“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

Obama's 10 Best

Sub specie aeternitatis, is a Latin philosophical term loosely defined ‘as from the objective point of view’ or ‘God’s point of view’.  While use of this philosophical term dates to Spinoza it is most recently understood (in contemporary terms) as the ‘Republican’ point of view.

Contrasting this with the human point of view Sub specie humanitatus, I offer in the parlance of David Letterman, the Top 10 Major Accomplishments of President Obama (in my opinion), which do not exist from God’s (the Republican) point of view.  And since I and most of you that read this are human beings and are capable, only, of understanding from the human perspective, these matter.

Unlike Letterman, I offer these in no order of importance but they may be viewed broadly as encompassing 3 categories understood by human beings; social, economic, and foreign policy (the numbers are merely for count).

1.            Renewing aid to Israel, while at the same time pressuring them not to strike Iran.

2.            Caught more Taliban Leaders in one month than Bush/Cheney did in six years (Daily Koz)

3.            Under President Obama’s direction our Seal Team caught and killed Osama Ben Laden

4.            Under President Obama’s direction our Seal Team freed a U.S. captain while killing 3 terrorists.

5.            Patient Protection and Affordable Care hopefully even those with the capability of seeing the world sub specie aeternitatis will come to understand that all people need access to healthcare. 

(It should be noted that so far God seems to be interested in repealing the effort and legislation).

6.            Extending Unemployment benefits so that those most in need, at least for a period of time, do not fall through the cracks.

7.            President Obama helped to facilitate an environment in which the private sector has created millions of new jobs according to the CBO despite protestations to the contrary by those with ‘objective vision’, while reducing the size of Government at the same time.

8.            Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 makes it possible for many who wish to improve their lot in life to do so through education.  Education appears to be unimportant because of its leading to elitists like the President.  This, by individuals with ‘objective vision’ who have undergraduate, graduate, and law degrees.

9.            The President put the weight of his office behind The Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  No doubt with the support of God.

10.          Appointed Hilary Clinton Secretary of State, whose travel and leadership along with the President’s, has lead to a much improved view of The United States by the rest of the world.  Certainly those who view the world from the perspective of sub specie aeternitatis would wish what they know to be goodness be understood by those of us with less perfect vision.

Those of us who do not have the capacity of perfectly objective vision wake up each morning and in the words of a friend “thank the Gods that Obama is president”.

Comments are appreciated.
sfb