tea partiers. So things are just humming along nice and smoothly as the nomination process is back in the hands of campaign managers and national leaders, democracy be damned.

    The subtle underpinnings that this whole concept is anti-democratic seems to be lost in the shuffle. As though the RNC and lavishly funded right wing operatives are saying "dear God, we can't let these people pick our nominees, they're friggin' crazy!" If we put aside for the moment that yes, they are, and so is your entire ideology it says to the objective observer that Republicans really do need to hide their real intentions in order to win office. Ornstein points out that the major newspapers, whose reporting and facts we are supposed to accept as honest, even true, are in fact dependent on someone else's preconceived narrative. Facts, like belief in conspiracy theories by these supposed establishment, civilized Republicans, that do not fit the frame are ignored. But boy do we here about the trivial gaffes from Democratic nominees.

    So, does this critique undermine my recent support of big picture thinking? Am I hopelessly biased in favor of independent and occasionally dissident analysts like Thomas Frank or AlterNet? Maybe, but there is a crucial element missing in the narrative examined by Ornstein, empiricism. Generalizations that lead to narratives must first be drawn from actually existing evidence. Examining the primary sources, which unfortunately often includes newspaper articles that may or may not be suffering from the very cart-before-the horse thinking presented by Ornstein, is the first step in an historian's trade. Some evidence may support your hypothesis about the past, other evidence may not but it is the evidence that drives the narrative not the other way around.

    Empiricism should be a self-evident basis for trying to understand who we are and where we come from but those two things are also based on the fact that we are human. And humans are erratic, unpredictable, and sometimes downright irrational. It takes years of training and experience to overcome these tendencies, and often more to locate the in others. Then there are problems of identifying agendas, which can be as benign as meeting a deadline or as insidious as deliberate deception of your audience to further some other goal. In the case Ornstein examines it is the former, time constraints or even simple laziness can lead a reporter to depend on what was written yesterday to inform his or her findings.

    We hope that Ornstein is correct when he concludes:
    Of course, this does not mean that the press has a Republican bias, any more than it had an inherent Democratic bias in 2012 when Akin, Angle, and Mourdock led the coverage. What it suggests is how deeply the eagerness to pick a narrative and stick with it, and to resist stories that contradict the narrative, is embedded in the culture of campaign journalism. The alternative theory, that the Republican establishment won by surrendering its ground to its more ideologically extreme faction, picking candidates who are folksy and have great resumes but whose issue stances are much the same as their radical Tea Party rivals, goes mostly ignored. Meanwhile, there was plenty of coverage of the admittedly bonehead refusal by Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan [sic] Grimes to say she had voted for Obama—dozens of press references to NBC’s Chuck Todd saying it was “disqualifying”—but no stories saying that references to Agenda 21 or talking about terrorists and drug lords out to kill Arkansans were disqualifying.
     If you would like to read more about the latter effect of deliberate deception on our polarized political system, I would suggest Ornstein's book co-authored with Thomas Mann. It is a fairly objective look at how dysfunctional a government based on compromise and pragmatism becomes when extremism is the norm.

    Sunday, November 2, 2014

    "The GOP Mantra"

    Interesting discussion in class. One student asserted that women should earn less than men. "What about equal pay for equal work?" "Well, if they *did* equal work, sure."
    Same student did not like an increase in the minimum wage. "I'm working now at Walgreen's, busting my butt for minimum wage. But, I know that in the future I will be making a lot more."
    All of this stemmed from a review of Hamilton's economic and political philosophy. Good opportunity to learn from student...s and encourage participation.
    Then I had them look up the line from 1776 (on their magic telephones). "Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."
    -Lincoln Log