A "shellacking" is what President Obama decided to call it.
He may have been right.
As the economy continues to creep along without jobs, social issues like gay marriage and immigration continue to remain unsolved, and reasonable American concerns remain unanswered, the "informed citizenry" decided to vote for the party of no; the party that has obstructed the conversation for two years, the party that puts petty holds on trivial nominees, the party that refuses to acknowledge the need for conversation and compromise in a discussion that needs resolution before our country can move forward.
Next thing you know we'll be drinking Brawndo. It does have what plants crave after all.
What makes the situation even more maddening is the complete ignorance of the intentional plutocracy that allowed these road cones (John Boehner) and turtles (Mitch McConnell) to assume the mantle of power (which they do not see as a call to action, but instead as a mandate for uncompromising partisanship). The Reagan era theory of trickle down economics, the Bush era doctrine of deregulation, and the myth of the unmoderated free market have exploded the social division in this country, demolishing the middle class and (coupled with key Supreme Court decisions) organized political power firmly in the hands of the elite.
The bottom line is this: on a day when Americans had the opportunity to vote against partisan gridlock, ideological tomfoolery, and money fueled campaigns dictated by those who would sooner milk us for our paycheck than give our children a good education, Americans voted against their own best interest.
The Democrats may have lost the seats, but it was the American people who received the "shellacking".
Moving forward, we have a lot of work to do. Here in Iowa, Governor Branstad and the newly politicized judiciary will be pushing a reversal of the decision that allowed gay marriage to become a reality (they have a long road ahead, but the intention is clear). In Washington, Boehner and McConnell have made no qualms about their intention to steamroll as many time-wasting hearings and inquisitions as possible through the legislature. Regardless of how Democrats and even moderate Conservatives feel, GOP leadership now sees the Tea Party anger as their guiding compass.
The patients run the asylum today, but we cannot give up hope. With a simple majority in the Senate and a competent, reasonable president in the White House, life will continue. Let's just hope the Democrats have learned their lessons: progress does not speak for itself, even good ideas can be spun as bad ones, and the American people are as impressionable as the elite believe them to be.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and keep progress un-shellacked.
Fight on.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Good News on a Friday (An Ascent From Pundit Purgatory)
It's been sneaking in again. That crushing feeling of helplessness that accompanies spending several hours a day on news blogs and political commentary sites. If you listen to the Right, we're going to hell in a handbasket. If you listen to the Left, Obama is a do-nothing, accomplish-nothing corporate puppet.
Needless to say, when no one's happy and it's sometimes difficult to disagree with the enthusiastic logic of some of those on the left, reality becomes a bit nebulous. For example, I've found myself wondering why Obama hasn't already fixed illegal immigration, gay marriage, special interest influence in politics, and solved world hunger in his first two years as president. I've wondered how the man I voted for could so quickly bow to Republicans in order to shoe-horn a half-complete health insurance reform bill through. I've wondered why he hasn't railroaded climate legislation through with his Congressional super-majority.
I'll stop there. You can see where this is headed.
The Ascent
I've been frustrated that none of the pragmatic policies I once believed in have resonated with the public and therefore compromises have been made and progress has been slow. According to those news blogs I mentioned, America hates Obama, all demographics have gone off their rocker into one fringe corner of the political spectrum or the other, crippling progressive legislation in the process.
Then I spent some time on the Huffington Post.
If one take's the country's political temperature there, then one finds many people still support the Obama administration, regularly recognizing the mountain of achievements he's already piled up. What resonated with me most of all though was the temperate, intelligent expectations these same people have regarding the slow progress of progressive legislation and the necessarily slow undoing of the political culture in Washington.
And The Good News
Shortly after rediscovering this message (which I recognized as my own more rational stance before it was blown about by the wild winds of internet political blogging), and consequently rediscovering my optimism, I also happened upon this information:
It's a study by a group called the Campaign for America's Future and it possesses some rather telling facts about the state of the midterm electorate. Some highlights include:
Going Forward
The truth remains that Democrats will likely lose seats in the coming midterms, but I personally find peace with this now. After discovering that not only is the American public not as crazy as advertised but that the Democratic message is still a popular one, I can confidently remove my hands from my eyes knowing that progress isn't as unlikely as perceived.
The moral of this story, if any, is that you should form your opinions for yourself. Use facts, but be sure to identify what information from what sources qualify as facts. Obama approval ratings by Rasmussen are not facts, CBO estimates are. Huffington Post editorials are not facts, and neither is anything Fox News puts on the air.
Finally, shut off the computer and walk away for a while. Perspective is a powerful thing and so is optimism. If one begets the other, then it's easy to see how a trip down the political rabbit hole can stifle both simultaneously.
Have a good Friday folks. I certainly will.
Needless to say, when no one's happy and it's sometimes difficult to disagree with the enthusiastic logic of some of those on the left, reality becomes a bit nebulous. For example, I've found myself wondering why Obama hasn't already fixed illegal immigration, gay marriage, special interest influence in politics, and solved world hunger in his first two years as president. I've wondered how the man I voted for could so quickly bow to Republicans in order to shoe-horn a half-complete health insurance reform bill through. I've wondered why he hasn't railroaded climate legislation through with his Congressional super-majority.
I'll stop there. You can see where this is headed.
The Ascent
I've been frustrated that none of the pragmatic policies I once believed in have resonated with the public and therefore compromises have been made and progress has been slow. According to those news blogs I mentioned, America hates Obama, all demographics have gone off their rocker into one fringe corner of the political spectrum or the other, crippling progressive legislation in the process.
Then I spent some time on the Huffington Post.
If one take's the country's political temperature there, then one finds many people still support the Obama administration, regularly recognizing the mountain of achievements he's already piled up. What resonated with me most of all though was the temperate, intelligent expectations these same people have regarding the slow progress of progressive legislation and the necessarily slow undoing of the political culture in Washington.
And The Good News
Shortly after rediscovering this message (which I recognized as my own more rational stance before it was blown about by the wild winds of internet political blogging), and consequently rediscovering my optimism, I also happened upon this information:
It's a study by a group called the Campaign for America's Future and it possesses some rather telling facts about the state of the midterm electorate. Some highlights include:
"68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.
"Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.
"60 percent of those surveyed responded positively to an economic message that said that “we have a budget deficit, but … we also have a massive public investment deficit” that requires us to “rebuild the infrastructure that is vital to our economy” and to the economic growth that will “generate revenues to help pay down the budget deficit.” This message tests better than any other progressive message on investment as well as more conservative messages focused on spending cuts."In summary, this study too finds that the American public is not as irrational as the media and GOP would have us believe. A resounding majority understands that cuts to social programs in order to trim the deficit are undesirable and that public investment should be a priority before deficit reduction, therefore heading off the "strangle the beast" tactic of the Right before it finds a foothold. In other words, the Democratic message of public investment, continued support of social services, and a long-term strategy of economic development bolstered by short-term deficits is quite popular with likely voters.
Going Forward
The truth remains that Democrats will likely lose seats in the coming midterms, but I personally find peace with this now. After discovering that not only is the American public not as crazy as advertised but that the Democratic message is still a popular one, I can confidently remove my hands from my eyes knowing that progress isn't as unlikely as perceived.
The moral of this story, if any, is that you should form your opinions for yourself. Use facts, but be sure to identify what information from what sources qualify as facts. Obama approval ratings by Rasmussen are not facts, CBO estimates are. Huffington Post editorials are not facts, and neither is anything Fox News puts on the air.
Finally, shut off the computer and walk away for a while. Perspective is a powerful thing and so is optimism. If one begets the other, then it's easy to see how a trip down the political rabbit hole can stifle both simultaneously.
Have a good Friday folks. I certainly will.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Swiftboating the Deficit
Burgeoning social programs, massive injections of funds into work programs, and nationalist calls for a rallying around a common purpose: rebuilding America. These three components highlight the recovery of 2009-10 in much the same manner that they did in the New Deal, the extensive reconstruction of the American economy after the Great Depression.
John B has expressed on several occasions the ways in which President Obama's programs mirror the New Deal in both aim and execution, but suddenly there's trouble afoot. The same ideals that crowned the policies of FDR now threaten to nurture the greatest threat to our Democracy since the election of the president himself: the deficit.
You cannot turn on the news anymore without hearing some talking head comment about the ballooning deficit. In their defense, the prospect seems attractive: ballooning debts and deficits are no way to run a business so why should America be exempt from the rules of the market? When are lenders just going to quit lending, sensing that there is no end in sight? Surely large swaths of the global community will see us as a joke and our national identity will suffer, right?
The problem is that, according to an article by Paul Krugman in the NY Times, the deficit and national debt are far less serious problems then we are being lead to believe. I admit, even I was concerned with the concept until I read Krugman's outlook (he likens current tactics to the kind of fear-mongering that lead us into Iraq).
Now, it's not my job to sit here and point out where the right fails like a glorified (?) watchdog. Shoring up national debts and relinquishing ourselves from the grasp of the Chinese economy sounds like a perfectly respectable thing to do. However, the constantly repeated talking points and misinformation of the political right in this country is clearly in full swing on this matter, convincing average Americans that the goal posts of health insurance (!) reform and job creation are not nearly as important as "fiscal responsibility", now a concrete pillar of the Republican line.
Yet we do not challenge it. The deficit was never in question when President Bush manufactured consent for two wars, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, and tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% but when Obama's well-vetted programs (whose recommendation come from the godfather John Maynard Keynes himself) threaten to temporarily increase government spending en route to a reduction in the national debt, it's time to rally that Tea Party "populism".
Some of you may think that you can't make a difference on the matter, but when "experts" are out there claiming that a necessary run of deficit spending is endangering our standing as a nation, it is time to put out what word we can and convince whoever may read our words that they are being lied to. This stands to become a big issue in the coming election, which means its our time to be citizens.
Write as you see fit, agree or disagree, and remember that America was founded on the open forum, the polis, of the printed word.
John B has expressed on several occasions the ways in which President Obama's programs mirror the New Deal in both aim and execution, but suddenly there's trouble afoot. The same ideals that crowned the policies of FDR now threaten to nurture the greatest threat to our Democracy since the election of the president himself: the deficit.
You cannot turn on the news anymore without hearing some talking head comment about the ballooning deficit. In their defense, the prospect seems attractive: ballooning debts and deficits are no way to run a business so why should America be exempt from the rules of the market? When are lenders just going to quit lending, sensing that there is no end in sight? Surely large swaths of the global community will see us as a joke and our national identity will suffer, right?
The problem is that, according to an article by Paul Krugman in the NY Times, the deficit and national debt are far less serious problems then we are being lead to believe. I admit, even I was concerned with the concept until I read Krugman's outlook (he likens current tactics to the kind of fear-mongering that lead us into Iraq).
Now, it's not my job to sit here and point out where the right fails like a glorified (?) watchdog. Shoring up national debts and relinquishing ourselves from the grasp of the Chinese economy sounds like a perfectly respectable thing to do. However, the constantly repeated talking points and misinformation of the political right in this country is clearly in full swing on this matter, convincing average Americans that the goal posts of health insurance (!) reform and job creation are not nearly as important as "fiscal responsibility", now a concrete pillar of the Republican line.
Yet we do not challenge it. The deficit was never in question when President Bush manufactured consent for two wars, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, and tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% but when Obama's well-vetted programs (whose recommendation come from the godfather John Maynard Keynes himself) threaten to temporarily increase government spending en route to a reduction in the national debt, it's time to rally that Tea Party "populism".
Some of you may think that you can't make a difference on the matter, but when "experts" are out there claiming that a necessary run of deficit spending is endangering our standing as a nation, it is time to put out what word we can and convince whoever may read our words that they are being lied to. This stands to become a big issue in the coming election, which means its our time to be citizens.
Write as you see fit, agree or disagree, and remember that America was founded on the open forum, the polis, of the printed word.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Thought of the Day (Coakley v. Tragedy)
One thought has gripped my mind the entire day, and that is: what if Martha Coakley fails today and Scott P. Brown breaks the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority before HCR can pass? Would the failure of one person to fill a traditionally Democratic seat on the heels of a weak campaign and observation of national holidays (she took Thanksgiving off instead of campaigning) lead to the failure of one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in recent memory?
I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.
To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote. Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate. This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact. Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.
My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.
Read the book, it's a page turner. That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.
What are your thoughts? What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?
I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.
To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote. Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate. This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact. Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.
My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.
Read the book, it's a page turner. That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.
What are your thoughts? What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?
Monday, November 16, 2009
So Much for Compromise
When Obama was elected, he did so on a platform of Hope. Hope for peace, hope for an end to societies ills, and, most optimistically, hope for bipartisanship in a country whose divide between the left and right is deepening every day.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise. Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.
Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.
According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps. Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:
The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year? Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?
You know what to do. Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.
Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise. Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.
Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.
According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps. Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:
Conservatives counter that Republicans have become Democrats’ enablers in bigger deficits and bigger government, and that the way to win is to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.And there you have it folks. Conservatives and Republicans. Now I know its politically reductionist to lump them into the same camp but for at least the past eight years they've both run under the same banner. Furthermore, if compromise is the best road to productive legislation, it appears that the right will have nothing of productivity.
The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year? Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?
You know what to do. Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.