What Makes So Many Seemingly Vote Against Self-Interest

What Makes So Many Seemingly Vote Against Self-Interest

I write this as a response to a friend, who asked me what I thought was behind so many people’s seeming willingness to vote for Mitt Romney, despite the fact that for a significant majority of the folks in this country a vote for Romney, is a vote against their self-interest.

If I am correct and Romney wins this election, Romney will be in the position to shape this country for generations to come. He will appoint judges; change laws; regulate the personal and private lives of women, who make up more than half the country; and he will make it virtually impossible for social justice, e.g. universal access to healthcare, equal pay, gender equality, for a very long time. 

Plato’s Republic, his most influential work, was written approximately 2,400 years ago; it is a dramatic dialogue about the nature of justice in the ideal city-state.

It is not the intention of this piece to discuss Plato’s philosophical views, but given his influence on Western thought, there are some important lessons to be considered. Through this dialogue Plato offers a conception of the ideal city-state; an Aristocracy. There are 3 castes of citizens. It is ruled by the wise, protected by the guardians, enabling its citizens in the merchant class to flourish. When these three castes of citizens are in harmony the state flourishes. If this ideal state starts to deteriorate, the ruling class starts to lust for power and its government will learn to value power. He calls this new form of government a Timocracy. A Timocracy degenerates into an Oligarchy where power rests in the hands of a few. 

 

Romney and his billionaire CEO friends have a vision for our country, which is Plutocratic, a more sinister form of Oligarchy. Romney has been, rhetorically, accused of being a plutocrat, an individual who represents the values of corporate greed, a corollary of which is power. Oligarchies may be a less virulent; monarchies for example are oligarchies, but the royals may be benign. Romney's policies advocate for a Plutocracy, a more dangerous form of private hegemony, which is the desire to control the social, ideological, and economic influences of our society. The actual consequence of a Romney administration will be that wealth, power, and opportunity get concentrated and benefit only a very few.

Romney does not care about the plight of most Americans; his 47% comments spoke to that. But, what about those he believes he can reach, those that might vote for him? Greed and religion disguised as a challenge to the loss of freedom have become his appeal. Romney demagogues the idea of social justice. Freedom is the most important value, best expressed as access to free markets through the accumulation of wealth. He feigns outrage against President Obama because Obama dares to suggest that a just society should be structured so as to balance freedom with a system of social justice, e.g., universal healthcare, unemployment support, gender equality, pay equality, reproductive rights, and education support. Romney’s demagoguery of Obama’s ideas furthers belligerence and disrespect rather than communication, resulting in his followers forgoing the recognition that they may be voting against their own best interests.

Romney’s support comes from four sources. While my discussion presents each source as distinct, there is nothing that prevents membership in multiple sources. In fact, their success in getting Romney elected depends, at least, on cooperation, but I also hope to expose some of Romney’s duplicity. 

The first group are religious zealots, ideologues like Akin, Fisher, Perkins, Robertson, et al…by offering these zealots a small but disproportionately large piece of the pie...these evangelical leaders mobilize their audiences/legions into believing that God comes before Country, isolating and turning evangelicals against more secular ideas for policy. They create a kind of destructive intra-national crusade, where their God sanctified ends, justify all means. This uncontrolled and irrational piety favors Romney, who has strong religious views of himself; destined to be president. The significance is that despite his poorly veiled avarice and that of his plutocratic allies, these legions of believers have threatened to vote for him, against their own interests 

Part of Romney’s support comes from more secular folks, some intellectuals; more successful oligarchs motivated by greed because they see themselves in a more advantageous position by which they can advantage themselves. Their allegiance is typically to the Republican party because they believe that their best interests are served by its support. In other words, they buy the party platform for more freedom in the form of lower taxes and less government regulation; more for themselves. These folks are not necessarily plutocrats, and while they may understand Romney's vision, they are not critical of it nor fearful because they have access to sufficient resources to live benign and relatively good lives; but they show duplicity by their banality. 

And, there are his billionaire CEO plutocratic supporters who envision themselves as needing control over the social, ideological, and economic influences of our society. They are bold and upfront and challenge the president’s vision as an attack on their freedom. They see social programs, not as safety nets for those with less opportunity, but as programs for a valueless segment of society. Their ideology is simple; they have an obsession with acquiring a monopoly on resources and power and they wish to be completely unregulated in their attempt to acquire it. 

A corollary of this is Romney, et al also recognize that this election may represent the last chance they will have to shape the institutions in this Country. As the demographics in the Nation change, these plutocrats fear a multi-generational loss of power and influence, a consequence of which Progressive principles of justice will be incorporated into our political system and institutions, and their taxes will go up.

Finally, there are Republican members of The United States Congress, who have made a concerted effort to be as obstructionist as possible in an effort to ensure the failure of the President. In my next piece, I will discuss this in more detail because there is more onerous ‘stuff’ going than I have time for here and stuff not immediately relevant to the question at issue.

As I mentioned earlier, what is really happening is that a plutocratic few, Romney among them, recognize the demographics in this country are changing. The US population is increasingly more diverse and the emerging minorities will soon be in the majority. These plutocrats know that this new force in politics does not favor Republican policy, and consequently, they feel threatened. They masquerade as freedom fighters, encouraging Americans to fight for their lost freedom. This misdirected outrage shows its ugly head in the form of tactics such as voter disenfranchisement; as an appeal to the greed of benign oligarchs, the funding of secret pacts to lie in order to undermine President Obama’s credibility, and an appeal to the Fundamentalist zealots and their minions that the current administration's policies are taking away freedom of religion. These legions of God fearing believers vote against their own best interests by voting against principles of justice, which would support and benefit them as well as the Americans they blame for their plight, forgetting that many are part of Romney's 47%.

History has taught us that no civilization has lasted more than a relatively short period of time, despite the sometimes arrogance of self-perception by humans. I am sure the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, Alexander, the Romans, the Ottomans, to name a few, sat around the table discussing the fact that their societies were the be-all and end-all of human civilization; only to be wrong.

The question is: Who are we? Plato warns us that if citizens feel, or more importantly, are disenfranchised, politically, socially, and economically, the next stop is Tyranny; then welcome to the history books U.S.A.

"Riches Beyond the Dreams of Avarice"

dba Mathematics

For months, there has been much said about the Romney campaign’s creative mathematics regarding its tax plan. The veracity of it was questioned by other Republicans during the Republican primary debates, but the subject of its creative inaccuracy was brought to the forefront by President Clinton, in his terrific speech at the Democratic National Convention last month that become known as…”It’s Arithmetic.”

The recent headlines made by Republican leaning CEO’s threatening the jobs of their employees if President Obama is reelected have made me think about the arithmetic involved in their less than veiled threats. What

these CEO’s all have in common besides their hatred for the President is that they are billionaires. But: What is a billionaire? It’s a term that we unreflectively think of as people having “riches beyond the dreams of avarice.” This expression is a well-known line in Star Trek IV from Dr. McCoy but it is actually attributed to the 18^th Century poet and essayist Samuel Johnson.

It is a wonderful quote; poetic in its flow: But what does it mean to say a person has “riches beyond the dreams of avarice.” Well, avarice according to Webster means an “insatiable desire for wealth or greed,” it means a desire for riches beyond the dreams for greed (italics are mine).

So these billionaires threatening their employees, poetically, do so because they have an insatiable desire for wealth beyond their dreams for greed. But, again what does this mean mathematically?

Again, according to our friend Webster, a billion is equivalent to 1,000 million; that is, a billion dollars is a million dollars 1,000 times over and some of these guys on my list below have 20 or more billions. In fact, according to Forbes* the following individuals are worth approximately: 

 *Charles Koch                 $31 Billion    or        31,000 Millions                    

*David Koch                   $31 Billion     or       31,000 Millions

*Sheldon Adelson            $20 Billion    or        21,000 Millions                    

  David Siegel**                 $1 Billion    or          1,000 Millions

Arthur Allen**                   $1 Billion    or           1,000 Millions

Robert E Murray**            $1 Billion    or          1,000 Millions

** Siegel, Allen, and Murray have been referred to in the headlines recently as billionaires, though I have been unable to confirm their personal net worth; I assumed $1 Billion.

Now, I do not believe that it is hyperbole to suggest that having the sums of money these people have been reported to be worth, is to claim they are “rich beyond the dreams of avarice,” but let’s do some math. President Obama wishes to raise the tax on all individuals earning over $250,000/year by 3%. Now, I have no knowledge of their yearly earnings. But, I think it is fair to assume that given their personal net worth, their yearly earnings by itself would make most anyone “rich beyond the dreams of avarice.” And, I think it is also fair to say that a 3% tax increase in their yearly personal earnings would have no effect on their wealth or standing.

Yet they threaten to fire employees because of what they claim will be the ‘effect’ of the reelection of the President on them and/or their companies. I would suggest it is not the effect but the 'affect'...the need to feed the greed. In fact, between the 6 of them, they could make 85,000 people millionaires and still remain 'rich beyond the dreams of avarice'.

As I just suggested, these billionaires have made headlines recently by publicly threatening that the reelection of President Obama could cause significant layoffs at their companies with the exception of Sheldon Adelson, who is just trying to buy the election for Romney. Adelson has been the largest donor to the Republican cause and I guess cannot threaten his employees because most are overseas. 

If I might add, the Walton Family, with a combined net worth according to Forbes in excess of $100 Billion or 100,000 Millions, refuse to pay a living wage to many of their employees and minimal, if any, benefits.

A former professor of mine, a secular Conservative for whom I have great respect, once said to me "that it is a silly way of living to aim at amassing vastly more money than one would possibly need but a lot of people live silly lives." I cannot fathom the need to dream about being greedy beyond the realm of greed and it is surely, silly, even so, I somehow do not believe the election of President Obama for a second term will have any affect on their sleeping patterns. If Romney, however, is elected it will surely both effect and affect ours.

Mitt Romney; Troll & Sycophant

Romney is a troll and a sycophant, which was very apparent to me early in the debate cycle. Those feelings did reach a pinnacle the other day when the video of him debasing 47% of Americans was released. But, I initially could not get a handle on why he angered me so much beyond his stupid indifference to people. One surely should not have been surprised by his country club on steroids attitude.  

Balancing political and philosophical differences between people is one of those things that makes America great and can make you hairless. There has been much hyperbole and rhetoric the past couple of days from the left and much of it appeals to visceral distaste for Romney’s comments, but there is much more sinister stuff going on here. I realized my displeasure is with a combination of Romney the man and the vision of the people that support him…let me explain.

Republicans and Democrats are liberals. America has always been a liberal state. But most Democrats are Liberals because of the implications of the values both hold. Republicans are liberals but not Liberals. It has become fashionable to refer to themselves as Conservatives; most Republicans are not Conservatives.

Both Democrats and Republicans maintain that there are certain inexorable values that a liberal society maintains to justify the structure and nature of its institutions. The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

A slight digression; Most Americans take pride in the Declaration of Independence and all for which it stands but not all Americans supported the view that Rights are divinely granted. Most secular people no doubt lean toward the Liberal arm of the Democratic Party, which maintains that reason guided by a sense of Justice and Fairness is the source of Rights. Liberals see a just society as one that provides its members with certain Rights about which reasonable people may disagree but certain values are prior, e.g., Freedom and Equality. Many Traditional Conservatives are secular and as I will discuss to do not believe in divinely inspired Rights. They do believe, however, that there are no special or prior rights, all reasonable values are equally important, and a matter for conversation. 

As one might expect, defining these unalienable Rights and finding consensus for their implications is no easy task. But these are certain Rights that all liberals, Democrats and Republicans maintain belong to a free and equal people.

What is difficult and creates the tension is that there is a world of difference in what, for example, Republicans and Democrats mean by equality. This problem is also compounded by the fact that some of these values are mutually exclusive…meaning the implementation of one necessary effects the implementation of the other.  

One can easily imagine that the concept of equality is a difficult contentious concept to define; do we mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Few would disagree with the idea of equality of opportunity. But Liberals and Republicans strongly differ over the implications for equality of outcome: Republicans, for the most part, believe our society should maximize the right of freedom by assuring only a framework: security and safety broadly understood so a person may be as free as possible pursue her goals; Equality of Opportunity. There is a plurality of reasonable conceptions of a good life, it is not the government’s job to tell her what goals she should pursue or provide her the resources necessary to achieve those goals; it is her personal responsibility.  

Democrats also believe that the government should not tell a person what goals to pursue but they acknowledge that a large part of the success or failure she has in attaining her goals has to do with her starting place in life. There is such a disparity in the starting places between those with resources and those without and since success is so skewed in favor of those with more resources, that this inequality requires some adjustment. Equality means and Justice requires government to reallocate resources to those that are less fortunate through no fault of their own, to make up for this inequity. Since our government has no resources of its own, so goes the Republican story, the reallocation of assets from those citizens that have more to those that have less is an infringement on their God given Right of Freedom; mutually exclusive concepts.

Conservatism is also not easily defined as there a many types of conservatives. Some like Edmund Burke believed that conservatism is an attitude more than a political philosophy. We live in a society, within a certain framework, and given that our society is a good society, we need to preserve its framework broadly understood. Traditional Conservatives are motivated by the belief that there are not unlimited resources and that a society benefits by best using its limited resources for those that have the best chance of enabling its future success. They also do not believe in a set of authoritative values. For them, a good society fosters an environment of equal values that enables members of the society to adopt their set of reasonable values so they may obtain their reasonable conception of a good life. 

It follows that Traditional Conservatives (secular conservatives) believe in limited government and freedom and personal responsibility but not necessarily because God endowed Americans with certain unalienable Rights. This is not to say that there are not religious Conservatives who believe in the divine story. I would suggest that most Americans who consider themselves Conservatives are of the religious persuasion as is the base of the Republican Party, as represented by its platform. 

But, I think this is why Republicans frequently call themselves Conservatives and not necessarily the other way around. It also explains why many Conservatives align with the Republican Party because of professed Republican belief in limited government and freedom and personal responsibility over the implications for social values held by Democrats. But I also contend that given the Democrat’s willingness to acknowledge that reasonable people can reasonably disagree, at the least, Traditional Conservatives would better serve themselves politically by aligning with the Democratic Party and having that debate; at least society will move forward upon consensus.  

Non-religious people are generally not inflexible because even if they hold a position strongly, they hold it because of the arguments or reasons supporting their views. They are, in their opinion, the best arguments for the position they hold. Their views are not entrenched and held because of faith or divine intervention…if someone could provide a better argument for the nature and structure of society, they are predisposed to listen and discuss.

This brings me to what angered me about Romney’s candid moment in the video.  Romney and his party is guided by very strong religious views not the least of which is that their rights are God given and that God has told them what the only implications are of the Rights He has granted. 

Their belief that they are divinely inspired, by definition, makes them unreasonable and intransigent people. God is infallible and so there is no conversation to have. Consequently, because their views and visions come from divine inspiration, they become intransient, there is no conversation to be had. In other words, Republicans, just think they are right and their world-vision divinely inspired provides them with no reason to be flexible and negotiate the implication of the values they claim to hold so dearly. It makes the debate between the left and right intractable; actually and unfortunately a  waste of time.

Mitt Romney, on the hand, believes in nothing and everything at the same time.  One might think that is a contradiction. But Romney, with the aid of his Etch-A-Sketch denies all that came before and then calmly morphs between/to the world where lives among his fellow trolls and returns to behave like the sycophant he is. We can only hope this all catches up with him and some reality sets in with the voting public.

Harry Reid v Mitt Romney (The Same Cooperative Order)

Harry Reid v Mitt Romney (The Same Cooperative Order)

The ‘put up or shut up’ line Governor Mitt Romney uttered on Fox, in response to Senate Leader Harry Reid’s charge as to the reason that Romney has not released his tax returns, has ushered in some commentary.  Reid claimed that he was told by somebody at Bain Capital that Romney did not wish to reveal to the public that he has not paid taxes in 10 years. 

Liz Marlantes, Correspondent / August 3, 2012 Christian Science Monitor posted   “How to tell Mitt Romney is no 'wimp'? Take that, Harry Reid.”

This is a delightfully sarcastic article and is, among other things, about Romney’s lack of human emotion even when responding to his critics on Fox friendly.  Romney, who was given airtime by a Fox friendly to respond to Reid’s accusation that Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years, uttered “put up or shut up” . . . challenging Reid to disclose his source. Marlantes also discusses the fact that Reid has taken some heat for not disclosing his source (more about that to follow).

There is also a piece by Sarah Jones of PoliticusUSA; ‘Reid to Romney: It’s Your Obligation to Put Up Instead of Shutting Up’.

The essence of this piece is that the conservative media is all taken by the fact that Romney told Reid to ‘put up or shut up’ regarding the accusation. He has finally shown some 'cajones'. What they are forgetting (the conservative media) is that Reid is not Romney’s opponent and they are too full of themselves and pleased with Romney’s response to understand this.

I tend to think Jones’ article is more to the point.  The tiff is much to do about nothing and is aimed in the wrong direction. Reid is not running for president and is not Romney’s opponent.  This is surely a diversionary tactic, which Romney, if he wished to put an end to the mystery, could easily make go away. So it is clear why so many believe he is hiding something. 

Importantly, the point missed is Romney, Ryan, Norquist, et al, argue, a la Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and libertarian economists like Milton Friedman claim that our most important value is freedom.  The preeminent component to maximizing one's freedom is taking responsibility for one's actions. One might think Romney is exercising his freedom by not issuing his returns because he does not feel an obligation to do so; or as his critics postulate, one might believe that he does not wish to take public ownership for what his tax returns may or may not contain and so is not acting freely, i.e. he is being handled.

One also might not wish to have a man as president who is not willing to take responsibility for his actions. Bottom line, we all at one time or another have acted hypocritically, but it is apocryphal to act in a manner that compromises the central value to which one aspires and preaches as essential for living a good life. I, for one, do not wish such a man to represent me in the World.

As to Harry Reid, I guess Romney can ask what he wishes . . . again Reid is not Romney’s opponent; this is a diversion. Bain, no doubt, is code for the fact that Reid has sources that he will not divulge because he and Romney are both senior members of the same cooperative order.

sfb

Is a Tax; Is not a Tax, Is a Tax...WHO CARES!

Is a Tax; Is not a Tax, Is a Tax...WHO CARES!

As expected, Republicans immediately denounced the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act and their spin machines were instantly at work.

There is the sour-grapes assertion “the truly important part of SCOTUS’s decision was the unanimous affirmation of the limits of Congressional power,” (ie, that Congress cannot mandate commerce). I only ask: Can anyone tell me what Congress has mandated that I purchase in my more than 64 years? There is the claim “the decision will bankrupt America,” and then there is “it’s an affront to liberty”(discussed below), to “Justice Roberts is a traitor.” 

Finally, my favorite is the conspiracy claim from conservative radio commentator Hugh Hewitt; Justice Roberts’ genius is to be compared with Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison decision. The idea, according to Hewitt, is perhaps Roberts had the forethought to know and willingness to make a decision that would rally anti-Obama troops and turn a battle in favor of the President into a victory in the war against Democrats and for Republicans.

This last argument is a straw man: Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, Roberts’ canonization will, at best, have to wait for his private papers to be made public. Let’s give Roberts the benefit and believe that he thoroughly deliberated and made an intellectually honest decision based upon the merits.

There are philosophical grounds upon which some legal scholars have objected to the healthcare legislation. Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson commenting on his blog: 

To paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, I have just four words for you:

“BIG — — DEAL

If this were some other more narrow law, if this was not a monumental takeover of the most private aspects of our lives, if this monstrosity would not cause such long term damage to our health care system, if this law was not Obamacare . . .  .

  I might be inclined to agree with you.

  But it is Obamacare, it is the takeover of a substantial portion of our economy which empowers the federal government to write tens of thousands of pages of regulations telling us how to live and how to die. . .

If we can get beyond the histrionics for a moment regarding the death of liberty and government controlling how we are to live and die, a positive right imposes; something must be provided in its name. Liberty is a negative right, which according to the Constitution, is bestowed upon humanity from our nature and by God. A negative right presupposes no obligation other than to act in manner that respects the freedom of others. 

By definition, every positive right (for our purposes bestowed by elected officials to which all members of society are entitled) imposes on liberty. In other words, Republicans, et al, argue for a minimum of positive rights because somebody has to be taxed in order to pay for what the Democrats believe a just society should afford its citizens. Mandatory healthcare, for example, is seen by Republicans as a violation of their Constitutional rights because imposing healthcare is an imposition on their natural and God-given right of liberty. 

We elect officials in part to balance rights and so elections have consequences; Obama and the Democratic party won!

The Administration has unfortunately tried to deny requiring people to buy healthcare is a tax; SCOTUS’s ruling makes it a tax and the Republicans are now attacking the President for some sinister conspiracy in which he knew it was really a tax, thereby breaking his promise not to impose new taxes on the middle class. It is time for Democrats to take ownership; some taxes are 'justly' necessary (see “The Power to Tax”).

Most Americans believe that access to healthcare is a basic human need and consequentially should be a positive right. The controversy is how to get there. Our aging population consumes the greatest portion of existing healthcare followed by the uninsured, for whom the system is paying. It is also true the least expensive part of the population to cover is the young. It seems to me that if the young—who are a large part of the uninsured population—choose to either pay the tax or buy health coverage, are incorporated into the mix, costs should come down for everyone. 

As to the ‘mandate’; the tax is a small amount and will not be imposed on any who show they can ill afford it.  If you don’t wish to purchase healthcare you do not have to; you will pay a small tax for not doing so. You will not be sent to jail for not buying healthcare; you may for not paying your taxes, but that has always been the case. 

Yesterday’s decision is a major political and historic victory for the Obama Administration’s vision for America. But it is also a practical victory for all Americans who have a right of access to healthcare. 

Even if some ideologues, like Jacobson, do not like the Affordable Care Act on any level, Americans of all political persuasions, even if they will not publically admit it, like many of the individual provisions of the Act, e.g., coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, coverage for children until 26; abolishment of financial caps on coverage; paid-for wellness care, to name a few.

I leave with one last point: Thomas Hobbes, a 17^th Century philosopher who has had an enormous influence on our thinking about moral psychology, believed that all human action is motivated from self-interest. We are not here to debate the existence of altruism, but I would suggest that people generally act in a manner that is consistent with their own interests and the interests of those to whom they are closest. 

I ask some of those conspiracy theorists out there; When the screen is closed in the voting booth and your neighbor is not looking over your shoulder: Are you going pull the lever in the name of ideology (no doubt for some is the self-interested point of view) or in the name of the interests of yourself and those closest to you?



Comments appreciated
Sfb

A Short Limbaugh Note (in follow-up to yesterday's post)

A Short Limbaugh Note (in follow-up to yesterday's post)

Link: The Volokh Conspiracy » Rush Limbaugh Cheers Judge Jerry Smith For Being Part of “The Team That’s

Rush Limbaugh had a segment cheering on Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit for joining the “team” that is trying to make President Obama “a one-termer this November at the ballot box.”

 The Volokh Conspiracy is an influential legal blog predominantly hosted by libertarian lawyers...this post from yesterday struck me as worthy of sharing and I posted it on my Facebook page (yes Facebook).  Reader's comments are equally informative and deserve some perusing.  I get the sense that most of the legal minds, regardless of their political persuasion, feel Smith overstepped his bounds. Rush is his usual a-hole self.

Perhaps I have missed it, but I have seen little targeted refutation of either Smith's actions or Limbaugh's comments in the press with the exception of technical blogs like the one above, which I am sure has a limited appeal to the general public...

Again, it is not only important to be aware of what is being said but we need to fight fire with fire. Limbaugh has, depending upon what you read, 20 million regular listeners.  Many argue that he has no influence on elections; perhaps, but I wish I had 20 million readers telling me that I had no influence on anyone.

sfb

The Power to "Tax"

The Power to “Tax”

I was originally going to title this post “doubling down,” but this blog, which was started to talk about my new-found hobby and commitment to the world to raise and release more butterflies, has become a bit more political, so “tax” seemed more evocative and equally to the point. 

My pervasive theme is the Democratic Party’s concern and the lack of willingness to fight (on Republican terms) for what it believes. The Republicans, while their primaries have been largely proportioned, understand that this is a winner-take-all game.  Their alliances are simple and we hope ineffective.  But they hold together easily, to wit:

Coalitions of fiscal conservatives for less government—translation: lower taxes
Deficit reduction—translation: don’t mortgage the future for mine
Defense spending—translation: inspire a world with my World View, and those motivated to these callings by God.    

The Democratic Party by contrast is a large multitude of not-so-coalesced voices that are not necessarily against all the Republican values but are not necessarily for them either.  Democrats, I believe have the moral high ground because they equally and importantly coalesce around social issues. In addition Democrats are committed not only to making all of their coalesced minions happy, no easy task, but, and this is where we often part company, seem to think at the same time they can and need make the Republicans happy too. 

How is that possible?

Paul Ryan, the Republican House Budget Committee Chair, released a budget this week that passed the House and rocked to rave review by his constituents and to outcries by Democrats.  The budget was rightly denounced by President Obama today, as a ‘doubling down’ on the backs of the poor.  The president said that “instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress have ‘doubled down’ and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.”  Ezra Klein said on his blog today—consistent with President Obama’s charge—“Ryan betrays his own views on income inequality,” and had pointed to the contradiction between Ryan’s budget and his words for a more-inclusive America in a speech to the Heritage Foundation in October.  Paul Krugman yesterday called Ryan’s budget “pink slime economics.”  Pink slime has been in the news of late; Stephen Colbert quipped that liberals expect “beef with beef” and that some beef-state governors are defending adding pink slime to ground beef. 

We need to be very critical of the nonsense that the Right often puts out, but being critical by itself is, in itself, pointless.  Their World View is, of course, motivated by the belief that all of the world’s ills will be cured if the political state is left to function as economically free as possible and they will and are willing to double down on that commitment.

Freedom is a value we all hold in the highest esteem but let me suggest that while I do not wish to get into an intractable philosophical debate over the equally important and conflicting values that we hold that must be juxtaposed with such a vision, doubling down is not a practice without merit.  Democrats had the opportunity to pass their budget; instead we passed on it.  We had the opportunity to implement our contract with America, we passed on it.  The President’s Legislative showpiece is now in jeopardy and his recent comment is sadly sounding like a warning to a deliberating Supreme Court and almost concessionary:

I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.  From Ezra Klein’s Washington Post/Wonkblog April 2, 2012

The overriding issue being discussed by legal pundits is a question about whether the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will leave intact the Healthcare Law and just strike down the ‘individual mandate’ provision or the entire law.  I guess we will know in June, but Congressional Democrats had the opportunity to prevent this issue from arising.  They chose not to risk the backlash from the Right so implemented the mandate as part of the Commerce Clause.  But more importantly as I read it (the many posts) there would have been no realistic challenge to bring to SCOTUS had they implemented the mandate as a tax.  Succinctly put on Klein’s blog yesterday by Quite Alarmed: “There's little dispute that Congress could have constitutionally implemented the individual mandate, in functionally the exact same form, through an exercise of its Taxing Power. All Congress had to do was put in the word ‘tax’. Democratic lawmakers, however, refused to do that because they were afraid that calling the mandate a tax would spark a conservative backlash.”

One last point: all the Democrats had to do was look at the discourse and rhetoric coming into the vote from comments like the legislation "is an assault on my freedom" to "it's oppressive legislation"; they knew the vote would be almost entirely party line.  They scrambled to make this a bipartisan piece of legislation, when they had the political capital to use.  Fear of using a word may cost us one of the most important and transformative pieces of legislation in our lifetimes.  Does anyone believe there would have been hesitation to double down by the Right if this legislation had been from the Right?

Comments are appreciated.
sfb

“Lobbyists, Guns, and Money”

“Lobbyists, Guns, and Money” is the title of Paul Krugman’s latest op-ed piece in today’s NY Times.

While Krugman is one of my heroes and a person whose academic achievements and insights are to be greatly admired, his outrage and seeming surprise about the existence and agenda of the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is misplaced.

I am not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar and so my base instinct is to be outraged by the Citizen’s United decision, and I am.  The great fear is one of corruption…governments and Government are corrupt by virtue of their nature; they don’t need further help from the private sector.  Outrage at the Supreme Court for its decision—yes, but futile; outrage at corporations or their representative organizations for employing this decision in their best interests, misplaced.

In a representative democracy, we elect to protect our interests.  At the risk of seeming cynical; all people are self-interested and the status quo appears to many to maximize that self-interest. There are occasional paradigm shifts in values, e.g. abolishment of slavery, women’s voting rights, and electing an African American president but these changes took many decades, if not centuries, and some have still not assimilated the values these changes represent.  And now, the Citizen’s United decision; it is immediate and requires an immediate response.  We hope citizens will recognize the distortion this decision brings to the electoral process and put pressure on Congress and state legislatures to put forth a Constitutional Amendment banning corporations as persons.  That will take many years, but right now, we should bring less outrage and more determination to see to that the ‘status quo’ leaves less people behind.

Krugman knows better than most that corporations are profit-making entities.  They are mandated to maximize profits for their shareholders (you and I)…that is what corporations do.  This, by itself, is not corrupt despite protestations to the contrary and additionally, many are slowly realizing that having a social conscience is not mutually exclusive with maximizing profit.  In point of fact, it is within their profit-making best interest.  What is corrupting, of course, is the Supreme Court’s indirectly endowing corporations and their interested-organizations the right to vote.  It seems to me that our job is not to scream it’s unfair and be morally outraged that companies form organizations to put forth that which is in their best interest. They have an agenda to maximize their profits; to create an environment that seemingly justifies and makes it as easy a process as possible.  This is accomplished by shaping their agenda in manner that creates an appeal for those people that value their priorities in order to win these people’s hearts and minds and votes in support of the politicians that support their World-View. It provides a cover for the sometimes very large profits that companies make at the expense of these very same constituents.

Our job is to offer an alternative and show our citizens that our ideas are at least as good.  Perhaps I am overly optimistic about human nature but, assuming all things being equal, people will be motivated to choose a more inclusive way, and if not, we just have to offer the better argument for the Progressive agenda.

ALEC’s mandate is to privatize because privatizing traditionally governmental institutions is profitable for its supporters and they claim; more efficient. Our job is not to deny the profitability motive, although I think I can show it is not (for another post) the panacea for which the Right argues, but to show privatizing institutions of government is not more efficient; if judged by a standard other than corporate profitability, and even if true doing so is, in fact, further corrupting and undermines our way of life.

The claim for the priority of efficiency, as measured by the level of profit, is not a rational argument that justifies a particular practice but an argument of relative and perceptive value; narrowly understood.  Perceptions are changeable.  By example, Krugman rightly points out the profit motive leads to having a vested interest in the size of a prison population and cannot but make helping the conviction rate the self-interested and profitable motivating factor for prison administering corporations. We cannot accept motives of this nature to be the basis for adopting practices that justify the functioning of the Institution of Justice; itself; whether these private institutions operate efficiently or otherwise. This would mean the profitability of our prison system has a moral priority over our sense of justice and about what motivates the practices in our Institutions of Justice.

Krugman thanks the Center for Media and Democracy for outing this below- the-radar organization.  Two comments…if we were doing our job, an organization backed by the corporate giants that he claims founded ALEC should not be below the radar.  And, while some might disagree that fighting fire with fire is the best way to approach this issue, I argue that Citizens United created an environment where now it is.

This is the first I have heard of ALEC though this kind of organization and its motivation has always been part of our culture...perhaps the response is to form ALGC...American Legislative Government Council, with donors that see the world differently...we don't lack the deep pockets on our side; it seems to me that it is often easier to fain shock, outrage, and disbelief about the Right’s agenda than to similarly organize and motivate the Left.  We need to fight for the hearts and minds of those skeptics so that they know life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” without the institutions of government for which they have so much disdain.


Comments are appreciated
sfb

Mr. Maher again!

Mr. Maher again!

Bill Maher wrote an op-ed “Please Stop Apologizing,” which appears in today’s The New York Times, and while the sentiment and concerns he expresses are right on the money, he forgets:

*a slight digression: I do not wish to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of language. B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior, argued that language is ‘material’ behavior used to analyze human behavior. It is fair to say that we judge character largely based on behavior; verbal and otherwise. It is argued by some that the ability to use complex language and the infinite ability to derive meaning from words sets humans apart from their non-human counterparts.

Even if this is true, we do not have special access to what is inside someone else’s head; we are psychologically constituted to judge one's intentions and character by one's language and actions.  In other words, we most often make judgments about a person's character by her verbal behavior. Our character is sometimes judged by the people with whom we surround ourselves. One only need to look at the extraordinary attempts opponents have made to try and connect the President with those whom they believe will be regarded as having questionable character, e.g., with whom he prays and with those he hugs.

The point here is not whether we share language skills with non-humans but that humans vote, and so what they ‘say’ especially matters and not what we believe they may or may not think, especially if your motivation is to get someone elected to the most important office in the land.  Those of us who support the President are of the view that the United States and the World is and will continue to be in a better place with President Obama than with any of the potential Republican candidates.

No one truly wants to live in a country where you cannot offend someone.  As Maher says, “ if we sand down our rough edges and drain all the color, emotion and spontaneity out of our discourse, we’ll end up with political candidates who never say anything but the safest, blandest, emptiest, most unctuous focus-grouped platitudes and cant. In other words, we’ll get Mitt Romney.”

But what is at issue is getting people in a very close election to pull the lever for Mr. Obama. At the risk of contradicting what I just said, the intentions of those at an Obama fundraiser are certainly clear, even if their jokes offend some.  But those at insider fundraisers need to juxtapose their inside humor with outsiders ready to pounce, e.g. Newt Gingrich (although Illinois results tell of his influence in the world).  In the end, this is the Progressive way; the pragmatic way that has an effect on some whose vote you need.

We all know that there are only two absolutes, and one of them is not the re-election of the President…I am not advocating giving up one’s right to offend, but I am suggesting what matters, a lot, this season is to get people in November to pull the lever with Barack Obama’s name on it.


Ps: we love Bill Maher and his show is the reason we subscribe to HBO

Comments are appreciated
sfb

A thought!

A thought! 

President Obama, perhaps, miscalculated the response to the birth control provision in the healthcare law and immediately amended it to accommodate religious concerns.  The Republicans’ response was beyond absurd and their attempt to put women back in burkas continues to backfire.  They attempted to pass laws in Congress outlawing a woman’s right to healthcare on “moral” grounds.  They continue to push through legislation on the State and Local level that require women to undergo objectionable tests.  They empanel men to testify about womens’ issues, refusing to allow a woman a voice…this is all very public.

My thought is this: We have called Rush Limbaugh a buffoon and he is…but he is not stupid and I think he attempted to orchestrate a change in the conversation.  Realizing this issue is devastating for Republicans and his candidates in particular, he attempted to change the conversation.  In one of his now famous diatribes, he made knowingly despicable and gross comments about a woman and women.  This in an attempt to orchestrate a change in the conversation to one about himself and Bill Maher, especially in light of Maher’s recent very public contribution to President Obama’s campaign.  Limbaugh knew he would take a lot heat but if it changed the conversation from an issue about women's health to an issue about a couple of performers and their obnoxiousness, he and his win.  I think Maher needs to recognize this and not continue to buy in.

  

That said, Limbaugh lost!  Not only the debate, but a large portion of his advertisers…that of course does not condone Maher, for he also needs to be less the “potty mouth” regardless of the venue.  But let us not forget the real issue and not get suborned into the performer debate:               

  

Mary Anne Burns recently posted: "This has awakened all of American women regardless of so called partisan affiliation. I move in many circles. Trust me--this is a done deal--women are not going back. We can relax on this one. In fact, relaxed confidence is better, the ignorance is so obvious."

Please do not forget!
sfb