No Faith in the Fantasy

Another stellar posting, Madame, that leaves little for me to contribute.  Heed her words well, readers!

Just as I said I would examine Ferguson’s article, and did, I said I would also look at “the Ryan Plan,” and I have.  My analysis follows:

First, there are problems because he—or rather, his office—submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis a plan that was focused primarily on Medicare and Medicaid.  Yet he and his office later “augmented” it (conveniently AFTER the CBO had submitted its analysis) with parts about other areas. 

That Ryan didn’t know the specifics of his own plan when asked a softball question about it from Britt Hume of Fox News shows that he didn’t really design it—his staff or some think tank did.  Still, it’s not like he shouldn’t have been up on the basics, especially as those basics are easy to find, especially when the CBO did all the hard work for him.

In summary, his plan shifts costs to individuals (for Medicare) and the states (for Medicaid), with some initial help (but effectively decreasing help) from the federal government to do so.  While the method may be disputed, one can agree with Ryan at the imperative of attempting to control the fiscal monster of Medicare (and to an extent, Medicaid) spending.  The elderly consume the vast lion’s share of health costs.  The reason is similar to cars: the older a car is, the more its maintenance and repair and parts replacement costs go up.  That Americans have taken particularly poor care of their health only makes things dramatically fiscally worse, and adding an unpaid for prescription drug benefit has only intensified that (the reader can assess who benefitted from that).  That the great baby boom wave is becoming elderly further sends costs off the scale.

Medicare is “funded” by 1.45% tax on workers, matched by a 1.45% contribution from their employers, plus a small premium on the actual recipients (taken out of Social Security benefits).  It’s all not anywhere nearly enough.  Present deficits run in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Unlike Social Security, which is at most only moderately underfunded, Medicare is already dramatically underfunded, and Medicaid has no separate revenue stream at all.  One part of Ryan’s proposal—the only thing real about his “Plan”—is a shock to a system that doesn’t want to face certain realities.  One of those realities is that you can’t have both guns and grandma’s bread and butter. 

Democrats don’t face it squarely.  Republicans address it deceptively.  It’s nauseating to watch.  At least the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does slow the growth of the monster, although one can sympathize with the many providers who get the short end of the stick from the restrictions of costs (although on another angle, generally, the insurance companies don’t need our sympathy for how the ACA restricts what they can charge, given their colossal profits).  For all his MANY faults, Barack Obama deserves credit for trying to do something, although the result was far less than what was needed. 

The Ryan proposal makes no changes in Social Security.

On to some relevant specifics of the plan:

Age for Medicare goes up to 67.  Voucher payments become what one gets, instead of direct payment for care received.  Critics are correct that this means the present simplified system will become complex, and a burden to the elderly, especially when they must shop in the marketplace to get insurance that they hope their voucher will cover.  If they have past history or pre-existing conditions, this could prove problematic.  It would prove impossible if ACA is repealed.  Furthermore, effective control goes to the insurance companies; heretofore, not the best idea, but in fairness, there’s also been a lot of waste and fraud in Medicare too.

Seniors would pay more for health care, regardless.  Premium assistance from the government would not keep up.

Higher income folks receive would receive less in voucher amounts.  Not a bad idea that.

Medicaid becomes block grants.

The Ryan Plan has some hidden provisions.  For instance, the present health insurance mandate would be repealed, as would the tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.  This is indirect partial dissolution of ACA.

Medical savings accounts are established in 2022 for poverty level citizens.

Ryan’s proposal does give more certainty about Medicare and Medicaid payments, which could balloon wildly under the present system.  Up to this point, one could have policy differences, and things could be discussed reasonably.  From here, however, the Ryan “Plan” is no plan at all—it is worse than smoke and mirrors.  It’s fantastical, delusional, deceptive.

Discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, are projected to go down, but no measures are proposed.  Revenues are projected to go up, with also no measures proposed.  This is magical thinking of the worst order.  I agree with Paul Krugman.  Most of this is not a plan.  It is a political game.  More manipulation.

Both mandatory and discretionary government spending are just assumed by the Plan to decline to half their present GDP levels by 2022.  Revenues had a similar sort of projection, from 15 percent of GDP to 19 percent of GDP by 2028.  CBO had an often repeated phrase in their analysis for this kind of  utter fantasy: “No proposals were specified that would generate that path.”

Most of the so-called deficit shrinking of the Ryan Plan comes from some magical reduction in defense and domestic spending, which together are supposed to (by magic!) shrink to 3.5 percent of GDP.  Defense right now hovers around 4 percent of GDP just by itself.  And as you’ll see below, this becomes even more absurdly deceptive when Ryan calls for at least initially INCREASING Defense spending.

Any deficit shrinking even under this magic depends on what assumptions are made, and what scenarios.  For the first 15 years or so, the proposals actually increase the size of the deficit.  Projected reversals of this come from assertions (not even assumptions) untied to any reality, plus unspecified “broadening of the base.”  Surpluses, small ones at first, don’t start showing up until 2040—several generations in American politics.   How convenient.  And it’s all fantasy anyway.  The government is underfunded by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts first and foremost, yet those are not addressed in any fashion.

AFTER the CBO did the analysis, the Ryan camp added provisions for cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and also provisions to INCREASE Defense.  Ryan also has drastic cuts in spending for infrastructure and education, not to mention the safety net of medical care and food assistance for poor and for children.  How deceptive.  These added provisions make an already fantastical mirage become one with a Trojan Horse.  It’s almost like it’s designed to deflect first, confuse second, then award plutocrats and defense contractors, and finally make the government pathetically weak.  It comes across as a Randian long-range plot to collapse government fiscally and force the country to accept a system with nearly no government at all. 

Some samples of what the CBO said of how things could and/or would progress: A growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise be the case.

Ferguson in his article I reviewed last week says that Paul Ryan is “truly sincere” about addressing the fiscal crisis the country is in.  The reader can look at what I have detailed above and see if they agree with that.

Ferguson says, incredibly, that there is “literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better” than Paul Ryan.  If that’s the case, it’s time to bid sayonara to America’s days as a Great Power.

Ferguson does not acknowledge—appears not to know, although that seems impossible—who really has power in this country.  For whatever reasons, he keeps couching things in terms of only Democrats or Republicans.

Do illusions, delusions, and secret plans really drive our “elites?”  An important question for all us citizens.

Get in Line? Nah.

Professor J,

You've asked about the political bullying of your female friends from those on the right.  I can't give you a precise answer because I'm sure the reason is a cocktail of some of the things you've mentioned. However, I might make this observation: conservatives see themselves as right, and I don't just mean in political leanings. This is the result (in my opinion) of the recent marrying of Christianity and political conservatism. Somewhere along the line my being a good Christian (which I miss by a mile, but that's where grace comes in) had to fall in line with my behaving as a citizen in a particular way. The recent Chick fil a dustup is a good example. There was an expectation that as a Christian I would buy a chicken sandwich on a certain day. My standing my ground and refusing to participate, for a variety of reasons, was looked at with bewilderment by some. And the attitude among some was --why couldn't I get in line? Literally as well as figuratively.

I'll admit that when everyone is doing anything it makes me nervous. But maybe I'm just a contrarian.

Thanks to the Moral Majority and other similar organizations, along with talk show hosts who make fortunes keeping the fire going, the "culture war" has been sold to vast segments of the country and in particular to the Republican base. This isn't my war. I am a Christian and a citizen. Those are two different things. I can't find in my New Testament where Christ told me to spread democracy and capitalism. To hear many speak these days you would think it was part of the Sermon on the Mount or the Great Commission. My job as a Christian is to spread His love and behave in a way that reflects His teachings. First and foremost is that LOVE thing. It is not to be a registered Republican or save the country from gay marriage and universal health care . My job as a citizen is (among other things) to be informed, know the Constitution, vote, and obey the law. At times the two things converge but not always.

Jesus didn't seem particularly concerned about the culture, except perhaps in reference to the religious establishment.

The problem is the group think that has taken over. Most people think like this: I believe this way on one important issue (let's take abortion for an example), so I will then unthinkingly accept another entire line of belief about totally unrelated subjects because that is how "we" think. I might point out that this can be a problem for Democrats as well, those who are social liberals but fiscal conservatives for example. And the conventional wisdom that conservatives "don't do nuance" is probably fair from what I see. This lockstep ideology makes me crazy.

Beyond all of that I would say that I often see a certain closed minded arrogance that our European friends might recognize as "the ugly American." The attitude of "knowing" one is right, sometimes without many facts and not much thought, is fairly common, I'm sad to say. It is frustrating in the extreme. If your female friends are getting this behavior from men, I would say that that goes back to an age old issue of control. I'd be interested in knowing the ages of these men as well. There might be a hint about the answer to your question there.

Post Facto

Madame M:

One thing (well, more, but this will have to do) more I meant to say on my post from last time: If disgust with the two parties occurs in a critical swing state or area, you could find yourself with the worst of the two unsavory choices, either by lack of voting or voting for a third party that the system has assured of no chance.

To your excellent post on civil discourse, I can add but little.  I have an observation though.   I have had friends, especially women, who tell me they feel bullied by their conservative friends.  It happens on all sides, of course, but it does come from the conservative quarter more.  Why? Fear?  Frustration?  Control? Intolerance?  Something else? What is the source or sources of political bullying?  We have spent a good deal of time in identifying sources of bullying among children.  Perhaps we need to expand that research.

On to the topic of the day. I said I would read and analyze the Ferguson article from Newsweek. Here is my analysis.

Although he lays out some criticisms of the Obama administration—criticisms that I can occasionally join in—he is intellectually dishonest in a number of others.  It appears to me that he has approached things from a marked bias, and set out to twist statistics and make projections to support that bias.  He’s a smart man and an occasionally gifted historian.  Why would he do that?  Is it merely because controversy sells?  Do his handlers at Newsweek desire such a thing?  I think it’s more direct than either of those.  First, it’s no secret that Ferguson is openly partisan: not only was he a Maggie Thatcher fan (he’s from Scotland), but he has enthusiastically supported in American politics McCain and now Romney and Ryan (who he’s friends with).  Second, Ferguson also has a record of oddly or poorly twisting facts to come to his desired conclusions, something he has been criticized for a number of years on.  Third, many of his criticisms of the Obama administration are economic.  While I have long said that presidents can often have a negative effect on economics, having a positive one (and especially a positive one without a cooperative Fed, Congress, and G-20) is sometimes largely out of their control.  Yet, Ferguson behaves like many non-scholars in not acknowledging this reality; worse, he perpetuates a misleading notion.  He has been credited as economic historian, but many economists would characterize his understanding of economics to be at best incomplete (and I found his book The Ascent of Money to be uninspiring).   Fourth, while I agree with him that the West sometimes does not give itself enough credit for the positive changes it has made in the world, he takes that to extremes and justifies numerous interventions and arrogant assumptions of cultural superiority.  Fifth, he is never apologetic or admitting of error.  He justifies his twisting of facts and statistics (prime example: mixing dates of comparison and being obviously misleading, just to make the point he desires) and does not acknowledge that he has done so, which as an historian is offensive due to its hostility to scholarly standards.

Some specific issues with the article:

Ferguson contributes to the highly misleading, non-contextual assertion that we are becoming a nation where half the people are on the dole and half the people are paying heavy taxes to support them.  This partisan assertion, precisely because there is a tiny kernel of fact in one part of it, then is seized upon to emotionally incense Americans who feel put upon by the system.  In perfect divide and conquer, Americans are pitted against each other, with those who perceive themselves as hardworking, honest, dedicated citizens encouraged to feel that they are bleeding themselves dry to support the easy lives of “welfare queens,” “low lifes,” “criminals,” “system abusers,” “morons,” etc.  That serves the 1% quite nicely.

What IS correct is that 46- 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income tax.  Aha, you say, Ferguson is correct.  Not really.  First of all, much of that 46-47 percent do pay state and local income tax, but more to the point, they still pay plenty in sales and other taxes, not to mention they are usually the working poor who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  And because they are the working poor, most aren’t the “bums and freeloaders” that the twisters try to focus on to get us pitted against each other.  But MUCH more to the point, the reason they don’t pay federal income taxes is that THEY DON’T MAKE ENOUGH: their average income is less than $27,000 a year. 

We have a problem all right.  But it’s not because we have become colonial Spain, where the productive got crushed under supporting all the people on the dole.  It’s because our policies have both knowingly and uncaringly undermined the middle class, which is now both weakened and shrinking.  Such policies have been 30-40 years in the making, and transcend Obama, who hasn’t been allowed to do much (and it’s not clear that he truly desires to do all that much, except maybe put a few speed bumps in).  The corporate and plutocratic powers desire certain things and do not desire others, and that’s what drives the economy now.  While they might somewhat prefer the fast-track convergence of a Romney to an occasionally reluctant Obama, they have already made sure the political machinery does not excessively interfere with what they want.

Ferguson is right in pointing out that economists and politicians who wave away debt by citing debt to GDP ratios are refusing to face a problem, and we need a marked squaring up to the collective debt problem of the world in general and this country in particular.  He is also right in that we are masking the true severity of our problems by our artificially low interest rates.  But Ferguson is being disingenuous by insinuating that our deficits are largely just because we aren’t facing up to living within our revenues.  Our revenues have been deliberately depressed by nearly continually dropping taxes for the wealthy and super-wealthy (at the corporate level certainly, but individually even more so), while at the same time providing loopholes and deductions to those same rich.  Additionally, we have made it easy for those wealthy and super-wealthy to hide trillions in wealth (and escape even more taxes) in tax-haven countries around the world, not to mention the further loopholes of international money movement and international “earnings.”  And all these facets have not only led to markedly self-serving behavior by the rich, but have provided the opposite of incentive to produce more jobs and more middle-class citizens.

Ferguson says certain things were not in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) when they most certainly are, and even when confronted with these glaring errors, he does not admit any mistakes, which is inexcusable for an academic.  For instance, the Congressional Budget Office, the highly respected non-partisan analytical arm of Congress, says that ACA as written dramatically slows the wild growth in health care costs, especially government related health care costs, but Ferguson claims the opposite.   He could claim, as I do, that the CBO’s assumptions are optimistic, and that this slowing will not occur to the extent they project, but he doesn't.  He goes off into partisanville and does not return.

Ferguson does other ridiculously partisan things in his article, such as blaming Obama for the fact that China’s GDP will exceed America’s in the very near future, when nearly every social scientist recognizes this as well over 30 years in the making—and not necessarily a bad thing (and not just because China’s population is also over four times ours).   He blames Obama for “letting his party dictate the terms of the stimulus,” which has some truth (and the character of how much of it was spent was typical Democratic muddle-headedness), but, like many of Ferguson’s assertions, is just that—partial truth.  He leaves out that Republicans in the Senate assured that the stimulus would be much smaller than many leading economists said was needed to truly recover from the Great Recession, thereby leading to a no-win situation that would be portrayed as “failure” and “wasteful.”   He blames Obama for the “failures” of “financial reform and health care reform,” when both of those far-less-than-ideal efforts were undermined by the lobbying power of the very sectors they were trying to reform—and it didn’t matter a wit about which party, because both had been captured by the lobbyists.  He blames Obama for the “fiscal cliff” of tax hikes and slashed spending that is in our future, when those things have been 30- plus years in the making.  That Obama got handed a situation where costs of government were going up and revenues dropping precipitously, meant he was going to be facing stark deficits no matter what he did.  And that pattern is what is precisely desired by those rich and powerful who want to make government weak and effectively powerless to oppose them.  Ferguson is also critical of Obama’s foreign policy, portraying it as aimless dithering.  It’s easy to criticize, but Ferguson’s prescriptions are largely only a repeat of the disastrous Bush foreign policies that set up so many of the problems that Obama has attempted to deal with.  I will agree with Ferguson, however, that the possibly extra-legal campaign of drone targeting is at least potentially problematic, but since its full aspects have not yet been examined (and indeed, may not be achievable without access to privileged information), it comes across as more partisan knitting.   We need entirely new and codified rules of warfare, and Geneva needs updating.  This needs to be an international discussion, however, not another hegemonic American dictation.  We also need a full rethinking of the sinister aspect of authorizing the president to assassinate an American citizen whom that president considers an enemy of the state.

Ferguson’s also intellectually dishonest in criticizing possibly unfounded assumptions about the ACA but being silent about those even more starkly, clearly unfounded (in fact NO assumptions, just assertions!) in the Ryan plan.  He also holds the Obama administration accountable for the fact that banks are not meeting funds requirements, when those things transcend times and administrations—the moneyed powers dictate things anyway.  Others have pointed out that the requirements haven’t even gone into effect yet, so trying to hold accountable would be dishonest if it were even applicable.

Ferguson supplies no evidence for how his calls for austerity have worked in actual practice, nor does he address the problems and complications that austerity have encountered elsewhere.  Again, it would be at least intellectually honest to bring up past times in American history to balance budgets in recessions/depressions, as well as the present measures in Europe, and show why his austerity call accounts for the same factors.

I will be one of the first in line to criticize Obama the firefighter, but I will also recognize that he’s had to deal with those standing on his hose, those driving the truck to the wrong location, those diverting trucks that could help, and those fanning the flames.  I’m certainly not going to clamor for a return to the policies and methods of the fire-starters –economic arsonists—and that is a good deal of what Ferguson is advocating.  I’m not a fan of an Obama, but that doesn’t translate into reaching for a Romney who would offer no change except for the worse.

Even Ferguson’s conservative friend Andrew Sullivan has problems with Ferguson’s writings and methods.  Ferguson has done, and continues to do so unapologetically, damage to scholarship.  In fact, he is another contributor to the post-facts world of illusion and delusion we are fashioning for ourselves, making Hedges’ prescience all the more telling in its starkness.

Civil Discourse as Defense

Professor J,

Civil discourse: Isn't this where we came in? After 3 years of discussing it and 2 years of publicly championing the cause, this week we were shown, a bit closer to home, the desperate need for it and the damage caused by the lack of it. Thanks to social networking and our ability to be voyeurs in a digital age we've both seen people participate this week in ways that made us cringe.

Civil Discourse, anyone?

Civil discourse is like that old joke about the weather: Everyone talks about it but no one ever does anything about it.

We could imagine what a nation full of educated citizens
(I know, one problem at at time, right?) who could work together to solve problems could get done. A country would be very strong indeed if its inhabitants could listen to one another and look for the best solutions possible instead of wanting to be right. We also have come to believe that anyone with an opinion different from ours is either idiotic or that their intent is an evil one. We no longer imagine that the other person has taken facts into account and come to a different conclusion about what the best course of action might be. We see less and less people who are willing to respectfully disagree or compromise. In fact, compromise has become a dirty word.

This attitude has grown more prevalent since everyone shouting at each other somehow became part of the news. This style of "debate" has seeped out of the cable box and into the population. John Maxwell said (I'm paraphrasing) we need to value people more than our opinions.  A lot of our lack of civil discourse is a result of our disconnection. So many discussions today take place in a relationship vacuum. What is the point of going to all the trouble of listening or spending time explaining your viewpoint to someone you don't know? No need for tact and diplomacy when there is no relationship to protect or when the relationship is viewed as less important than winning the argument.

 Finding common ground, even if you really have to dig for it, goes a long way in getting the other person to listen. It says "I value your opinion." You can hash out all the details where you disagree later, but pointing out areas where you have commonality shows the other person you are willing to meet them halfway.

Are we capable of taking our emotions, putting them aside for the sake of discussion or are we going to let our feelings override our thinking?  Are we sharing information and discussing things to look for the truth? Can we all agree that the TRUTH is more important than having our previously held opinion confirmed? If all we want to hear (really listen to and take to heart) are opinions that agree with ours (confirmation bias), and we lose our ability to learn, rethink, and reevaluate, then we are no longer being intellectually honest. Beyond that we just turn into mouthpieces for one side or the other, instead of thinkers. At that point we are just being used. The powers that be benefit greatly from our inability to have a rational and reasoned debate about things.

Here's a prior blog post about why some of us are more averse to change than others: This Is Your Brain of Fear.

But I would say we don't need to just have our ideas and opinions challenged by others. We need to be constantly sifting our thinking and challenging ourselves. We need to constantly be on the lookout for new information so that we can marvel at how much we don't know. That makes it possible to entertain that troubling thought...that due to misinformation, misunderstanding, or misreading events we could be...wrong. People who are on a quest for truth are going to have to admit that from time to time.

If we did a better job at not imitating the boorish behavior we see in the media we might be able to use civil discourse as a defense against small mindedness, division, and ignorance. Who knows,  we might even learn to stop only defending our opinions and learn to defend each other. 

In Search of Political Enthusiasm: Political Porn Examined

Madame:

I can certainly empathize greatly with the desire! What a fresh campaign that would be! While I’m not as sure as you that agreement could be obtained on the “big 3 or 4 things,” there is overlap, no doubt.  AFTER the election (assuming success without excessive positive thinking, lol) would be a bit difficult: since Reagan rejected Ford’s “co-presidency” proposal, such a thing has been considered cold stone dead (although Cheney upended this in Bush’s first term), and the vice-pres really doesn’t have any more power than the president allows or gives. But maybe it could work for extraordinary individuals of vision and character who would realize what the American people elected them for!

Yes, if we could get Americans to stop accepting sound bites and misrepresentations, this would go far. However, the average American is so put upon by the crushing demands of living and our society (and that everything is on the individual or nuclear family instead of spread a bit more via community), let alone those overworked poor or those without jobs or with only part-time jobs, I’m wondering if there is enough human reserves. But perhaps there can be awakened, in all the corners of this land, those who could help, but have become distracted or focused on only themselves, or even the retired or elderly who feel tossed aside or youth wasting their energy in directionless activity. So, good idea too!  And would love two cranky old men who can’t be bought.  If we ever needed the incorruptibles, it’s now.

Well, we’ve largely almost had a moratorium on new laws, given a deadlocked Congress, but I agree it might be great, if you could get legislators and executives to resist the urge to tamper or make their mark. Ego and feeling one has POWER are hard to resist, let alone the extreme pressure that constituents and lobbyists put on to do something about their particular issues. Freezing spending at current levels is a good idea, although it is less efficient than targeted cuts of misallocation of resources. As the super-nothing committee demonstrated last year on that however, getting to specifics is hard (even aside from ideological divides). I’m all for this idea. Maybe we could get the legislators to all sign a pledge? Worked for Grover Norquist! :)

As for the debates, if America becomes astute enough to see beyond the corporate media spin and channeling, this would be great! And of course, as your video demonstrates, the parties, through a private corporation, control the debates completely, and people would have to demand changes to that as well.

Yes, the two men would disagree on much, but you’re right: the country is in such poor shape that we need emergency/crisis focus on some key things, or little else will matter.  And your suggestions about volunteerism, and they way to go about it? PLATINUM. “What if someone said ‘Look at what needs to be done in your neighborhood and find a way to do it.’ People are desperate for a vision of possibility.” Okay, that’s it; I’m moving to your state and voting for you! :)

A great number of Americans do want this, are ready for this, want to change things for the better. But they want it to really matter, and they want everyone to sacrifice and contribute, and they don’t want the powerful or corrupt (either as corporations or as individuals) to evade justice, let alone responsibility. There is, I believe, a great latent desire to make our lives meaningful in restoration, and in building a new and better future, not just shoring up this corporatized dessicated thing we’ve become.   Many people know or at least feel at some level that their lives need a whole lot more meaning, and they have energy for that if there was something they truly believed in.    As Napoleon Hill would say, we’re needing to channel all that energy in a different direction! :)

Kennedy gave us that call you mentioned, and also reminded us of Proverbs (and Roman oration) that, without vision, the people perish. There is still a logjam on this one, because enough of the country is still in 1) denial, or 2) because the dessicated world hasn’t affected THEM yet they don’t see a problem, or 3) they are willingly believers in the propaganda of the manipulators, or 4) they still believe that MERE hard work and dedication is all that is needed to succeed in this country, plus a number of other reasons for the groundswell not reaching critical mass levels. But maybe, just maybe, the first faint signs of some movement in the logjam?  Too early to tell!

And now for the Party Rain (Reign?)/Raining on the party:

The iron-grip of the two parties means not only mountainous hurdles to get the realistic chance to be in the running, but that a team from outside those parties miraculously elected to the office of the president would find governing difficult if a slew of like-minded people are not elected to Congress (and statehouses, probably, as well) at the same time.  The power of the corporatists and plutocrats is great, and they control so much behind the scenes.

Getting elected from the outside is something beyond daunting.  It is nearly impossible to get on the ballot in all 50 states, so much have the two parties and their allies set up roadblocks and blatant obstructions to prevent the rise of competitors.  Even if a team could somehow surmount those high cliffs, there are the nearly equally high challenges of getting coverage from a corporate media, a corporate debate process, or  securing adequate financing to both fend off the endless money thrown at you in TV and other ads and state your message.

This is why the candidates I want are neither of what is usually served.  I would, possibly even more than a Paul and Nader, otherwise vote for a Buddy Roemer (for a link to his platform message, see here: http://www.buddyroemer.com/splash), a Stein/Honkala ticket of the Green Party, or possibly Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman.  People like Honkala, for example, imperfect as they are, are the true (and largely unsung) heroes of our age. 

Until there is a groundswell of demand from the average American for real third parties, real and realistic choices, or even changing our voting and representation to be something other than single-member, winner takes all, we are left with either rear-guard actions or attempting to fill one of the parties with people who believe like you.  That is, those of us disgusted with the two plutocrat controlled parties can either: 1) attempt to take over every precinct committee in all the states with people who are focused on “the big 3 or 4” things, or 2) voting against whichever of the 2 candidates presented to us in various elections (all the way up to the President) will, in our opinion, do the least damage or the slowest damage.

People mostly only see number 2 as an option.  It is this sickening/disgusting second option that keeps too many away from voting, which only plays further into the plutocrats’ hands. 

We need to keep talking about alternatives, planting seeds of ideas, ideas about change.  Ideas, if they progress, go through the ignoring stage, then the ridicule stage, then the fighting stage, then the acceptance stage, then the enthusiasm stage.  At the latter two stages they become a movement, and movements are what bring change.

Our short-term culture will need uncharacteristically long focus to pull that one off, but what non-catastrophic alternative is there?

The Housewife's 50 Shades of Nonsense

Professor J,

Here's a little piece of political porn I made for you. We need a laugh, don't we? I can't decide, most days when I see the news, if I'm more sick or scared...always a little sad it seems. 

It's a fantasy, but why don't we see a Libertarian/Progressive alliance when they agree on the big 3 or 4 things (debt, wars, and investigating the Fed for example)? Whenever I see them in interviews together I think they would be great on the same ticket. Wouldn't this be the perfect time? It might be the LAST BEST time. Realistically, however with the conventions just around the corner, I know my dream team is unattainable. Still, a girl can dream can't she?

I'm surprised constantly how much people still react to the lies and innuendo from both sides. How much merit is attributed to a soundbite or a simple word or two, misspoken is absurd. My fantasy ticket would pull in people from the right and left. Let the "we'll say anything to get elected" politicians have their custom made suits, silk ties, and talking points. I'm ready for a couple of old, style-less, cranky men who can't be bought, aren't interested in getting invited to all the right cocktail parties, will give it to us straight, and refuse to sit down and be quiet while the country goes to hell.

 Maybe my two cranky candidates could get folks to participate in ways that image/power driven professional politicians aren't capable of because they reek with phoniness. Of course we'd have to revise the debate process as well, wouldn't we? Remember what happened to poor Ralph Nader? (Memory refreshing video here) And in the Republican primaries, though they let Paul participate, there was nary a question for him and scant seconds to answer.
 
I know they disagree on much. Why do they have to agree on everything? What's wrong with running a campaign that says "Listen, we disagree on lots of things, but if we don't fix these major things those other things won't matter. We're sorry if your child is in a terrible school but we can't fix education and many other problems right now. We're going to be busy trying to save something of the country for your children and grandchildren. So we'll need your help." I think honesty would work wonders. Honesty in politics. There's an idea.

Then put out a call to action for people to volunteer in schools and neighborhoods, working together to take up the slack. Put social networking to work in communities to keep people informed of what needs to be done. People in small towns, big cities, and neighborhoods did amazing things during WWII when they felt the sacrifice was needed and the burden was being shared by all.

Couldn't we put a moratorium on any new legislation (maybe undo some) that doesn't specifically deal with the big 3 or 4 major problems, and let the states handle everything else? Couldn't we freeze spending at current levels for a period of time while we deal with the things that might actually pull us under?

I'm fantasizing, of course. But we see people turn out in droves to help fill sandbags when flooding is imminent and volunteer at soup kitchens during the holidays. The rest of the time they don't know HOW to help. What if they were told? I think lots of good people want to be part of a solution if they think their efforts will really make a difference. I think something that frustrates everyone is that so little is expected of us. What if we told the public and civic organizations, and the churches that the government had its hands full ferreting out waste and corruption, and needed everyone to pitch in? What if someone said "Look at what needs to be done in your neighborhood and find a way to do it." People are desperate for a vision of possibility.

Can't we revive Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" concept? Or are we still not in enough pain to adapt for survival?

Quibbles and Bits

Madame M:

Actually, perhaps that’s a bit of a mistitle, as you have assessed the situation quite well, and although I might wonder at the completeness of some facets, I cannot disagree nor do I want to.  No Labels does look like a great place to start, and start we certainly need to do, especially in this, as you say, polarized environment.

I would add, however, that No Labels will achieve more if it also includes a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United (and a related decision whose name escapes me at the moment) as well.   Trying to do anything else while not doing that is like trying to swim upstream just three feet away from the water going over the waterfall.  The money streams just tilt things too much otherwise, especially when factoring all the other things the plutocrats have at their disposal, a corporate media being one of them.

World War Z is a wonderfully written piece of fiction that at the same time holds considerable social commentary and insight.  Madame will be interested to find that the author (who is Mel Brooks’ son), says we all need to get some real skills to use.  In the aftermath of deep trauma as laid out in the story, what was valuable, and needed, changed radically.  The chief of national resources was told to focus efforts on relevant things, for we were in the fight of our existence, one that made the previous existence seem so illusory.  His top-priority agency was “tasked with infusing these sedentary, overeducated, desk-bound, cubicle mice with the knowledge necessary to make it on their own.” (WWZ, p. 139, which discusses something called the Community Self-Sustainment Program and National Re-education Act).  What kind of things and skills were stressed?  Small gardens for every family, repairing any appliances, and much else.  Breaking our comfortable, disposable, consumer lifestyle. Going to local economic systems, where people see the fruits of their labor.  

Just like you’ve been saying for some time!

Doing those things might also go a fair ways toward addressing one of the great reasons behind the painful dissatisfaction with life, address the sad fact that few die to this mortal life with a contented smile on their face.  It is not just that people die not fulfilling any of the main things they wanted to do or become—itself tragedy enough—but they know they will die without passing on anywhere near the bulk of the knowledge, experience, and wisdom they have accumulated.  This is the generational angst, the true depression.   We do not value the knowledge, wisdom, and experience of our elders remotely enough.

And even the wanderers want to find a home.  We like to beat our chests and say how “individual” and “independent” we are, and there is a little to be said for that.  But the further we have disconnected, the worse things have become.  We long for connection, to be part of a community, to (turning Vance Packard on his head) be A Nation of Neighbors.  Ones that talk with each other.  Care about each other.  Learn from each other. Even socialize with each other.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King: We have a dream.

I thought about this while hearing yet another wealthy person saying how “self-reliant” they were, how they had achieved it all “on their own.”  Leaving aside how much the societal infrastructure, laws,  etc. provide necessary benefit and assistance, I will merely point out that self-reliance is easy when you’re in a gated community.  And if the person was true to his words about “self-reliance,” he wouldn’t be giving his kids help, paying for any of their education, arranging contacts and connections, etc.  Unless he interpreted “self-reliance” to mean family self-reliance.  But that sort of interpretation could just as easily justify the Borgias and a thousand other extended families who have visited misery upon humanity in the pursuit of power, wealth, and privilege for themselves.

Just advance warning for our readers.  Next week’s post from me will occur on Monday, not Sunday.