Romney won the nomination after the first primary in Iowa, the rest has been about the theatrics of party politics. Now it should be obvious to all that Romney will be the Republican nominee. I have a dream - what the campaign should really be about:
The deficit - Romney should say that we need to follow the blueprint of Simpson-Bowles and both cut government spending and raise taxes. He should say Obama and the Democrats are only talking about raising taxes and won't talk about cutting spending. Obama should say that we need to follow the blueprint of Simpson-Bowles and both cut government spending and raise taxes. He should say Romney and the Republicans are only talking about cutting spending and won't talk about raising taxes. Both would be right - both raising taxes and cutting spending are necessary to keep the country's economy and government from collapsing under the weight of the deficit.
The terrorist wars - both should say that we need to protect the country from terrorists, but we should do everything we can possibly do to avoid sending troops into the toxic tar pit of the Middle Eastern religious and civil wars. I hope there is no real dispute.
Health care - the debate is over, health care reform became the law. We need to improve it. Romney will want market mechanisms to improve it, Obama will want government oversight to improve it. Both would be right.
The economy - blah blah blah, the economy will grow if pretty much left alone. Leave it alone.
The Culture Wars - Obama should leave them alone. Romney should leave them alone. Let Fox News and MSNBC fight it out as a gladiator spectator sport to get their little niche audiences, and the candidates should get on with running the country.
Of course, many Democrats, and many Republicans will run campaigns based on the nonsense that those in the other party are demons from hell and hell bent on destroying everything sacred in This Great Country of Ours. But, I have a dream that the two presidential candidates will run as who they really are, not ideologues, but as pragmatic problem solvers, one with more reliance on the marketplace and one with more of an emphasis on the government, who will do their best in dealing with a very complicated world.
I can dream...
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Constitutional oddities
So, I guess from the right wing point of view it is unconstitutional to mandate that everyone buys private health insurance (Obamacare), but it is constitutional to mandate that everyone buy government health insurance (Medicare and Social Security). So, I guess that the right wing point of view is that it would be constitutional to have Medicare for everyone in the nation rather than just everyone in the nation that is 65 or over?
Poor Romney, he led a conservative triumph in Massachusetts when he signed Romneycare by stopping the left wing drive for a single payer (government) statewide health plan and instituted the conservative Heritage Foundation idea of offering universal health care by using the market rather than the government - i.e. by mandating that everyone in the state buy insurance, with subsidies to those who couldn't afford to. Viola! universal coverage provided by the market! A completely conservative, market oriented solution designed to create a system where market forces would create the most efficient and cost effective health system. Government bad, market good - the fundamental requirement for a conservative idea.
That is, it was a brilliant right wing idea until Obama adopted it and it became a bad left wing idea that was an attempt to force people to buckle under to the tyrannical left wing government on the way to a socialist takeover of everyone's freedoms.
It's just one tribe fighting the other tribe with no attention being paid to the merits of anything. Perhaps it is a result of a legal mindset that has taken over congress, inhabited mostly by lawyers. The definition of a good lawyer seems to be that he or she can argue either side of any issue depending on who is paying them. The issue doesn't matter, the arguments don't matter, just the winning matters. Same thing for the endlessly exhausting culture wars in this country. It seems to me that Obamacare and Romneycare are perfect examples of arguing for and against the same thing depending on whose ox gets to be gored.
In a way, this current political environment in which the only thing that matters is winning looks to me like it is a parallel to what has happened to Wall Street, where the only thing that matters is making money. When all other considerations are thrown away, everything goes out of balance and things are destroyed - millions of jobs destroyed when the financial system got so out of balance that it almost destroyed capitalism itself, and the ability of our politicians to govern is being destroyed by the polarization getting so out of balance that democracy itself is being compromised.
Lord, I'm sick of it all, but we have a whole presidential and congressional campaign ahead of us of vitriolic exaggeration and bile. I send some prayers to our body politic for some soothing of the rhetoric, some listening to the ideas rather than just attacking of the enemies, and to that most hated word to the extremes - compromise - which is a synonym for another word - politics.
Poor Romney, he led a conservative triumph in Massachusetts when he signed Romneycare by stopping the left wing drive for a single payer (government) statewide health plan and instituted the conservative Heritage Foundation idea of offering universal health care by using the market rather than the government - i.e. by mandating that everyone in the state buy insurance, with subsidies to those who couldn't afford to. Viola! universal coverage provided by the market! A completely conservative, market oriented solution designed to create a system where market forces would create the most efficient and cost effective health system. Government bad, market good - the fundamental requirement for a conservative idea.
That is, it was a brilliant right wing idea until Obama adopted it and it became a bad left wing idea that was an attempt to force people to buckle under to the tyrannical left wing government on the way to a socialist takeover of everyone's freedoms.
It's just one tribe fighting the other tribe with no attention being paid to the merits of anything. Perhaps it is a result of a legal mindset that has taken over congress, inhabited mostly by lawyers. The definition of a good lawyer seems to be that he or she can argue either side of any issue depending on who is paying them. The issue doesn't matter, the arguments don't matter, just the winning matters. Same thing for the endlessly exhausting culture wars in this country. It seems to me that Obamacare and Romneycare are perfect examples of arguing for and against the same thing depending on whose ox gets to be gored.
In a way, this current political environment in which the only thing that matters is winning looks to me like it is a parallel to what has happened to Wall Street, where the only thing that matters is making money. When all other considerations are thrown away, everything goes out of balance and things are destroyed - millions of jobs destroyed when the financial system got so out of balance that it almost destroyed capitalism itself, and the ability of our politicians to govern is being destroyed by the polarization getting so out of balance that democracy itself is being compromised.
Lord, I'm sick of it all, but we have a whole presidential and congressional campaign ahead of us of vitriolic exaggeration and bile. I send some prayers to our body politic for some soothing of the rhetoric, some listening to the ideas rather than just attacking of the enemies, and to that most hated word to the extremes - compromise - which is a synonym for another word - politics.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Will the Supreme Court legislate from the bench?
The Supreme Court is considering the challenges to Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act starting today. It seems to me that the most conservative position that the conservative members of the court can take is to leave it alone, unchanged, to stand as is.
I think that one of the tenets of conservative courts is that they should not legislate from the bench. This law is what laws are - flawed, messy, a cobbled together set of compromises needed to get it passed. I have never been avidly for nor against Obamacare, and have always been more on the sidelines observing, with some distress, the process that the legislation took. All told, I expect it to cost more than promised (what government program doesn't?), and I expect that it will provide health care for a huge number of people that didn't have insurance coverage prior to the law. And I expect that the insurance companies will not be able to reject coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. In other words, the basic claims of both the right and the left are correct.
However, there is one thing that seems obvious to me: this law is one of the most powerful examples of legislation by the legislature in my lifetime. This wasn't passed in the dead of night after minimum debate. It was the result of an excruciating year long process played out in both the Senate and the House, with maximum publicity, with all segments of society and business passionately weighing in to try to influence the outcome. At the end, the legislation passed, and a new law came into being.
To overturn it would be one of the most blatant examples of legislation from the bench of all time. That alone should convince the conservative justices to leave it alone, it seems to me.
If Obamacare is to be overturned, it needs to be overturned by the legislature, not the courts. The hard core right wing seem to think that the country is as eager to overturn it as they are. I sincerely doubt it. I think that a Republican push to overturn the health care law will blow up in their faces. The fight to overturn the law will enrage the country all over again, and is a lost cause, as far as I can tell. It is what the ideologues want to do, but I don't think the country has the taste for it.
I think that one of the tenets of conservative courts is that they should not legislate from the bench. This law is what laws are - flawed, messy, a cobbled together set of compromises needed to get it passed. I have never been avidly for nor against Obamacare, and have always been more on the sidelines observing, with some distress, the process that the legislation took. All told, I expect it to cost more than promised (what government program doesn't?), and I expect that it will provide health care for a huge number of people that didn't have insurance coverage prior to the law. And I expect that the insurance companies will not be able to reject coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. In other words, the basic claims of both the right and the left are correct.
However, there is one thing that seems obvious to me: this law is one of the most powerful examples of legislation by the legislature in my lifetime. This wasn't passed in the dead of night after minimum debate. It was the result of an excruciating year long process played out in both the Senate and the House, with maximum publicity, with all segments of society and business passionately weighing in to try to influence the outcome. At the end, the legislation passed, and a new law came into being.
To overturn it would be one of the most blatant examples of legislation from the bench of all time. That alone should convince the conservative justices to leave it alone, it seems to me.
If Obamacare is to be overturned, it needs to be overturned by the legislature, not the courts. The hard core right wing seem to think that the country is as eager to overturn it as they are. I sincerely doubt it. I think that a Republican push to overturn the health care law will blow up in their faces. The fight to overturn the law will enrage the country all over again, and is a lost cause, as far as I can tell. It is what the ideologues want to do, but I don't think the country has the taste for it.
Friday, March 23, 2012
What do the extremists believe?
I believe that the extremists of both parties are toxic to our national dialog and are inadvertently leading their parties to ruin. Who are they? What do they believe?
I believe that the Left Wing of the Democratic Party sees BUSINESS as rapacious, exploitative, insensitive, uncaring sharks who prey on the weak for their own selfish profit and greed. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs: from Bernie Maddoff and the Wall Street Too Big to Fail behemoths who made fortunes at their clients' expense, to the raping of the environment, to their disproportionate control over elections by campaign funding and lobbying.
I believe that the Right Wing of the Republican Party sees BUSINESS as the "strong horse that pulls the whole cart" to quote Churchill, and is the energy that actually creates prosperity for the modern world. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs as well: from the creation of the auto industry in America and then Japan, to the creation of the high tech industry in Silicon Valley and then around the world, to the stark contrast between the levels of prosperity in the affluent Capitalist world and the lack of prosperity in the impoverished Communist worlds during the Cold War, and still today.
I believe the Left Wing of the Democratic Party sees GOVERNMENT as kindly parents who exhibit caring and establish justice. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs: from the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to provide for the elderly and disabled who become unable to provide for themselves, to a vast system of criminal and civil justice that provide protection for the population from personal and corporate crime, and the establishment of a legal framework in which the Capitalist business system can operate freely with guaranteed competition.
The Right Wing of the Republican Party sees GOVERNMENT as meddling tyrants bent on accumulating more and more centralized power in the hands of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who run the country for their masters according to the latest intellectual fads of the day. There is ample evidence to support their beliefs: from the faceless insensitivity of the DMV bureaucrat, to the attempted government takeover of the largest economic sector of the country (health care), to the totalitarian control of every aspect of society and personal life in the past and present Communist countries, with enormous government take-overs like Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seen as giant steps toward that kind of totalitarianism.
But most people, thank goodness, do not see business as either a predatory shark or a beneficent work horse, nor do they see government as either a totalitarian force in waiting or a kindly, caring parent. I think most people look upon both business and government as human institutions, not capitalized super-entities, with some suspicion and some gratitude, and see that both are mixed bags of beneficial and harmful forces. I certainly do, unlike how I viewed things in my earlier years where I more or less chose sides in the endless battle between the believers in GOVERNMENT and the believers in BUSINESS.
That is why I am glad that elections are generally decided by the moderate middle of the political spectrum. The middle is often fairly disengaged, but often quite engaged indeed, but they are not captive of the caricatures of business and government portrayed by the outer wings of each party.
I believe that the Left Wing of the Democratic Party sees BUSINESS as rapacious, exploitative, insensitive, uncaring sharks who prey on the weak for their own selfish profit and greed. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs: from Bernie Maddoff and the Wall Street Too Big to Fail behemoths who made fortunes at their clients' expense, to the raping of the environment, to their disproportionate control over elections by campaign funding and lobbying.
I believe that the Right Wing of the Republican Party sees BUSINESS as the "strong horse that pulls the whole cart" to quote Churchill, and is the energy that actually creates prosperity for the modern world. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs as well: from the creation of the auto industry in America and then Japan, to the creation of the high tech industry in Silicon Valley and then around the world, to the stark contrast between the levels of prosperity in the affluent Capitalist world and the lack of prosperity in the impoverished Communist worlds during the Cold War, and still today.
I believe the Left Wing of the Democratic Party sees GOVERNMENT as kindly parents who exhibit caring and establish justice. They certainly have ample evidence to support their beliefs: from the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to provide for the elderly and disabled who become unable to provide for themselves, to a vast system of criminal and civil justice that provide protection for the population from personal and corporate crime, and the establishment of a legal framework in which the Capitalist business system can operate freely with guaranteed competition.
The Right Wing of the Republican Party sees GOVERNMENT as meddling tyrants bent on accumulating more and more centralized power in the hands of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who run the country for their masters according to the latest intellectual fads of the day. There is ample evidence to support their beliefs: from the faceless insensitivity of the DMV bureaucrat, to the attempted government takeover of the largest economic sector of the country (health care), to the totalitarian control of every aspect of society and personal life in the past and present Communist countries, with enormous government take-overs like Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act seen as giant steps toward that kind of totalitarianism.
But most people, thank goodness, do not see business as either a predatory shark or a beneficent work horse, nor do they see government as either a totalitarian force in waiting or a kindly, caring parent. I think most people look upon both business and government as human institutions, not capitalized super-entities, with some suspicion and some gratitude, and see that both are mixed bags of beneficial and harmful forces. I certainly do, unlike how I viewed things in my earlier years where I more or less chose sides in the endless battle between the believers in GOVERNMENT and the believers in BUSINESS.
That is why I am glad that elections are generally decided by the moderate middle of the political spectrum. The middle is often fairly disengaged, but often quite engaged indeed, but they are not captive of the caricatures of business and government portrayed by the outer wings of each party.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Left Wing Extremism also loses elections
It's not just the Republicans who are in danger of extremism that alienates the mainstream voters. Ruth Marcus, center left editorialist of the Washington Post, warns that the way Democrats lose is by being too extreme as well.
She cites a recent study that shows that Democratic Party activists are quite a bit more liberal than voters who identify themselves as Democrats.
This fact is compounded by the fact that those who identify themselves as independent but leaning Democrat are more likely to vote Republican than those who identify themselves as independent but leaning Republican are likely to vote Democrat.
The weakness of each party is oddly the very thing that party activists think is their strength - ideological commitment, passion for The Cause - extremism. I believe that whichever party is able to reject its own extremism is the party of the future. Right now, it seems to me that Obama is a fairly moderate liberal, and Romney is a fairly moderate conservative, despite the red meat they throw out to their extremist wings in an effort to keep them excited.
If the race is between these two, I would feel fairly comfortable with the choices presented. The Republicans are trying their best to get a passionate movement conservative on the ballot, but I think that they will end up settling on the pragmatic problem solver, Romney, in the end.
Who knows, we might even have an interesting race between two pragmatic candidates who discuss the issues and their positions. In truth, if they would actually speak of how they see issues in the same pragmatic way that they would like to govern, they might end up doing a lot of agreeing with each other rather rather than adapting ideological poses to satisfy their wings and trying to create wide differences between them.
Wouldn't that be a welcome relief?
She cites a recent study that shows that Democratic Party activists are quite a bit more liberal than voters who identify themselves as Democrats.
This fact is compounded by the fact that those who identify themselves as independent but leaning Democrat are more likely to vote Republican than those who identify themselves as independent but leaning Republican are likely to vote Democrat.
The weakness of each party is oddly the very thing that party activists think is their strength - ideological commitment, passion for The Cause - extremism. I believe that whichever party is able to reject its own extremism is the party of the future. Right now, it seems to me that Obama is a fairly moderate liberal, and Romney is a fairly moderate conservative, despite the red meat they throw out to their extremist wings in an effort to keep them excited.
If the race is between these two, I would feel fairly comfortable with the choices presented. The Republicans are trying their best to get a passionate movement conservative on the ballot, but I think that they will end up settling on the pragmatic problem solver, Romney, in the end.
Who knows, we might even have an interesting race between two pragmatic candidates who discuss the issues and their positions. In truth, if they would actually speak of how they see issues in the same pragmatic way that they would like to govern, they might end up doing a lot of agreeing with each other rather rather than adapting ideological poses to satisfy their wings and trying to create wide differences between them.
Wouldn't that be a welcome relief?
Monday, March 19, 2012
Who are the big spenders?
Who raises government spending more - Democrats or Republicans? Oops... it's Republicans! Andrew Sullivan, center right editorialist, presents the following chart:
Nixon-Ford, Reagan, and Bush II all raised growth well over 2.5% per capita during their terms. Obama is under 1.5% and Clinton was under 1.0%.
Maybe it's a kind of Nixon-to-China syndrome, the liberal Dems couldn't reach out to China without being accused of appeasing Communists, but the anti-communist Nixon could. Perhaps it's the same here, the big spending Dems can't get much big spending done without being savaged for playing to type, but the cost cutting Reps can get away with budget murder.
It would be nice if either party would seriously address our very big deficit issue along the lines of Simpson-Bowles cost cutting and tax reform, but I expect the upcoming campaign will stick to ideological sound bites and play it safe. But after the election, I can't imagine the elected president not focusing on tax reform, cost cutting, and deficit reduction, regardless of which candidate wins.
Nixon-Ford, Reagan, and Bush II all raised growth well over 2.5% per capita during their terms. Obama is under 1.5% and Clinton was under 1.0%.
Maybe it's a kind of Nixon-to-China syndrome, the liberal Dems couldn't reach out to China without being accused of appeasing Communists, but the anti-communist Nixon could. Perhaps it's the same here, the big spending Dems can't get much big spending done without being savaged for playing to type, but the cost cutting Reps can get away with budget murder.
It would be nice if either party would seriously address our very big deficit issue along the lines of Simpson-Bowles cost cutting and tax reform, but I expect the upcoming campaign will stick to ideological sound bites and play it safe. But after the election, I can't imagine the elected president not focusing on tax reform, cost cutting, and deficit reduction, regardless of which candidate wins.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Is Rush Limbaugh killing talk radio?
Is talk radio dying?
Has Rush Limbaugh, who gave birth to extremist political radio, killing it now? Limbaugh spawned many imitators on both the right and the left, from Glenn Beck to Keith Olbermann. Extremism seems to be the goal, and the hook needed to get a small niche audience. It doesn't take many people to agree with a radio host to give them a very profitable audience. I think I saw that the biggest success in the talk show world, Limbaugh himself, gets only about 5% of the radio audience during his time slot. Most people are not that focused on politics, they actually have lives that concern them and aren't obsessing about how the political world is destroying the world. Good for them.
Apparently, a company named Premiere Networks is a main distributor of Limbaugh and many right wing talk shows. And they have made a pretty shocking announcement: 98 sponsors want guarantees that they will not be advertised on extremist, polarizing, mean spirited talk shows. John Avalon, centrist editorialist, writes the following:
"Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”
This includes corporations like Ford, Geico, and McDonalds. These are big players.
In a time where our politics has become so polarized that actual governing becomes almost impossible because both parties are incapable of compromise with opponents that they see as evil, I can think of nothing quite so promising as this development. This is not the government suppressing free speech. This is advertisers refusing to be associated with extremist nastiness that hurts their brand and inhibits their ability to do business.
As I have written before, in the '80s the Loony Left became so separated from reality that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were given power to undo some of their craziness. Now, thirty years later, the Rigid Right, lead by Limbaugh and others on the radio, have become so trapped inside the bubble of their own ideology that they can't see any reality that doesn't confirm their beliefs.
I once heard Limbaugh announce that his job was ideological purity. He is famous for saying that what you find in the center of the road is roadkill. I say what you find at the extreme edges of the road, both right and left, are ditches. And these extremists have proudly led our country into the ditches: the ditches of right wing and left wing ideological purities that are incapable of pragmatism and compromise, in other words, incapable of the practice of actual politics, which involves give and take, and ... compromise.
They are lost in obsolete ideologies, and it is time for most of us to turn away from their sad little mean spirited conspiratorial views of the world - both right wing and left wing.
Has Rush Limbaugh, who gave birth to extremist political radio, killing it now? Limbaugh spawned many imitators on both the right and the left, from Glenn Beck to Keith Olbermann. Extremism seems to be the goal, and the hook needed to get a small niche audience. It doesn't take many people to agree with a radio host to give them a very profitable audience. I think I saw that the biggest success in the talk show world, Limbaugh himself, gets only about 5% of the radio audience during his time slot. Most people are not that focused on politics, they actually have lives that concern them and aren't obsessing about how the political world is destroying the world. Good for them.
Apparently, a company named Premiere Networks is a main distributor of Limbaugh and many right wing talk shows. And they have made a pretty shocking announcement: 98 sponsors want guarantees that they will not be advertised on extremist, polarizing, mean spirited talk shows. John Avalon, centrist editorialist, writes the following:
"Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”
This includes corporations like Ford, Geico, and McDonalds. These are big players.
In a time where our politics has become so polarized that actual governing becomes almost impossible because both parties are incapable of compromise with opponents that they see as evil, I can think of nothing quite so promising as this development. This is not the government suppressing free speech. This is advertisers refusing to be associated with extremist nastiness that hurts their brand and inhibits their ability to do business.
As I have written before, in the '80s the Loony Left became so separated from reality that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were given power to undo some of their craziness. Now, thirty years later, the Rigid Right, lead by Limbaugh and others on the radio, have become so trapped inside the bubble of their own ideology that they can't see any reality that doesn't confirm their beliefs.
I once heard Limbaugh announce that his job was ideological purity. He is famous for saying that what you find in the center of the road is roadkill. I say what you find at the extreme edges of the road, both right and left, are ditches. And these extremists have proudly led our country into the ditches: the ditches of right wing and left wing ideological purities that are incapable of pragmatism and compromise, in other words, incapable of the practice of actual politics, which involves give and take, and ... compromise.
They are lost in obsolete ideologies, and it is time for most of us to turn away from their sad little mean spirited conspiratorial views of the world - both right wing and left wing.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Rush Limbaugh loses a sixth advertiser
Apparently, Carbonite is the sixth advertiser that has pulled their ads from the Rush Limbaugh show. Carbonite's reason was very explicit:
No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.
Carbonite joins Sleep Number, Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, and Citrix as sponsors who have decided Rush Limbaugh damages their brands. Perhaps also Auto Zone is part of that group.
Lack of civility in our political discourse is perhaps our greatest problem in this country. When each side demonizes the other, no cooperation and compromise is possible, and thus, no actual governing happens. Thirty years ago, it was the "Looney Left" that had gone off the cliff. These days, extremists like Limbaugh are leading the Rigid Right off the cliff.
I remember back in the days when I was more conservative, and listening to Limbaugh from time to time, one of his accusations of liberals was that they would damage the country rather than do anything that would allow George W Bush look good. This was supposedly because of Democrats' lust for power. But, hasn't Rush Limbaugh already confessed to that very motivation right after Obama was elected when he said that he hoped Obama would fail as president? Doesn't this man do everything in his power to force Republicans to refuse to cooperate in any way with Obama and the Democrats, just so the Republicans can seize power in 2012?
Conservatives like Limbaugh are seeming more and more desperate and sad to me. I think they have put all of their eggs in the basket of overthrowing Obama and the Dems in 2012, and it looked like they were going to succeed a few months ago. But now it looks like it is all slipping away from them. Long term, demographics are working against the conservatives, and they know it, and I think they are panicking and becoming more and more extreme, and more and more alienating to those outside of their tight little world. Hispanics and young people strongly lean toward the Democrats, and those demographics are only getting larger. If Obama and the Democrats win 2012, there is a chance that the Reagan Revolution, so beloved by conservatives, will be dead, even to them.
The stakes are very high in the minds of the True Believer conservatives like Limbaugh. And his nasty over-reaching as he assaults those he disagrees with is an indicator of their desperation. Or so it seems to me.
No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.
Carbonite joins Sleep Number, Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, and Citrix as sponsors who have decided Rush Limbaugh damages their brands. Perhaps also Auto Zone is part of that group.
Lack of civility in our political discourse is perhaps our greatest problem in this country. When each side demonizes the other, no cooperation and compromise is possible, and thus, no actual governing happens. Thirty years ago, it was the "Looney Left" that had gone off the cliff. These days, extremists like Limbaugh are leading the Rigid Right off the cliff.
I remember back in the days when I was more conservative, and listening to Limbaugh from time to time, one of his accusations of liberals was that they would damage the country rather than do anything that would allow George W Bush look good. This was supposedly because of Democrats' lust for power. But, hasn't Rush Limbaugh already confessed to that very motivation right after Obama was elected when he said that he hoped Obama would fail as president? Doesn't this man do everything in his power to force Republicans to refuse to cooperate in any way with Obama and the Democrats, just so the Republicans can seize power in 2012?
Conservatives like Limbaugh are seeming more and more desperate and sad to me. I think they have put all of their eggs in the basket of overthrowing Obama and the Dems in 2012, and it looked like they were going to succeed a few months ago. But now it looks like it is all slipping away from them. Long term, demographics are working against the conservatives, and they know it, and I think they are panicking and becoming more and more extreme, and more and more alienating to those outside of their tight little world. Hispanics and young people strongly lean toward the Democrats, and those demographics are only getting larger. If Obama and the Democrats win 2012, there is a chance that the Reagan Revolution, so beloved by conservatives, will be dead, even to them.
The stakes are very high in the minds of the True Believer conservatives like Limbaugh. And his nasty over-reaching as he assaults those he disagrees with is an indicator of their desperation. Or so it seems to me.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Santorum's self defined Courage sinks his candidacy
I finally broke down and listened to the last Republican debate last week prior to the Michigan and Arizona primaries. Up to then I was content to see highlights on news reports and internet sites, on the idea that why listen to seven or eight people when only one is going to be the candidate?
The key moment in this campaign for Santorum came, I believe, when someone texted in asking for each candidate to define themselves in one word. Paul said "Consistent", Romney said "Resolute", Santorum said "Courage", and Gingrich mischievously said "Cheerful."
I think they all revealed a lot, but most especially, Santorum. Up until then apparently he had run a fairly focused and smart campaign, speaking as a working class guy that connected with people who were feeling the hardship of the economy and wanted to find a way to make a living and feel some self respect again which had been so hurt by the Great Recession. That was a message with some appeal to a lot of people.
But, I think that once he defined himself with the brand of Courage, I think he felt he had found his true voice, and had given his campaign a greater purpose - to be Courageous. And, I think he proved to us what being courageous really means in Rick Santorum's world - to speak out against Godlessness and sin. He became the preacher rather than the politician. He scolded the country for their sins, courageously. He spoke the truth on those things that he held as being the most important - issues of morality - courageously. Say "no" to contraception because it places the will of men and women above the Will of God; wanting to Throw Up when he heard what John F Kennedy said about the separation of church and state - misinterpreting Kennedy's assurances that he would not be a pawn of the Vatican for a declaration that people of faith should stay out of politics; etc. He revealed his deepest passions, his deeply held convictions of his faith and his obvious desire to impose his dogmas on as many Americans as he could manage.
Not an attractive message to most people, certainly not to me. Those that shared his dogmatic views were thrilled, of course, but they had already seen him as one of them. But many of the rest saw him as someone other than themselves. So, he is losing. I am willing to give thanks to God for that, personally.
As for Romney's identifying himself as "Resolute", I think that is also instructive. I think he is resolute. He is the energizer bunny that just keeps going even though he is not doing an awful lot to catch on. I expect him to resolutely plow ahead and win the nomination. I'm not inspired, but I think he would be so much better than his Republican opponents that I am happy to see him continue his upward, laborious path to the nomination. I expect Super Tuesday to pretty much put the competition to bed and show that there is only one viable candidate.
But, as long as billionaires are willing to back the non-Romneys I suppose we will have to endure more primary drama. And that relentlessly negative drama only hurts the conservative brand - or does it just reveal it?
The key moment in this campaign for Santorum came, I believe, when someone texted in asking for each candidate to define themselves in one word. Paul said "Consistent", Romney said "Resolute", Santorum said "Courage", and Gingrich mischievously said "Cheerful."
I think they all revealed a lot, but most especially, Santorum. Up until then apparently he had run a fairly focused and smart campaign, speaking as a working class guy that connected with people who were feeling the hardship of the economy and wanted to find a way to make a living and feel some self respect again which had been so hurt by the Great Recession. That was a message with some appeal to a lot of people.
But, I think that once he defined himself with the brand of Courage, I think he felt he had found his true voice, and had given his campaign a greater purpose - to be Courageous. And, I think he proved to us what being courageous really means in Rick Santorum's world - to speak out against Godlessness and sin. He became the preacher rather than the politician. He scolded the country for their sins, courageously. He spoke the truth on those things that he held as being the most important - issues of morality - courageously. Say "no" to contraception because it places the will of men and women above the Will of God; wanting to Throw Up when he heard what John F Kennedy said about the separation of church and state - misinterpreting Kennedy's assurances that he would not be a pawn of the Vatican for a declaration that people of faith should stay out of politics; etc. He revealed his deepest passions, his deeply held convictions of his faith and his obvious desire to impose his dogmas on as many Americans as he could manage.
Not an attractive message to most people, certainly not to me. Those that shared his dogmatic views were thrilled, of course, but they had already seen him as one of them. But many of the rest saw him as someone other than themselves. So, he is losing. I am willing to give thanks to God for that, personally.
As for Romney's identifying himself as "Resolute", I think that is also instructive. I think he is resolute. He is the energizer bunny that just keeps going even though he is not doing an awful lot to catch on. I expect him to resolutely plow ahead and win the nomination. I'm not inspired, but I think he would be so much better than his Republican opponents that I am happy to see him continue his upward, laborious path to the nomination. I expect Super Tuesday to pretty much put the competition to bed and show that there is only one viable candidate.
But, as long as billionaires are willing to back the non-Romneys I suppose we will have to endure more primary drama. And that relentlessly negative drama only hurts the conservative brand - or does it just reveal it?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Republican slog continues
Well, Romney continues to slog his way to the nomination. My only hope is that he doesn't mean most of the right wing extremist things that he says, and he is just posturing to get the nomination. But that brings to mind one of my favorite quotations from Mark Twain:
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain
I think Romney is in the first category, and I fear that Santorum is in the second.
In truth, I think that Romney is a pragmatic problem solver without a deep sense of ideology, and that he would probably be a pretty good president. But, he certainly inspires no one, and remains the "Other Guy" to Obama - pretty well an undefined character that the country could turn to if they decide that Obama has messed up too much. But, I really don't think Santorum would be a good president, and the country is not about to elect someone from the evangelical Christian camp (even though he is an extremist Catholic rather than an evangelical, his appeal seems to be the absolutism of the religious zealot)
I think Obama's main challenge is to keep from becoming overconfident. Unless, of course, the world blows up in some way between now and November. I think prayers for a stable, slowly improving world are in order.
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain
I think Romney is in the first category, and I fear that Santorum is in the second.
In truth, I think that Romney is a pragmatic problem solver without a deep sense of ideology, and that he would probably be a pretty good president. But, he certainly inspires no one, and remains the "Other Guy" to Obama - pretty well an undefined character that the country could turn to if they decide that Obama has messed up too much. But, I really don't think Santorum would be a good president, and the country is not about to elect someone from the evangelical Christian camp (even though he is an extremist Catholic rather than an evangelical, his appeal seems to be the absolutism of the religious zealot)
I think Obama's main challenge is to keep from becoming overconfident. Unless, of course, the world blows up in some way between now and November. I think prayers for a stable, slowly improving world are in order.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Romney's failing economic proposal
Eliot Spitzer, former Democratic governor of New York, points out that Romney's campaign is faltering because his only issue, his approach to reviving the economy, is faltering.
The Romney, and the Republican, approach is austerity and tax cuts: cut spending, reduce taxes, reduce regulations. But, where that approach is being tried, Europe, it is creating further recession, not economic revival.
The Obama, and the Democrat, approach is stimulus and regulation: bail out the auto industry, regulate the banking industry, inject stimulus into the economy directly with a stimulus package and payroll tax cuts. The result seems to be a slowly growing economy and subsequent job growth. The results are painfully slow, but it's a very big economy, and for it to take time seems understandable to me.
I still wish either party would propose a Simpson-Bowles type plan where there is dramatic cuts in government spending combined with a real tax reform that would raise revenue while simultaneously lowering tax rates and closing loopholes and ending tax earmarks. I think that approach both cuts spending and stimulates growth, but both parties avoid that as toxic, especially during an election. Who wants to answer questions about which spending gets cut and which earmarks get eliminated while running for office? I think it would sell, but it would take an educated electorate to be able to discern how it would work, and the cacophonous blather from the ideologues on both extremes would certainly try to drown out reasoned discussion.
If Romney's campaign collapses because all of his eggs are in the economic turnaround basket and that approach looks flawed, where do the Republicans turn? Santorum? A social conservative whose leading trait seems to be scolding America for being sinners? I don't think that is the honey likely to attract many bees.
The Romney, and the Republican, approach is austerity and tax cuts: cut spending, reduce taxes, reduce regulations. But, where that approach is being tried, Europe, it is creating further recession, not economic revival.
The Obama, and the Democrat, approach is stimulus and regulation: bail out the auto industry, regulate the banking industry, inject stimulus into the economy directly with a stimulus package and payroll tax cuts. The result seems to be a slowly growing economy and subsequent job growth. The results are painfully slow, but it's a very big economy, and for it to take time seems understandable to me.
I still wish either party would propose a Simpson-Bowles type plan where there is dramatic cuts in government spending combined with a real tax reform that would raise revenue while simultaneously lowering tax rates and closing loopholes and ending tax earmarks. I think that approach both cuts spending and stimulates growth, but both parties avoid that as toxic, especially during an election. Who wants to answer questions about which spending gets cut and which earmarks get eliminated while running for office? I think it would sell, but it would take an educated electorate to be able to discern how it would work, and the cacophonous blather from the ideologues on both extremes would certainly try to drown out reasoned discussion.
If Romney's campaign collapses because all of his eggs are in the economic turnaround basket and that approach looks flawed, where do the Republicans turn? Santorum? A social conservative whose leading trait seems to be scolding America for being sinners? I don't think that is the honey likely to attract many bees.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Is the "Rigid Right" heading for the cliff?
The Republican Primaries may be giving the country a vivid demonstration of the inflexible and dogmatic nature of the extreme right wing, and its iron-fisted control over the Republican party, as all the candidates have tried their best to cater to the primary voters by toeing the hard core right wing line, even Romney, whom nobody really believes when he professes his dedication to the acceptable positions.
By the time all of this comes mercifully to an end, I suspect that the country will turn away from the last candidate left standing who will be anointed as the Republican presidential candidate. The Republican brand may well be branded for quite some time to come as the party of inflexible, uncompromising, and dogmatic extremists.
After all, a few decades back, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power as their electorates turned against what was then perceived to be the "Loony Left" - a left wing that was so dedicated to its own ideological vision that it had blinders on and unable to see how it was perceived by the rest of society.
I think the "Rigid Right" is in the same situation now, and they are only doubling down on their passions rather than looking up and seeing that they are headed for the cliff.
I can't see Santorum as anything other than a Social Conservative candidate, and I don't think more than about a quarter or a third of the country will ever vote for him or any other candidate whose main passions are social conservatism. And by the time they are through with Romney, he may be too damaged to have any real chance in the general election.
The question might end up being "will the Republican Party survive the election of 2012?" rather than "will be Republican Party win the White House?".
By the time all of this comes mercifully to an end, I suspect that the country will turn away from the last candidate left standing who will be anointed as the Republican presidential candidate. The Republican brand may well be branded for quite some time to come as the party of inflexible, uncompromising, and dogmatic extremists.
After all, a few decades back, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power as their electorates turned against what was then perceived to be the "Loony Left" - a left wing that was so dedicated to its own ideological vision that it had blinders on and unable to see how it was perceived by the rest of society.
I think the "Rigid Right" is in the same situation now, and they are only doubling down on their passions rather than looking up and seeing that they are headed for the cliff.
I can't see Santorum as anything other than a Social Conservative candidate, and I don't think more than about a quarter or a third of the country will ever vote for him or any other candidate whose main passions are social conservatism. And by the time they are through with Romney, he may be too damaged to have any real chance in the general election.
The question might end up being "will the Republican Party survive the election of 2012?" rather than "will be Republican Party win the White House?".
Friday, February 17, 2012
Contraception, a winning Obama strategy
Andrew Sullivan, center right editorialist, points out that the hard core conservatives are making a big political blunder by trying to whip up voter frenzy about the Obama administration's stance on contraception as a part of the health care law.
At first, I thought that the administration had made a political mistake by mandating that Catholic institutions had to provide full contraceptive, sterilization, and morning after pills to people in their employ as part of their health coverage. After all, it is part of Catholic teaching that these things are immoral, so why not honor their religious beliefs?
But, Obama quickly made a compromise that took the Catholic administrations of these institutions off the hook and still allowed women these contraceptive services if they chose. Sadly, many Catholic leaders, and Evangelicals as well, seem to have kept pounding on the notion that the Obama administration is anti-religion and is trying to impose a dictatorial secular morality on religious institutions. It seems to me that the hard core culture warriors of the social-issues right wing is in the process of destroying itself, which causes me no grief. I suspect that they are not persuading anyone to their position and are quite literally "preaching the the choir", (the I-hate-Obama choir, that is).
Most Catholics practice contraception, or at least see no evil in it. Maybe the bishops don't know this. But, there seems to be a lot that bishops don't know when it comes to sexual morality.
Sullivan's point is that perhaps Obama didn't make a political blunder at all, but set out bait that the socially conservative right wing leaped at, and revealed themselves to be dogmatic and scolding compared to the accommodating and compromising Obama.
Not a bad tactic, whether planned or not, as a way to demonstrate to the country that it is the hard core right wing, not Obama, who is dictatorial, uncompromising, and out of touch. Sullivan's point is that one of Obama's greatest political gifts is his ability to help his political opponents over-reach and self-destruct. He may have a point. Of course, if your political opponents are the hard core culture warriors, from either end of the political spectrum, it is not hard to help them over-reach. Over-reaching is an intrinsic characteristic of extremism.
At first, I thought that the administration had made a political mistake by mandating that Catholic institutions had to provide full contraceptive, sterilization, and morning after pills to people in their employ as part of their health coverage. After all, it is part of Catholic teaching that these things are immoral, so why not honor their religious beliefs?
But, Obama quickly made a compromise that took the Catholic administrations of these institutions off the hook and still allowed women these contraceptive services if they chose. Sadly, many Catholic leaders, and Evangelicals as well, seem to have kept pounding on the notion that the Obama administration is anti-religion and is trying to impose a dictatorial secular morality on religious institutions. It seems to me that the hard core culture warriors of the social-issues right wing is in the process of destroying itself, which causes me no grief. I suspect that they are not persuading anyone to their position and are quite literally "preaching the the choir", (the I-hate-Obama choir, that is).
Most Catholics practice contraception, or at least see no evil in it. Maybe the bishops don't know this. But, there seems to be a lot that bishops don't know when it comes to sexual morality.
Sullivan's point is that perhaps Obama didn't make a political blunder at all, but set out bait that the socially conservative right wing leaped at, and revealed themselves to be dogmatic and scolding compared to the accommodating and compromising Obama.
Not a bad tactic, whether planned or not, as a way to demonstrate to the country that it is the hard core right wing, not Obama, who is dictatorial, uncompromising, and out of touch. Sullivan's point is that one of Obama's greatest political gifts is his ability to help his political opponents over-reach and self-destruct. He may have a point. Of course, if your political opponents are the hard core culture warriors, from either end of the political spectrum, it is not hard to help them over-reach. Over-reaching is an intrinsic characteristic of extremism.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
How to tell if you're liberal or conservative
I think there is an easy way to tell if you are a liberal or a conservative - at the gut level. Which song would you like to be our national anthem? "America the Beautiful" or the "Star Spangled Banner"?
If the flag were to be raised at the Olympics, which song would bring a tear to your eye? the song of Brotherhood, or the song of Freedom?
America the Beautiful has as its top words - "good" and "brotherhood."
The Star Spangled Banner has as its top words - "free" and "brave."
These words speak to the emotional heart of each ideology.
To liberals, brotherhood, doing good, being part of a beautiful community is what America is all about.
To Conservatives, freedom and bravery are at the heart of what America is all about.
Unfortunately, we have entered a time when the brotherhood and caring of community so valued by liberals, and the freedom and bravery of individualism so valued by conservatives are seen to be in such distant poles that they no longer seem to be in the same country. That is why both those on the extremes of liberals and conservatives are always trying to win their country back from the alien beings who seem to have stolen it from them.
It seems to me that caring and freedom can coexist, that community and individuality are both needed, but at the extremes they look to be mutually exclusive.
It seems to me that caring and freedom can coexist, that community and individuality are both needed, but at the extremes they look to be mutually exclusive.
If the flag were to be raised at the Olympics, which song would bring a tear to your eye? the song of Brotherhood, or the song of Freedom?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Who votes for what and why
I read a very informative book: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by historian Colin Woodard. It's observation is that each part of our country was founded by different people with different ideas and valules, and that over time those ideas and values have remained pretty much intact and have created their own cultures that have endured. His point is that there is not one United States, but rather there are nine distinct cultural nations in the U.S., all of which vie for political power each election.
The heart of liberalism is the cultural nation of "Yankeedom", started in New England and spread across the land in its particular way; and the heart of conservatism is the Deep South, started in South Carolina and spread in its particular way. The other nations align to greater or lesser degrees with these polar opposites as the times change.
I am posting my summary of this book, so this is a longer than normal post, but I think it is an interesting summary of our cultural and political landscape. One final note about these cultures. I don't believe that any of our cultures are written in stone, and that they can evolve and change as the times change. But, here is a pretty interesting fingerprint of the America:
NEW NETHERLAND
MIDLANDS
NEW FRANCE
The heart of liberalism is the cultural nation of "Yankeedom", started in New England and spread across the land in its particular way; and the heart of conservatism is the Deep South, started in South Carolina and spread in its particular way. The other nations align to greater or lesser degrees with these polar opposites as the times change.
I am posting my summary of this book, so this is a longer than normal post, but I think it is an interesting summary of our cultural and political landscape. One final note about these cultures. I don't believe that any of our cultures are written in stone, and that they can evolve and change as the times change. But, here is a pretty interesting fingerprint of the America:
AMERICAN NATIONS: Colin Woodard – 11
rival cultural centers of North America 2011
LEFT LEANING TOWARD DEMOCRATS, LIBERALISM:
YANKEEDOM
- Founded in
- Calvinists, Puritans
- Reform minded public
protestants
- To found a religious
utopia on earth
- Came as families,
community oriented
- Salvation of
society, not individuals
- Believe freedom is
more for the community than for the individual
- Drive to improve the
world
- Social engineering,
social justice emphasized
- Turn everyone into a
Yankee
- Faith in government
- Government is an
extension of citizenry
- Local political
control
- Common good,
government to improve people’s lives
- Intolerant of
corruption
- Protestant work
ethic
- Men judged by hard
work and righteousness
- Frugality, thrift,
cleanliness, punctuality
- Individual self
denial
- Common people, with
an aristocracy of the educated
- Education, literacy
valued
- Rebel against
arbitrary authority
- Environmentally
concerned
- Opposed to military
expansionism
- Lead the Democratic
Party
THE LEFT COAST
- Colonized by
merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen from
- Yankee faith in good
government in the cities
- Common good
- Social reform
- Peace movement
- Cultural revolution
- Environmental
movement
- Gay rights movement
- Reform minded
- Individual
self-exploration
- Discovery is valued
- Believe the world
can frequently be reinvented
- Salvation of society
not individuals
- Global information
revolution
- Battles
libertarian-corporate agenda of the
- Oppose military
expansionism
- Lean toward Democratic
Party
- Dutch colony, 1624
- Global
commercial trading society
- Private enterprise
- Free trading
- Self made men are
the elite
- Materialistic
- Profitability ethos
- Speculative ethos
- Invented modern
banking
- Invented modern
corporation
- Men judged by
material achievements
- Upward mobility
- Open to immigrants
- Raucous
- Multi-cultural,
multi-ethnic
- Haven for heretics,
freethinkers, cultural avant guarde
- Intellectual freedom
- Internal bickering
and negotiation
- Great universities
- Freedom of the press
- Reform minded public
protestants
- Salvation of
society, not individuals
- Opposed to military expansionism
- Freedom of inquiry
- Lean toward
Democratic Party
RIGHT LEANING TOWARD REPUBLICANS, CONSERVATISM:
DEEP SOUTH
- Founded by
- Modeled on slave
states of ancient
- Saw enslavement as the
natural state of the many
- Politically polarized
on racial grounds today
- Oligarchy, Radical
disparities of wealth and power
- Desire one party
oligarchy with colonial style economy
- Aristocratic
privilege
- Leisurely pace of
life for the aristocracy to develop refinement, culture
- Subsidize oligarch’s
businesses
- Cut taxes for the
wealthy
- Least democratic of
the nations
- States’ rights
- Fights federal power
- Fights taxes on
capitalism
- Fights organized
labor
- Fights
environmentalism
- Fights consumer
protectionism
- Authoritarian
society
- Wants a compliant,
low wage workforce
- Order and obedience
are valued
- The poor existed to
support the oligarchs
- White supremacy,
contempt for all “inferior races”
- Contempt for the
middle class
- Religion important
- Salvation minded
private protestants
- Support wars
- Lead Republican
Party
TIDEWATER
- Founded by the
younger sons of southern English gentry
- Desire to reproduce
the life of the semi-feudal English manors
- Tobacco plantations,
indentured servants, then slave - haves & have-nots
- Values authority and
tradition
- Personal honor,
duels
- Leisurely pace of
life
- Salvation minded
private protestants
- No towns, schools,
local governments
- Little respect for
public participation in politics
- Little respect for
equality
- Nation in decline,
losing power to
- Support wars
- Lean toward
Republican Party
GREATER
APALACHIA
- Founded in early 18th
century by rough, bellicose war ravaged borderlands of
- Came from a
condition of near constant war and upheaval
- Warrior ethic,
combative, will fight anyone who tries to lord it over them
- Extreme
individualism
- Men judged by their
toughness and ferocity
- Aggressive military,
support wars
- Lampooned as
rednecks, hillbillies, crackers, white trash
- Backcountry people,
beyond rule of law
- Opposed to strong,
central government controlled by elites
- Egalitarian
- Taxes low, schools
sparse, government slight
- Suspicious of
aristocrats
- Suspicious of
reformers
- Opposed to strong
labor unions
- Maximize freedom
rather than increase wealth as top priority
- Clan based
- Honor based
- Salvation minded
private protestants
- Lean toward Republican
Party
IN THE MIDDLE, AMBIVALENT, SWING NATIONS:
- Founded by Dutch
Quakers
- Utopian colonies
- See humans as
essentially good
- Welcome many nations
and creeds, immigrants
- Tolerant
- Multicultural,
multilingual
- Organized around the
middle class
- Society should be
organized to help ordinary people
- Middle class ethos
- Thrift, sobriety
- Neighborliness
- Skeptical of top
down government intervention because they escaped tyrannies in
- Distrust of big
government
- Reject hierarchical
authority
- Government is an
unwelcome intrusion
- Moderate politics
- Practical politics
- The key swing vote
in every election
- Timid and ambivalent
- Not militaristic,
expansionist
- Moderating force in politics
EL NORTE
- The
oldest nation, founded by Spanish missionaries and soldiers, 1560
- Catholic
opponents of Protestantism
- Overwhelmingly
Hispanic
- Mexicans
are the progeny of Spanish and Indian unions
- Hybrid
between Anglo- and Spanish- American
- Independent
- Self-sufficient
- Work
centered
- Adaptable
- Ruled
by oligarchy over the peons
- Obedient,
respectful
- Self
sufficient, independent ranch hands, cowboys
- Lean
toward Democratic Party
FAR WEST
- Environmental
barrenness more important than ethnicity
- Treated
as an internal colony to be exploited for natural resources
- Reviles
federal government interference, but demands federal government largesse
- Run
by the corporations exploiting the natural resources
- Libertarian-corporate
agenda
- Want
the federal government to get out, leave us alone, give us money
- Rarely
defies their corporate masters
- Industrial
base grew as a result of WWII and Cold War
- Hostility
to Federal Government
- Extreme
individualism
- Allies
with deep south sometimes
- Lean
toward Republican Party
MOSTLY IN CANADA
- Founded
in 1604
- Mixed
society, embraced Indians
- Cross
cultural marriages
- Tolerant
open society
- Down
to earth
- Egalitarian
- Consensus
driven
- The
most liberal on the continent
- Multicultural
FIRST NATION
- Far
northern
- Environmentalism
- Limited
sense of ownership
- Sharing society
Monday, February 6, 2012
"The Other Guy" is winning for the Republicans
Mitt Romney is winning the Republican nomination. He is trying to become "The Other Guy."
If the election is about Obama, The Other Guy will either win or lose depending on how things are going for Obama in November. Romney's biggest strength is that he is a generic Republican, the kind that often beats Obama in polls. When they ask about Obama vs. specific Republicans, Obama wins because most specific Republicans are disliked for particular reasons. But when asked about Obama vs a generic Republican, Obama often loses depending on how the country is feeling about the country, the economy, Obama's leadership, etc. Since most of what Romney says is not believed anyhow, he morphs into the generic Republican, becomes The Other Guy, and has the best chance to defeat Obama in November.
All that the Republican primary elections are showing the country so far, as far as I can tell, is that the Republicans have only unpalatable offerings to make for the presidency, and the one winning is the one where people dismiss what he says as things that he doesn't really believe.
Romney might be a competent manager of the country, but he is certainly no visionary. If you think he doesn't believe what he says, then he becomes an inkblot test - he becomes whatever you wish him to be. In a way, that is how Obama ran four years ago, undefined and believed to be a multitude of things to a multitude of voters, many of whom became disappointed because he wasn't who they projected him to be.
If people actually listen to Romney and vote based on the silly things he is saying, he will no longer be just The Other Guy, but will be someone who represents actual policy possibilities, and he too will be rejected. But, for now, he is just The Other Guy.
If the election is about Obama, The Other Guy will either win or lose depending on how things are going for Obama in November. Romney's biggest strength is that he is a generic Republican, the kind that often beats Obama in polls. When they ask about Obama vs. specific Republicans, Obama wins because most specific Republicans are disliked for particular reasons. But when asked about Obama vs a generic Republican, Obama often loses depending on how the country is feeling about the country, the economy, Obama's leadership, etc. Since most of what Romney says is not believed anyhow, he morphs into the generic Republican, becomes The Other Guy, and has the best chance to defeat Obama in November.
All that the Republican primary elections are showing the country so far, as far as I can tell, is that the Republicans have only unpalatable offerings to make for the presidency, and the one winning is the one where people dismiss what he says as things that he doesn't really believe.
Romney might be a competent manager of the country, but he is certainly no visionary. If you think he doesn't believe what he says, then he becomes an inkblot test - he becomes whatever you wish him to be. In a way, that is how Obama ran four years ago, undefined and believed to be a multitude of things to a multitude of voters, many of whom became disappointed because he wasn't who they projected him to be.
If people actually listen to Romney and vote based on the silly things he is saying, he will no longer be just The Other Guy, but will be someone who represents actual policy possibilities, and he too will be rejected. But, for now, he is just The Other Guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)