More from the bright side

The United States has a republican form of government, public offices are temporarily filled by citizens bound by the law using the most democratic means possible. We may fall from this ideal in practice, sometimes to spectacular effect, but as an American tradition it is woven strongly into our civic fabric. The founders were skeptical of innate human goodness and fearful of concentrated power, therefore they designed the constitution to frustrate would be dictators and tyrants. After studying the right for so long, I share that skepticism and wonder if the ambition to rule and dominate others is not the natural instinct of the elite. Or at least one side of the elite, another side can find satisfaction in building structures and rules, and enforcing them with professional detachment. If there is any validity to that idea then the space between is where democracy can insert itself. Then, if the idea of self-government and a society of laws, not men is strongly ingrained in the electorate, it may be possible to rescue democracy even in the face of doom.

An individual can be smart and responsible, a group unfortunately seems to fall to it's lowest common denominator. Why is authoritarianism so popular among white men without college degrees? Why are there always members of the elite able to play on their fears? Demagogues and the scared, angry people they prey on are always going to exist, rolling in and out like the tide over time. So tyranny and dictatorship are easy, it is democracy that is hard. What actually happened in 2010 that allowed so many would be dictators to  take over governorships and public offices in that election and following off year contests? Was it simply that republicans rebranded as the tea party, allowing so many conservatives to embrace their hatred of Barack Obama without the taint of having supported Dubya? And that so many Democrats were disappointed in Barack Obama that they couldn't muster the will to counter the vile candidates running as tea partiers?

Swings in the public mood like this are why democracy is hard. The first thing so many tea bag governors and state legislatures did was push to break unions, demonize teachers, and restrict voting. If the business corporation is an economic incarnation of authoritarianism, labor unions are the equivalent incarnation for democracy. Unions are hard to build, difficult to maintain, trust in them easily lost but when they are strong they bring great benefit to their members, just as democracy can. And by making unions fight for their very existence, the tea bag governors eased the way to attack democracy itself through voting restrictions. Governors like Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, and then Pat McCrory invented a crisis of voter fraud and then pushed numerous provisions to make voting harder after the Supreme Court's authoritarian wing effectively nullified the Voting Rights Act. The northern states paved the way to ram through all sorts of voter suppression laws, but the old confederacy followed enthusiastically after the roadblock of the VRA was removed.

Elections are decided by who shows up to actually vote. People already have numerous reasons not to take the time to go vote, for democracy to work it requires the voters to know who the candidates are and what the issues are. The mass media, especially cable news, makes it very hard to actually find the facts, it is all buried in spin and punditry. Democrats are not perfect but Republicans go out of their way to obscure their motives and disguise themselves. So it is hard, these are basically givens. We assume the worst and grow cynical.

So it is very important that the courts can step in when voters are bewildered and exhausted on one side, and eager to throw democracy away and embrace authoritarianism on the other. This week the courts reminded us that democracy has strong roots in our social fabric. Some of Scott Walker's voter suppression schemes got thrown out by the courts as well. These are shining examples of why appointed judges who respect democracy and understand the benefits of letting people vote is such an important part of the system. We should be able to state openly and without apology or qualification that any attempt by elected officials to kick the ladder away by making it hard to vote are anti-democratic and anti-American. Suppressing voters, especially as it happens the votes of your opponents, should disqualify a party from holding office. If you can't win unless you prevent your "enemies" from voting, or even feel that this is a legitimate strategy, then you don't deserve to be a part of a democratic society.

This is the bright side, that the system is fighting back against those who would destroy democracy. Even if it is uneven, for instance, the Democratic Party should be running a strong campaign to get IDs for their voters in addition to educating people on the process and registering them to vote. More is better and the Children of Light have to do better than waiting for the firewall of courts to resist the hollowing out of democracy by its enemies.

On The Bright Side

Heck of a week huh? I apologize for my absence but I have been moving and trying to get settled in our new home. And I have been just floored by the brazen incompetence and mean-spirited nonsense coming out of Cleveland. I couldn't handle listening to any of the knuckle-draggers' speeches for more than a couple minutes and nearly lost my lunch when I caught our dumb senator from Wisconsin nasally whine through some horse puckey or other. About the only live segments I could handle was NBC's panel coverage, kind of like looking at an eclipse through a pinhole or reflector.

Then Thursday night happened... Now, was anyone expecting anything different? Of course Trump played Mussolini, Nixon, and George Wallace all wrapped up in a bad wig and orange skin. How was it actually different than the post 9/11 GOP poo flinging festivals? Of course they call for Hillary to be locked up, no one was able to punish them for lying the country into a way or financial collapse or for their obstruction along the way. The republican elite can do anything and their base of fascists will lap it up like dogs. They get away with openly flouting democracy and we'll just shrug and say "we can't do anything about it because freedom of speech". This is how authoritarianism takes hold in a free society.

But there is one last bulwark against the Trumpsterdreifung (takeover). Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are imperfect but they are the last line of defense. So, on the bright side this could all be a flash in the pan. Hillary could win. In decent world with a functioning democracy and an elite that respected the bountiful profits that can be made in a free country instead of the corporate totalitarian order, it would be a no-brainer. But we will be fighting and struggling the whole way. And then a new Clinton administration will have to fight with and survive a anti-American, disloyal opposition. The fight of our lives, again.

However, things could align and the authoritarian beast beaten back. More than a few die-hard 'wingers will give up in the face of their cheeto champion's defeat. Probably not an insignificant number will fall off the political face of the map. Bland, milquetoast Democrats may finally turn the tide in this civil war. Good will not win, but evil will be kept at bay. And we can all laugh at them, the ignorant, the racists, the gutter trash meth heads rubbing shit in their hair. They will either slink away, scream incoherently but harmlessly, or pick up one of their many assault weapons and "show us."

Won't be pretty in any case, but this could be when it is darkest before the dawn. At the very least we won't have to look at Trump on the TeeVee machine anymore or listen to talking heads plather on about him. This could be where a critical mass of adults finally say "ENOUGH!"

I'll take it. Consigning American fascism to the dustbin will be worth it.

I'm with her.

What Do You Want For Christmas?

Just as a thought experiment, let's say that the election goes the way it should and the Democratic Party sweeps it in the landslide that really could be. So we, the non-insane portion of the electorate, have control over the federal government and hopefully made some progress unraveling teabag control over so many of the states. What do "we" do? And I guess it has to be stated as what is your wish list of progressive ideas? The number one challenge facing the United States is the Republican Party, for argument's sake let's assume that they have been rendered more or less harmless in the wake of a landslide election for the moment, what is number two? There is such a backlog of issues, such a huge pile of reforms necessary. What would you prioritize if you could have the ear of President Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Chuck Schumer? There is a good chance even with the professional liberal class of Democrats in charge, we progressives will get at least one thing from our list addressed. Last time it was health insurance reform, and judging on what Obamacare has actually done as opposed to what could have been it has made a real difference in the lives of many Americans for the good. This time around the issue that could make a real difference in the long run is the establishment of a financial transactions tax on stocks and bonds.

Of course, the sheer number and depth of problems facing this country and the world is breathtakingly immense. Why start there? My contention is that the force driving all the other problems is rooted in the fact that too few people have too much money and therefore power. Imposing what is in effect a sales tax on the things they buy will begin to drain the swamp of the speculative capital that has wrecked so much havoc on main street. Busting through the obstruction from the parasitic right and the resistance from Democrats who foolishly respect wall street as the paragon of professionalism will be difficult in the extreme, that's why it has to be the first thing done. Riding in a wave election and still beholden to the little people, I think there's a chance to ram it through. First, a tax on financial transactions could be very small, even 0.1%, just the establishment and legitimization of such a direct assault on entrenched privilege would be enough.

Income and wealth equality; a whole package of "social questions" that Thomas Frank, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and so many others have articulated; is the cause of most problems and the impediment to addressing so many others. This country is so flooded with capital that the uber rich cannot find productive uses for it, or perhaps they don't want to. So they buy politicians, both personally while in office and guaranteeing future obedience through lobbyist jobs and other perks. This is just intolerable. The only way to start reducing the bribery, greed, and injustice at the top of our society is to drain that swamp of money that just corrupts people and distorts markets. That is why the financial elite have bought the important politicians in both parties and drive the price of entry into politics so high that only themselves or their servants can have a chance at power.

The primary effect of charging a sales tax on stock exchanges is to slow things down. That is how the original idea of James Tobin's tax was envisioned. He wanted the tax imposed on spot conversions of currency that would penalize speculation against currencies and stabilize economies, especially after computers skyrocketed the amount of speculation that occurs in those markets. That is a good idea too, as global capital now has the power to crush countries with attacks on their currencies. But just in terms of domestic financial markets a small transaction tax would slow down and stabilize markets too. Would the Dow Jones have lost so many points after the "leave" vote was tallied in the UK if people had to weigh paying an absolute tax for impulsive trades? It is likely enough investors would remember that the Brexit was actually non-binding, a momentary loss of reason by the mob that did not need to be repeated in the market.

The practical effect is all upside for the public interest. If trading is slowed down then mutual fund managers will have fewer opportunities to lard up pension funds with fees. Also, it will be more difficult for panics to set in if every investor has to weigh the tax they paid for a stock against the gains, they will on average wait a little longer. Plus, it will absolutely eat into the obscene compensation packages of managers and brokers. When a uniform cost like a tax is levied on all businesses of an industry, if there is any competition between firms they have to eat some portion of it or someone else will and steal all the business. There is a lot of competition between firms on wall street. And we won't even have to take seriously the moans and shrieks of outrage by the fat cats that a sales tax on stocks will sink grandma and grandpa, the usual line of propaganda whenever regulating wall street comes up, because average investors buy long. No, the tax will be borne most heavily by the big players that buy and sell all day, every day.

But the symbolic effect of taking on wall street by a Hillary Clinton administration, even in a way that will encourage stability in the market, will defuse so many of the detractors who say she is too cozy with the fat cats. It will be the first step in democracy finally reimposing regulation over an out of control and very dangerous sector of the economy that has so much power. It is really difficult to find actual dollar amounts for the trading on wall street, but it is likely in the trillions... per day. Therefore, even a 0.1% tax would raise significant revenue for a federal government always strapped for cash. That would amount to a billion dollars for each trillion bought, each day. A billion dollars not available for Goldman Sachs and the rest to lobby, bribe, and extort government. A billion dollars a day "redistributed" from the vultures and pirates who stole it. Maybe for once we could use it for something productive? Shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid come to mind. Or, a real Public Option, infrastructure spending, buying back all of the toll roads and parking meters that have been privatized, even getting the cost of education down to what it was when our parents went to college or forgiving student loans. The possibilities are endless, the public needs are great, and once put in place the tax could be raised and lowered as one more fiscal tool to manage the economy.

Anyway, that's my Christmas wish. If you agree, share this post and let's make it happen.