Election 2016: Opening Thoughts

One objective that this blog has developed is to make readers more skeptical and less gullible to the many distractions, misinformation, and outright lies perpetrated by political operatives. Education should be a universal value after all, should it not? You would be surprised how many people are simply not interested in learning more, improving themselves, or challenging information if it agrees with what they already believe. Is this where the dividing line should be drawn in our politics? Between the people who want to know more and improve themselves, versus the people who are content in their limited knowledge and want to force everyone else to freeze intellectually. It is a tragedy that the information superhighway accommodates too easily both of these.

The irony is thick when you consider that the Internet is one of the greatest technological developments of human history and a significant percentage of Americans use it to wall themselves off from anything that would challenge their views. Don't do that. Your computer or smartphone can answer any question you can think of, and most likely direct you to more sources of information where you can figure out new questions to ask. Much of our collected knowledge and wisdom out there waiting to be tapped and harnessed to your command. Sometimes you have to step back from your day to day routine and really consider what a fascinating time it is to be alive. Be curious. Be adventurous. But also, be cautious; and skeptical.

We humans have amazing qualities. We can use tools and remember the past; we can communicate with each other and our offspring, each individual is connected to their neighbors and the future in this way. The internet and all of its myriad portals are new tools that empower us to communicate and remember. But it also amplifies other qualities, such as that of deception, manipulation, domination, intimidation, exclusion, and unthinking obedience that are less useful. 

For example, when the first human tried using a stick to poke holes in the ground and plant food, he (or she) could gather more sustenance than the others who simply gathered nature produce. That person was able to feed themselves better than the others and was consequently able to have more children and live longer. Those children did not have to then spend time figuring out how to use a stick and could instead figure out how to make a better tool. In turn, that knowledge would spread until it was an entire tribe settling down to practice agriculture and take further steps forward in improving their techniques until they produced a surplus of food. When there is a surplus of food, some people can be freed from farming to spend time, energy, thought, and resources on new ways to help the tribe. Once that happens there is a division of labor, society is no longer equal and governing structures arise to regulate the relations of power. This is where politics is born. 

There will always be people who want to keep going, inventing new things, telling new stories, teaching and learning new ways to benefit society. And there will always be others who say "that's far enough," for some people change is just too much to bear. There are many reasons to oppose change or stand in the way of progress, it does not mean the same thing to all people. For another, going back to the idea of "where you sit determines where you stand" from the first post in this series, the division of labor and surplus creates opportunities for privilege, and change often threatens the privileged members of society. Luckily for those elites, many common people fear change out of reflex because of advanced age or lack of sophistication, intellect, curiosity, or imagination. The elite often have little trouble convincing a plurality or even majority of society to keep things the same, or at least change things very slowly and as skewed toward elite interest as possible. In the past the elite often took the form of land-holding warriors or priests and as such their words carried weight with the peasants, who feared for their lives and/or souls. Today, the elite often have power in the form of wealth and control over jobs, development, investment, etc. And especially control over media to sway public opinion towards the interests of that privileged few.

Whenever there is political conflict, it often takes the form described in the previous paragraph. Reformers, also known as Liberals or Progressives, put forward a new idea or invention and the privileged elite minority who happen to like their position in society thank you very much, resist the change with support among the uncurious and fearful commoners. In the past you would often find the peasants supporting the king against some middle-class force trying to change society. Today, things are far more complicated. But the conservative fear of change persists even in the United States of 2016. Subsequent entries to this series will explore these divisions and conflicts in greater detail. For now, take a look at the next politically-themed meme or article that shows up in your news feed with these ideas in mind. And try not to lose composure over the latest attempt by the cynical to make you afraid, because they want you to be afraid but it is very often in your best interest to remain rational. Until next time, good luck and keep exploring!

Election 2016: "Course Objectives"

 If this series were a college class, think of this as the syllabus. I'm not a professor in real life so this post will be loose of necessity and subject to revision. However, there are some goals we should be striving for so I will try to get some down.

First, there will be no assigned reading or papers. Though I might suggest some texts for further investigation and some applications or exercises you may want to try. There won't be any grades or credits awarded obviously, by the "end" of this series you should have a better understanding of our government and politics. 

Second, there will probably be a lot of history. I want this series to give you a very large perspective and that will require an understanding of where we came from. I especially want to discuss the intellectual history of the republic. 

Third, ideology. While I stated in the introduction that people have nearly infinite experiences and varied outlooks or expectations for issues and government, we can generally group them under common ideas. This will make parties and elections easier to understand.

Fourth, American government. Checks and balances, divided branches, and staggered elections. The organization of our Federal Government can be challenging but once you understand how and why this is so politics becomes easier to understand.

Fifth, reliable and unreliable sources. For good or ill, media has become very broad in the age of the internet. We will go over examples and guidelines for how to judge the veracity and relevance of a source of information.

Sixth, rhetoric. Politicians and political writers use what can seem like another language at times. We will discuss what certain common words and phrases actually mean.

This list will probably take a good amount of time to cover. It is my sincere hope that when this project is complete it will be of some use to you. 

No More Naders

I just admitted in my last post that I was one of the three million odd voters who made it possible for George W Bush to steal the presidency in 2000. We are so close to the same scenario in 2016 that I am really scared. I really felt like the way to build on the peace and prosperity at the end of the Clinton administration was to get behind a genuine liberal like Ralph Nader. While I fantasized a little about him actually winning and what that would look like in reality, my main goal was to make a protest kind of statement that the Democratic Party cannot take "us" for granted. It was cringe-worthy watching Al Gore capitulate to his campaign consultants. First he was all wooden and passive aggressive with the smirking chimp, refusing to actually attack back and more importantly just "me tooing" all the right wing frames about taxes and immigration, etc. Then he picked Lieberman as his running mate and refused to campaign on the successes of the administration he was part of. Gore did not take advantage of having Bill Clinton stump for him, and ran against his boss by making his infinitesimally small contribution to the election narrative all about morals and his supposed superior family values. In short Gore played to the right wing's perception and did not look at the really existing state of the union.

Obviously the Clinton years were not perfect, but there was enough good there to build on in a Gore administration. The alternative was just unbelievable. But I, and many people like me who voted Green based on hope and an imperfect understanding of that really existing state of the union, did not have the cautionary tales of the past in living memory that could have given me perspective. I was only barely aware of Reagan's October surprise and Nixon's ratfucking skulduggery. I did not even understand the horrible implications of George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" campaign. Clinton's indiscretions did not bother me, but his violation of the war powers act in the Balkans and his continued pursuit of "free trade" that threatened my livelihood did. Gore's seemingly obsessive and puritanical drive to exorcise all the moral demons of his boss while not addressing the economic and social issues I cared about was a real turn off.

Okay, that was sixteen years ago. Today we have Bernie Sanders playing the role, however obliquely, of Ralph Nader. By 2004, it was clear that Nader's subsequent run for president was all about Ralph and the movement I thought I was a part of was dead. Now it was a matter of saving the republic and I enthusiastically supported John Kerry after he won the nomination. A common trope I heard from supposedly serious people was that you don't switch horses mid-stream. When I would answer "even if the horse jumped in that stream against your will and was trying to drown you in it?" The reply would generally be some sort of ad hominem about my intelligence, maturity, or liberalism. Such high thinkers my pals.

Nader was third party from the beginning, it was all about showing the Democratic Party that they couldn't take us for granted and we weren't going to accept republican lite. "They aren't entitled to anyone's votes" was the common refrain from Naderites, meaning the Democrats. Now, you had to be a political junkie to realize just how awful George W. Bush was before he stole the presidency. This time around there is no question that any republican winning the presidency would be an absolute disaster. And the left candidate is a long-time elected official who caucused with the Democrats for his entire tenure in congress but was never dependent on or beholden to them as Clinton style DLC triangulation tried to co-opt the republicans. Sanders is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party and has not threatened to go the third party route if he doesn't win. Therefore anyone is free to vote for him now and still have time to support Hillary Clinton if she wins instead. No problem right?

Now the joke of "don't switch horses mid-stream" is on us. As in, we either do the almost impossible task of electing a Democrat to succeed the Democratic President or we all drown. There has been so much talk about supposed Berniebros who trash Hillary Clinton all the time and refuse to vote for her under any circumstances. I have yet to witness one myself, all the Sanders supporters I have encountered seem passionate but reasonable and share my goal of keeping the republicans out at all costs. The only person I know personally to make the "I won't vote for Hillary no matter what" speech was a middle-aged woman who as far as I know is a life long true socialist radical, not a "bro." I suspect that a good percentage of these "bros" are paid or unpaid GOP trolls posing as democratic socialists and making loud noises for purity. And in the age of social media this kind of fraud is extremely plausible, it only takes a few articulate trolls making tirades to convince the weak-minded to follow them.

I for one am not going to make the same mistake in 2000. Here's my unfortunately titled post on Bernie Sanders from last May, I still believe in it. Now if we can all just act like grownups and not make hissy fits and tantrums while debating who should be the leader of the free world we might not wake up the morning after the election to PRESIDENT CRUZ.

Fifty Shades of Sanders

The big news this week for political junkies, the kind that pay attention between elections and sometimes naively believe that progress is possible, is that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has announced that he will seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. He has always caucused with the Democratic members of Congress in both houses while a member there, but remains an Independent. If there is one thing you should take away from this post and every discussion about Sanders, it is that he is the real deal. It is hard to look at his life and his record and not see that this is a genuine and sincere leader who really cares about people. Average people, working people, middle-class people; Sanders stands for them and stands against the very wealthy and the powerful interests who have made it so hard to get ahead. He is exactly the kind of person who should be president.

When James Madison wrote about the checks and balances in the Constitution, he made it clear that the people who debated and formulated our government's founding laws knew that the people who would lead and make laws were not angels. Thus, many safeguards were put in place because even the best of intentions can go wrong. Madison would be shocked to see how the men who are furthest from being angels have circumvented those checks on power to ram through all the abuses we have seen in recent history. All while the checks and balances have restrained those closer to the angels from cleaning up the mess or fixing things. Madison knew all about the parasitic courtiers who wrung special favors and privileges out of monarchic governments in the name of mercantilism, he would not be surprised by the web of lobbyists and corrupting money built up around the Capitol. Nor would he be surprised that special interests are able to craft legislation while the public is cannibalized. This blog tries very hard not to believe in white knights who would govern in the public's interest. I have prided myself on being practical, skeptical, and realistic. So believe me when I say I have spent a lot of time thinking about reasons why we should not support Senator Sanders. I can't think of any.

That is not to say I do not see all the potential pitfalls. The right has made it a cottage industry to discredit any possibility of good people running for office, the amount of mud that will be slung against Bernie Sanders and anyone who supports his campaign will be unbelievable. Will any of it stick? Well if the devious and well-funded agents of fox news and the Koch brothers are able to set the terms of debate, yes. But it is a long road to November of 2016, and this time could be the one where we actually start talking to each other. Open and honest debate between real people would go further towards shielding ourselves from their lies than any mainstream campaign damage control method ever. And Senator Sanders will attract the kind of honest, big-hearted people that would never consider getting involved with the standard "business as usual" campaign.

It is high time idealism got an honest chance to change the conversation. We need big ideas with personal ramifications to cut through the usual wedge issues that divide us. It is time to remember that the younger generation are not some species apart, spoiled little brats that can easily be tarred with whatever vice happens to be on the tongue of Bill O'Reilly today, but they are our children and our friends' children, etc. Then we can remember that seniors are our grandparents, not just grumpy gray-haired monsters who believe everything fox news tells them. Instead of worrying about what others are doing that we may not approve of, a new conversation could start asking questions like "why is my cell phone bill so damn high?" "Why do I keep making payments on my credit cards and student loans but the balance never seems to go down?"

These and others are the questions we can ask in a Sanders campaign. These are the questions that need to be asked, and if enough of us start asking them we can finally cut through the supply-side, free-market fantasy and demand that the wealth needs to be shared. That there is nothing so valuable that a CEO can do to warrant their multi-million dollar compensation packages while so many of us struggle just to keep the lights on. The Koch brothers have stated that they plan to spend almost a billion dollars to lie to us and buy the government, so they can keep stealing from us. A Sanders campaign will not shy away from stating that no individual or family should have a billion dollars lying around to buy the government.

Bernie Sanders is the real deal, he has proven it time and again. This country doesn't deserve him, but maybe we can cut the crap for once and get a good leader we can believe in.