Progressives are getting a little irked by the current political situation
(Recap for the reader in a hurry: a previous post defined realignment as a power shift in a two party system whereby a new and stable majority arises. Examples from the two previous realignments: the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution.)
When Barak Obama was elected president in 2008, the possibility of a national realignment was briefly debated. Now, a year later, it is worth reexamining shifts in the political landscape. There are two salient national issues that will effect the dynamics between the major factions in both political parties. The first is health care and the second is immigration. The outcomes of these two policy battles are interlinked in complex ways. The final result is uncertain; neither issue is a forgone conclusion. But the nation is unquestionably gripped by a political struggle unlike any in the last sixty years.
The Republicans and Democrats are both divided by two axes of policy and interest: economic and social. Economic and social issues interact with each other, so they aren't completely independent. The labels most commonly applied to the four factions have the Democrats divided into a majority faction of Centrists and a minority of Progressives. The Republicans have a majority faction of Neo-conservatives (for lack of a better term) and a minority of Paleo-conservatives. I'll explain this with more detail below, but for the time being, imagine the political spectrum with Daffy Duck as a Progressive on the far left, Foghorn Leghorn as a Centrist, Elmer Fudd as a Neo-conservative (if you don't like that term, then say moderate Republican) and Yosemite Sam as a Paleo-conservative.
It's no longer a two-humped bell curve like it was before 1995, with considerable overlap between the Democratic Centrists and Republican Neo-conservatives. In Congress, the two parties have become increasingly polarized and there is little overlap between the parties. The conservative Democrats are to the left of the moderate Republicans. This divergence of the parties since the 1994 mid-terms is graphically illustrated by the the work of Dr. Keith Poole of the University of Southern California, San Diego. He is a pioneer in the statistical analysis of congressional roll-call voting patterns. Poole has written or contributed to over 40 articles as well as being the author of Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting (Cambridge University Press, 2005), a coauthor of Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press 2006), Ideology & Congress (Transaction Press 2007), and of Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. According to Dr. Poole, Congress is more polarized now than at any time since the Civil War.
The public is also becoming more polarized, not only between parties, but within the parties as well.
National policy is guided by a consensus between the majority factions of both parties. If there is a single national political establishment, it consists of the shared consensus between Democratic Centrists and Republican Neo-Conservatives: the Fudds and the Foghorns. The Daffy Duck Progressives and Yosemite Sam Paleo-Conservatives are more directly opposed and serve as the opposite poles of the political spectrum. The tensions within each party and between parties are driven by ideological differences over economic and social policy.
The ideological separation of the two parties in Congress is wider now than at any time since the Civil War.
An extremely simplified view of the the two-dimensional economic/social axes boils down to the single principle of equality. Conservatives favor inequality and liberals favor equality. This single principle has historically differentiated on economic and social lines, but those distinctions have become less and less important over the last twenty years. Neither party has a monopoly on contradictions and irrationality in their difficulties in reconciling the internal divisions inside the parties as to the primacy of economic or social issues.
Overall, the Conservative ascendancy of the last thirty years simultaneously created and benefited from the increasing polarization. Wealth and power are now concentrated in a smaller group of contending elites with the majority of the citizens being more deprived of economic security and access to political power than has been the case for several generations. The near-collapse of finance capital at the end of the Bush administration, followed by a financial bailout that favored wealth and power has put us on a path toward a sectoral recovery where the wealthy find their situation improving while the distress of the rest of the nation only increases. The question now is how the nation as a whole is going to deal with the intense pressures created by polarization and political deadlock that puts most of the citizens at a growing disadvantage.
The current populist furor is mostly concentrated on the rage and hopelessness the far right experienced with the election of Barak Obama. The impossible had happened: Progressives, who have been on the upswing since the WTO protests in Seattle and the opposition to Bush's war hysteria, finally got enough traction at the national level to elect a Centrist Black president who campaigned on a platform of liberal reform. It's hard to say what was more shattering to the populist right-wing world view, the notion that the Republican noise machine could no longer make the country dance to a Republican tune or the mere fact that whiteness no longer guaranteed supremacy on the national political scene.
The Tea Party enthusiasts insist the issue is not race, but they continue to lunge toward a politics of scapegoating and extremism. While the Tea Party is deeply prejudiced on social equality (as evidenced by the highly racialist "birther" faction and the hysterical belief that our president is a secret Muslim), they are particularly incensed by the economic distress brought about by thirty years of national policy promoting greater financial inequality. The distress is irrational, since the populist right never got a crumb from the corporate tax-cut table, but that just intensifies the cognitive dissonance and greater political polarization.
In a nutshell, Yosemite Sam has spent most of his working life backing politicians promoting monetarism, trickle-down economics, job outsourcing, increasing privatization, union busting, monetarization of productive capital into casino capitalism and general economic voodoo; like simultaneously promoting an expensive foreign war while backing regressive taxation and financial deregulation. Now there's nothing on Sam's plate and he's getting worried. The economic elites got their bailout and everybody else got pink slips and foreclosure notices.
Unlike Wiley E. Coyote, who at least realizes he is suspended in mid-air before descending to the canyon floor, the Tea Party has adopted a less contemplative approach. Yosemite Sam never seems to realize that the cream pie was aimed at his face the whole time. It's just one temper tantrum after another. So Sam and his Tea Party go off on a rampage looking for scapegoats for the problems which they helped create.
Meanwhile, back at the Democratic ranch, the Progressives may have finally convinced the Centrists that they hold some cards worth playing in national elections. The 2004 presidential flameout was partly due to the fact that John Kerry couldn't convince the Progressives he had anything for them. So, they went off with Dennis Kusinich, the Daffy Duck of the Democratic Party, leaving Kerry as Foghorn Leghorn and the Centrists to have their collective butts kicked. In 2008, Foghorn at least figured out there was some political hay to be made by keeping Daffy inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
Unfortunately for Daffy, Foghorn hasn't yet figured out that what works in the national presidential elections has to be anchored in local House and Senate politics. So Progressives who held the key to the presidential election continue to find their Senators and Congressmen are as aloof and patronizing as Foghorn Leghorn, interposing himself in Daffy's on-going dispute with Elmer Fudd. "Boy, I say boy, you've got to follow my lead in this matter of gutting the president's health care initiative!" Which only infuriates Daffy and opens the possibility for chickens to collect some Fudd buckshot in the upcoming 2010 mid-term duck hunt. see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/27/808503/-Weekly-Tracking-Poll:-New-Feature-Paints-Ugly-2010-Picture
The Republicans can be best visualized as split between the relatively staid Elmer Fudds of the "big business" majority (which used to be known as the Neo-conservative wing in distinction to the now extinct traditional conservatives of the Robert Taft strip) and the howling mob of Yosemite Sam Paleo-conservatives. The Fudds clung to power by cynically cranking up the extreme right of the political spectrum, but never allowed them anything other than the illusion of lip-service to the insubstantial issues of abortion, creationism, opposition to gun control and a hostility to taxation expressed as tax relief for the rich and increasing tax burdens for everybody else. The implosion of the finance capital economy, the inevitable consequence of war deficits and financial deregulation, was followed by a national rejection of the Reagan and Bush legacy through the election of Barak Obama.
In cartoon lingo, Daffy finally put enough spine into Foghorn Leghorn that Elmer Fudd was no longer able to prevail by getting Yosemite Sam steamed up. And now Sam and Elmer are no longer such good friends since Sam has decided Elmer is really a chicken of the same feather as Foghorn Leghorn. It's mind-bending to listen to a Tea Party enthusiast denounce G.W. Bush as a liberal and the Fox Network as the liberal media, but when Sam's having a tantrum anything goes.
Having mapped out the political spectrum as a bunch of Looney Tunes characters, it's probably time to get back to the possibility of a realignment as a resolution to the problem of polarization.
One scenario is as follows: The Tea Party and Yosemite Sam go on a rampage on the far right of the Republican Party, running spoiler campaigns against the Neo-conservative Elmer Fudds. This leads to a number of weird cross-over races with the Republicans internally split, just as happened in the recent New York congressional race. The professional politicians - like Arlen Specter - in the Fudd wing of the Republican party might realize their political careers are over unless they can find some friends. The only willing groom would have to be Foghorn Leghorn and the Centrists in wedding drag. This results in some aisle-crossing on the way to the altar and some of the Fudd Republicans switch parties producing a realignment by reinventing themselves as Foghorn Leghorn Centrists.
Sounds pretty sketchy, eh? Well, it all hinges on the more or less permanent incumbency granted to members of the House and Senate. If the Democrats can swing a national majority in the presidential elections, but Congress remains grid-locked, there may come a tipping point where changing parties is the only way some Republicans in Congress can hang onto a political career.
An alternate scenario: Daffy Duck and the Progressives suffer from their usual attention deficit disorder in off-year elections. The ossification of the Centrists and Foghorn Leghorn's irremediable obtuseness has created some weak Democratic appointments to the Senate (NY, IL for two examples). These new appointees have low chances of getting elected in 2010. This would lead to Foghorn Leghorn losing some of the majority edge in the upper chamber or winding up as a Senate minority because of increased activity in the Republican Party, with Elmer Fudd benefiting from Yosemite Sam's rampage on the right. This scenario hinges on Yosemite Sam exhausting his temper tantrum and going back to working as Fudd's wacky side-kick instead of sabotaging Republican chances with an extended moral-purity tantrum.
If this is the resolution to the rogue Republican rebellion, the long-term prospect will be increasing gridlock and growing economic and social polarization.
The two major legislative battles between now and the Congressional mid-terms are going to be health care (which is starting to look like a defeat for the Republicans even if it isn't a clear win for the Democrats) and the upcoming mud-wrestling over immigration policy.
The health-care debate is essentially about restoring some economic equality. The uproar on the far right is intense because deep down in his heart of hearts, Yosemite Sam is an economic egalitarian. The only way the demagogues of the far right have been able to maintain party discipline is to gin up some seriously insane rhetoric about socialist gun-grabbing Muslim death panels. But rationality and politics are rarely seen together in the cartoon world of American politics.
The current tensions in the Republican party are the result of having to dragoon people who are one major illness away from poverty into campaigning against their own best interests.
The next major go-round in this saga will be duck hunting season over the immigration issue, with Daffy Duck and the Progressives as the target in the Republican cross-hairs. If Elmer and Sam can convince Foghorn that he's really a hunting dog and not a chicken, the Republicans could pull their chestnuts out of the fire in time for the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections on a wave of right-wing backlash, Democratic incompetence and increasing polarization. Given the way the Republicans have repeatedly shot themselves silly over racial politics and the Democrats chicken-hearted ability to fumble issues, this could be an epic slugging match.
I'll be having more to say about how this comedy will play out in local politics in Part III.
The upcoming debate over immigration policy could lead to some interesting role reversals
You sure you got this right, Paul? I’ve been thinking it’s more like Daffy Duck is the Paleo-conservative, Foghorn Leghorn the Neo-conservative, Elmer Fudd the Centrist and Yosemite Sam a Progressive on the far left. I was just sure of that! Great piece, otherwise!
Regarding realignment, I’ll be very surprised if anyone ever lets progressives anywhere near their tent. Witness how more readily your Yosemite Sam (my Daffy Duck) acquires traction on issues relative to progressives. Maybe I’m overly biased, but it’s hard to imagine that progressives don’t have more thoughtful,well developed and useful issues than paleo-conservatives. Progressives have just gotten into the habit of being marginalized, and they get a lot of help with it. Meanwhile, Limbaugh thrives.
Anyway, I expect what we’ll see, and what may even emerge from your local analysis, is that money - not voting - will be calling the shots. Not a grand revelation, mind you, but it is still a question of degree.
If it’s the money, then it’s a slam dunk in health care, but more muddled with immigration. Economic asymmetry, global climate change and the rapidly growing food crisis will give us renewed appreciation of people that will work for a few bucks a day.
Sure, voting will always matter in those district seats, but it’s all a matter of who’s voting. Increasing dislocation, disenfranchisement, dissatisfaction or distrust of the “system” will drive many voters away, leaving thems with the gold to make the rules, as they say.
Allowing that every rule must have its exceptions, it’s still the gold that decides who gets mailed what, what’s available in the media, and which sensational spectacles will distract, inflame and mislead.
It could be that campaign finance and election reform are more important to stabilizing the republic than health care or immigration.
Paul de Armond //Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 8:25 pm
The essence of analysis is the ability to draw meaningful distinctions.
The sharp contrast between the Obama election and all other Democratic presidential races in recent memory is Obama’s success was due in large part to the rise of a viable Progressive faction in the national Democratic Party.
And much of this was due to Howard Dean’s showing the way to overcome the power of large political contributions by mass solicitation of small grass roots contributions. This is a lesson for every politician out there—voters can fund campaigns directly through small contributions. One-dollar-one-vote politics is not how things are going to play in the future. Any politician who wants to stake their future on sucking up to large donors can be knocked off by Progressives who get their act together. This does not mean that Progressives can displace incumbent Centrists by this tactic, but it does mean that they may be able to defeat incumbent Republicans and capture open seats.
Keith Poole’s work clearly demonstrates that there has been a polarization of the political establishment. The animated graph at the bottom of his article comparing Obama and Clinton’s voting patterns shows the division of the two parties that followed the 1994 mid-term election. It’s worth a look.
The corollary is that the conservative ascendancy has very likely peaked. Now it faces the strong possibility of succumbing to internal friction and discord brought on by the massive internal contradictions of increasing inequality.
The danger is that the pendulum doesn’t always swing back and forth. It can loop right over the bar and a weakened democracy can collapse into right-wing ultra nationalism. This was the history of the rise of 20th century fascism. All of the fascist states (Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan) emerged through the internal collapse of democracies. It is worth noting that the communist totalitarian states all emerged from authoritarian states that collapsed from external attack.
So the republic is in danger, but it’s not too late to have this little drama end with a wedding or a party instead of a funeral or the revelation of a deity. In other words, I’m voting for our little political theater producing a comedy rather than a tragedy. Either one is an expurgation of guilt, but one is happy and one is sad.
Ham Hayes //Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 10:59 pm
Unfortunately the drive to grow, centralize and institutionalize power is a game seemingly favored on both sides of our political spectrum. That drive can too easily lead to tyrannies of the state, right, left or otherwise. Perhaps Americans intuitively know they must keep both parties off balance. Action and reaction. Applies to apples, planets and political systems.
Interestingly, there is an excellent measure for how far a country has gone down the path of tyranny. That measure is the degree to which there is a free and unfettered press. And that means freedom from both governmental and private control.
Craig Mayberry //Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 11:03 pm
I will probably have a more thoughtful response in a day or two once I have some time to write a bit more, but I would say in the short term that you do have to be careful to assume the actions by politicians equate to beliefs by those that vote for them. Voters are complex and there is a large number of issues that are more or less important to them, but in the end you have 2 choices in whom to vote for. Just because Bush (or Obama) gets elected does not mean that everyone voting for them believe the same things. For the last 20 years or so many Republicans have had a choice between the less of 2 evils (Bush or Gore/Kerry, which one would be worse). Your analysis may work for the political elite (politicians, radio personality, political commentators), but it is woefully short of explaining tea parties and the conservative movement. If you want to start to explain that then you have to move beyond stereotypes and the political equivalence of ethnocentrism (in other words you have to actually talk to tea party/conservatives instead of assuming what they mean). Progressives and tea party people are much closer in their belief systems than you may think, and I can base that one having spent a great deal of time with actual people (and not politicians) in both camps. I will also throw this out there and explain it more later, but there are far more similarities between the WTO protests in Seattle (and since) and the tea party protests today then there are differences.
Paul de Armond //Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 11:53 am
Ham,
I don’t think the fact that political behavior occupies a broad spectrum of relative measures makes any sort of a case for the equivalency of behaviors or societal outcomes.
The growing inequality in America is a phenomenon that has a history dating back to the late 1960’s (when a trend towards increasing equality and prosperity that began in the 1940’s began) and increased dramatically beginning in the 1980’s. The recent economic turmoil has exacerbated the problem. This is why I linked to Hodgson’s article (which in turn refers to both his and Poole’s books.)
The lack of a central consensus or overlap between political parties and the growing polarization that Poole has found in congressional voting patterns is a historical trend that in the past has been resolved by parapolitical means like social movements, revolutions, political violence, religious schisms, and other forms of conflict. Republics have often died as a result of the failure of political consensus. As I pointed out in the first realignment article, these are long, drawn out processes, not instantaneous events.
Craig,
I’d very much like to hear what you have to say.
If the actions of congressional representatives are so disconnected from the political environment of the voters that no inferences can be drawn between the two, then we’ve already passed into a purely parapolitical era. If that is so, then electoral politics have become meaningless. I don’t think I can see the way clear to making that case, but if you can do it, I want to hear it.
I agree thoroughly that there are similarities between the WTO protests and the Tea Parties - they are both political movements that challenge political institutions. Both derived great power from the falling costs of communications represented by the growth of the internet, cell phones, text messaging, etc.
I brought this up when I was interviewed by one American and one Brazilian who were writing articles about the 10th anniversary of the WTO protests. See my report on the protests here.
However, there is a a very sharp distinction that can be drawn between the WTO protests and the Tea Parties. That is the central role of highly centralized and richly capitalized media, particularly right-wing talk radio and the Fox Network, has played with the Tea Parties. This has led many people, particularly Progressives, to over emphasize the “astroturf” characteristics of the Tea Parties.
While it is clearly true that the conservative establishment, various special interests and right-wing media pundits like Glen Beck have tried to use the Tea Parties as auxiliaries of the national Republican Party, I think this might have been true when the Tea Parties first appeared as a follow-on expression by Ron Paul’s apparatus, the attempts to control the Tea Parties from inside the establishment have failed.
The Tea Parties are a nascent revitalization movement and they have yet to fully evolve into their final state. I’m following them with great interest and will continue to do so in the future. At the current time, they are relying on the power of the right-wing mass media to coordinate their movement and that is a continuing source of friction and contradiction for them.
I agree that there are superficial similarities between Daffy and Yosemite Sam (notice Tip’s confusion as to which is which above.) Most of this similarity is due to a reliance on conspiratorialist ideation. This is a common characteristic of marginalized groups. There is a strong distinction that can be drawn between Progressive and right-wing conspiratorialist narratives, however.
The Progressive conspiratorialist narratives concentrate entirely on emphasizing the role of elite conspirators (911 Truthers, the Vulcan Conspiracy, monolithic Corporate conspiracies, etc.)
The right-wing conspiracy narratives are very different. These all fall into the Producerist family of conspiratorialism. Producerists see themselves trapped between the jaws of a class-based vice. The upper jaw of the vice consists of elite conspiracies but the lower jaw of the vice consists of a sub-human underclass usually described in explicitly racialist terms (immigrants, racial minorities, Jews, aliens, etc.)
Conspiratorialism is the secular superstition of modern politics. Nothing good ever seems to come from it.
Last Friday, Dave Neiwert was at Village Books reading from his new book The Exterminists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. I’ll be posting a review of that book in the future. Dave had some interesting things to say that I think you’ll find interesting.
In the meantime, take a good look at Chip Berlet’s report, Toxic To Democracy. It discusses the similarities and differences of the various types of conspiratorialism.
James J Johann //Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 3:18 pm
I anticipate de Armond’s part III, sans Disney.
de Armond is always thoughtful, yet this time he has clouded his discussion with silly metaphors. As he comes from the left, he may call the factions of the left what he will. But he should allow the right to adopt their own labels. There is little question that the right would eschew his strained Elmer Fudd/Neo-conservative and YosemiteSam/Paleo-conservative labels. The right consists of sundry combinations of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and constitutionalists with factions delineated by fiscal, social, constitutional, and/or religious emphases. Disney hasn’t enough characters for the myriad possibilities.
Working instead from the progressive left to center to constitutionalist right, why not sanitize the discussion by using the less charged terms of minority left, majority left, majority right, and minority right?
After a somewhat serious introduction, now cometh de Armond with his wolf in the fable, the obligatory attack on everything conservative, constitutional, wealthy, corporate, small government, individual, privatized, small tax, de-regulatory, or moral.
He says, ?Conservatives favor inequality and liberals favor equality.? That is a somewhat skewed use of the root word ?equality.? Conservatives would say that they favor equality of opportunity and that liberals favor equality of results; the former being the constitutional tool of the individual and the later being the state enforced imposition of mediocrity.
He says, ?Wealth and power are now concentrated in a smaller group of contending elites with the majority of the citizens being more deprived of economic security and access to political power than has been the case for several generations? blaming ?the Bush administration.? While the bailout of the financial wealthy and powerful is appalling, the wealthy and powerful are not limited to Wall Street. They include the Brobdingagian aggregation of academics, government employees, and unions ? the later of which with Obama at the helm robbed General Motors bond holders of their equity and put it into the hands of the unions.
He speaks of ?war hysteria? failing to see the irony of his claim of conservative hysteria at ?the mere fact that whiteness no longer guaranteed supremacy on the national political scene.? De Armond may look inside his own soul for his interpretation of things, but if decades of psychology have been unable to reliably ferret out the inner workings of even one other soul, by what authority can de Armond divine the anguish of fifty-eight million Republican voters?
By the time he left the ?racialist?, ?prejudiced?, and ?irrational? Tea Party and returned to his beloved Progressives, he launched a tortured overuse of his Disney metaphors which made the rest of the article cumbersome to follow. But he is always worth reading if one can separate the wheat from the chaff, so this reader plodded on.
He claims ?insubstantial issues of abortion, creationism, opposition to gun control and a hostility to taxation expressed as tax relief?
Labeling issues as ?insubstantial? is really not an argument against them. It is merely the author’s conclusion(s), which in this article at least he does not support with premises or reasoning. None of those issues are unworthy of discussion. One does not have to hold those positions to defend those notions. The question of abortion is a bone fide moral issue for those who hold it, based upon the Pro-Life’s unverifiable premise that a fetus is a human life and thus valuable, versus the Pro-Choice’s unverifiable premise that it is not; or if it is it is trumped by not being valuable or being inconvenient. Creationism is a bone fide faith based belief not unlike the faith based belief in global warming ? both being a rabid belief in that which is not demonstrable. Opposition to gun controls merely holds the bone fide interpretation that The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government will not interfere with an individual’s right to own a gun. Many hold the bone fide position that tax relief has clearly demonstrated that it leads to growth and prosperity. In any event, a flippant disregard for any issue held by millions of citizens is not a prescription for a ?resolution to the problem of polarization.?
De Armond goes on to prognosticate on the future of the Parties. Though I take issue with much of what and how de Armond says, in order to ever re-examine my own persuasions I always read him. After wading through his excruciating metaphors, I find that we somewhat agree on what might come to pass. I wrote back in March 2004, in my now defunct quarterly ?The Town Crier?, the following about the Parties:
?....but assuming success, the traditional Republican Party will have flickered brightest right before it goes out. One could predict that socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters will finally give up on a Republican Party which builds upon a gargantuan government, fails to cut spending, fears legislative fights, agrees to protective tariffs, and capitulates rather than stand for principle. Deprived of their favored issues they will no longer vote for candidates who eschew abortion and homosexuality, who increase pork and spending, increase entitlements, and join in the social plunder. They will leave the dead Republican Party to the Christian right.
Both parties will remain in name because the laws are written to favor the two established parties. They will remain in name, but not in makeup. The death of the Republican Party will also be the death of the Democrat Party as we know it, and could happen quicker than one thinks. Moderates from both parties along with Independents, strange bedfellows indeed, will recognize the futility of their rivalry and a symbiotic social capitalism will emerge. It will be a responsible capitalism for creation of wealth in cooperation with a responsible social conscience, the blood sucking propensities of both balanced by legislation. New candidates who promote such a vision will lead a new coalition of voters who will discard the outdated political hacks.
The Republican Party will be left to the uncompromising right. The shrill left will turn Green. The powerful majority of new faces will be the strange bedfellows in command of the new Democrat Party, and the country.?
James J. Johann
David Camp //Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 5:04 pm
Very interesting discussion. I come at US federal politics as an outsider - an immigrant from a parliamentary system (which has its own strengths and weaknesses). Also - had I been able to vote in 2000, I would have voted for GW Bush in the presidential election. Of course, I was duped by the most sophisticated marketing apparatus in the world - the US corporatist media. To me, this speaks of the power and subtlety of the main force in US politics - MARKETING.
I think Paul’s article is accurate more as a description of inside-the-beltway society than of the broader society it purports to represent. In this I agree with Craig - the people are ahead of their representatives, who only tangentially represent their interests. And the so-called “fringe views” on the right and the left have much more in common, and could form the basis for an overthrow of a sclerotic and corrupt system.
I intend to join the next teabag demonstration - with some visible progressive signs. I would encourage teabaggers to come down to the corner of Cornwall and Magnolia (in front of the old federal building) Fridays at 5 pm (4 pm? I’m not really a regular) for the regular running demonstration. Come in solidarity with the peace activists who have been standing up against militarism for thirty years.
Finally, a few comments on Mr. James Johann’s posting, which is as good a summary of popular right-wing memes as any I’ve seen recently.
1) he tries to make the argument that the “Democratic"elite is as pernicious as the “Republican” elite by equating the fact of the growth of wealth held by the top 5% over the last 8 years (compared to the stagnation or shrinkage of the wealth of everyone else) with his idea that Unions and academics caused the bankruptcy of General Motors. I’m sorry - this does not compute. It’s not even a valid comparison.
2) He tries to make the argument that creationists and people who think climate change is a serious issue are both holding faith-based beliefs. An argument like this really taints the rest of his post - since it is so ridiculous. Climate change is SCIENCE, based on thousands of researchers and thinkers analysing and arguing about data and models that explain the data. Models that change as new data is accumulated. Creationism is in fact, faith-based, since as he correctly points out, it is impossible to validate. It is by no means equivalent to Science, or even in the same ballpark. To say otherwise is deliberate ignorance.
On both these points, which the corporatist media is giving much play, consider WHO GAINS by convincing people that the rich aren’t getting richer, the poor aren’t getting poorer, and that we don’t have to worry about climate change since it’s as fake as creationism.
They’re the real enemy.
Doug karlberg //Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 10:06 pm
I just finished reading a book by the political operators Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. One is conservative and the other is a liberal,
They wrote the book TOGETHER. The title is “COMMON GROUND”.
Interesting read. Clearly our system of government in not producing adequate results for its citizens. Polling consistently indicates dissatisfaction has become widespread.
I bought the book for $1 at the Dollar store. It is worth reading, especially for $1.
They show that we have much more in common, than not. The parties and special interests are driving this polarization to keep us fighting each other, rather than putting pressure on our political elite to produce results for us, instead of for themselves.
While national politics titillates us, I believe that we could make some simple concrete steps locally to obtain better government.
First, sponsor debates on issues in depth. Televise and podcast these debates on our public TV and municipal websites. Test the intellect of the candidates on the issues that matter. Let’s see them think on their feet, and finally understand the rationale for their positions. Free TV time will almost eliminate money’s effect on our local politics.
Second, implement the “Instant Run-off Voting”. This is where there is not a primary (saves a lot of money and shortens the campaign cycle). Voters pick their candidates by selecting their first choice, second choice, and so on.
This gives any citizen a fighting chance to be elected, regardless of party support or big money interests.
I believe that many neglect to vote today, because they do not think their vote matters. I can’t argue with them.
We need to first create a system that screams; “Your vote matters”.
I think this is the system.
As the book Common Ground points out;
“Bad officials are elected, by good citizens, who do not vote”
Let’s give them a reason to vote.
There are a lot of them.
Paul de Armond //Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 2:14 am
I’d like to point out that the Daffy-Sam continuum I’ve presented is based on the work of Chuck Jones and Fritz Freeling of Warner Brothers Studios.
Here’s something more to add to the mix, a recent poll done by last week:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted December 4-5, 2009
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about the groups known as the Tea Party Movement?
27% Very closely
30% Somewhat closely
27% Not very closely
13% Not at all
3% Not sure
2* Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?
18% Republican
36% Democratic
23% Tea Party
22% Not sure
3* Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement?
41% Favorable
22% Unfavorable
37% Not sure
4* Some people say that Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new party is needed to represent the American people. Do you agree?
41% Yes
45% No
15% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Doug karlberg //Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 12:54 pm
Today, when we go to the polls in the General Election, we are privileged to have two choices. Both of these choices are all too often the result of a primary where 25% of the voters choose the winner, and our final choices come the General Election.
The two political parties dominate the primary voting system. As a result the two parties have control of “who” ultimately,is elected.
Allowing for the two parties to generally control whom is elected, is part of the problem. We see it daily the polarization of politics where people cannot seem to get along and accomplish tasks that need doing.
I am not impressed with the candidates the parties are sending us, and clearly much of the nation also feels this way.
Breaking this control is essential, to regaining “our” control, of whom we wish to serve in government.
I will not lower the debate by the use of labels. Labels themselves are an important part of the destructive polarization taking place in American politics today.
When people assign cartoon characters to people who simply have different opinions, it can be insulting. That is no way to begin a civil conversation. Cartoon characters is just another form of demonization, which a weak method of attempting to win a debate.
Both parties do bring a measure of good to our society. Having said this though their influence has morphed into control.
Influence by the parties is healthy, but control is not.
We have not witnessed this level of distrust and anger towards those governing us, in our lifetimes. These are the seeds that historically, revolutions are made of.
Changing the way we are electing our leaders seems to be a healthier solution, than continuing this level of potentially destructive distrust.
Larry Horowitz //Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 2:00 pm
Doug,
I agree. While understanding the history of political realignment is worthwhile and, while good satire is certainly enjoyable, what we really need are solutions to the problems.
But first, we need a concise description of the actual problems we hope to solve. And not from some extreme political perspective.
In what ways is government not performing its functions effectively?
What do we (the majority) want government to do?
What do we not want government to do?
Where is government successful?
Where has it failed?
Is government?s failure the result of the process we use to elect our representatives?
Given the concentration of power and wealth, are we simply fooling ourselves to believe we can exert any influence in how we are governed?
And, if we could have any influence, where is the most effective place for that conversation to take place?
Doug, I know you. You?re a smart guy and you have some spare time. Can you clearly define the overall (big-picture) problems as YOU see them?
What solutions, in additional to changing the way we elect our leaders, would you suggest?
Paul? Tip? Ham? Craig? James? David?
Doug karlberg //Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 3:15 pm
Larry,
Here is the problem: The unquenchable desire for power and greed, have over-taken our ability to control government, and enforce government?s promise to represent the citizen?s interests first.
Simply; it is a question of loyalty. Government has lost its loyalty to its citizens.
As proof, I can only point to the extensive polling which clearly shows anger and distrust of government at historical highs. This wave of distrust began long before this recession.
Polling indicates, Congress, and both political parties have had persistently low levels of citizen trust.
Do we have a democratic republic when special interests are given more consideration from the politicians and their political machines, then the common citizen?
I am increasingly convinced that the solutions to our national problems, begin with local solutions.
When good leaders can be elected, regardless of money or party affiliation, we will begin to not only get better government, but a sense of empowerment to the citizenry. We will begin to feel that we do in fact, have the power to influence government.
Sending people who are interested in serving us and making our communities better, to the special interests and political parties on bended knee for permission and the money required to win; I fear is the end of Democracy as promised by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I don?t recall any mention of citizens going on bended knee to either party or moneyed special interests in either document.
When you take money or sponsorship from these groups, it is not free.
You give up loyalty to the citizens.
Changing the system, as described in above post is simple, and requires no changes to the Constitution. This would allow any one to run for elected office, without getting on bended knee.
When this happens government will naturally get more responsive, and this will be noticed on the State and National level.
Pike and Kremen could authorize the rules for utilizing the public television channel that we already own and operate. Changing the election process to eliminate the primary system and go to an Instant Run-off Voting system, may take action by the City and County Councils. Getting rid of the primary would save a ton of money for the taxpayers, to boot.
The first step; is to get off bended knee.
Craig Mayberry //Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 5:48 pm
Larry,
In response to your request. I do agree with Doug K. from the response that the big problem we have right now is the unequal distribution of power. Right now this takes three forms.
The first is that the Federal Government has substantially more power then state government and state governments have more power than local governments. As I have discussed in a previous blog, this needs to be reversed as the federal government has little to no ability to solve problems and most issues need to be dealt with locally. Solution #1, we need more issues dealt with at the local level and fewer of them dealt with at the federal level.
The second source of unequal power distributions come with incumbents versus opponents. Incumbents have too much power to get election money that it makes it virtually impossible to get rid of an incumbent, even if incompetent (if Harry Reid gets re-elected it will only prove my point). The incumbent will always have a name recognition advantage and a better understanding of the issues, but they should not also have a clear financial advantage that comes from PAC and party money. Solution #2, we need public campaign financing that gives both candidates the same amount of money and then let them both run a campaign focused on the issues and not about raising money. This would also have the added benefit of getting candidates from a wider pool of people that would be willing to run for office, but hate the thought of spending 12 months dialing for dollars.
The third source of unequal power is the relationship between government and citizen and the amount of available information. Despite constant talk about open government, the reality is the government is becoming more closed and less willing to share information, especially if damaging. How many bills are passed in the dead of night or are so complex that no one understands them. Citizen cannot make wise decisions if they do not have all of the information. I spend hours each day teaching students about business ethics and the importance of transparency as the best way to ensure ethical behavior. Government, however, repeatedly withholds information expecting us to trust them. If we cannot trust business without transparency why in the world would we trust government without transparency. Solution #3, the rules under which the legislative and executive branches operate under need to change to ensure ultimate transparency no matter who is in charge. The majority party writes the rules to help them maintain their power and promote their agenda. The governing rules should be written by the citizens (or independent citizen body) and legislative and executive branch so have to follow them no matter what.
If these three solutions were implemented we would have a much cleaner system, more citizen involvement, and more ethical government no matter who was in power. In effect it takes the power out of the 2 political parties and puts it back in the hands of the people. The 2 party system is fine, but not when the driver of each party is more power. There needs to be appropriate checks and balances against party power and these 3 solutions would go along way towards doing that.
Larry Horowitz //Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 1:11 pm
Doug and Craig,
Thank you both for your thoughtful and well-reasoned responses to my questions.
It appears to me that the thrust of your recommendations involve empowering local citizens and reducing the influence of money on elections and electeds.
Doug suggests changing the way local elections are handled (including televised and pod-casted debates and ?instant run-off voting?), and Craig recommends more local influence on key issues, campaign finance reform, and increased openness and transparency.
I agree with these solutions and suspect they would improve the way we are governed. At the same time, I wonder whether or not these cures would amount to much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I?m not a conspiracist, nor am I na?ve. But I recognize that local options are often limited by decisions made nationally and internationally. How can we influence these larger outcomes?
The majority of us are too busy to really get involved. And the misinformation we receive makes it virtually impossible to get a good handle on the actual problems and potential solutions. No wonder we?re experiencing learned-helplessness on a mass scale. And that apathy is at an all time high.
In order to make a difference, a concerted effort to accurately define and prioritize our most challenging issues is needed. Many of these impact each other; if they are not addressed holistically, we?ll simply squeeze one part of the balloon only to expand the other.
Again, thank you both for your time and contributions to this discussion. You?ll never be accused of being apathetic.
Best,
Larry
Doug karlberg //Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 2:34 pm
Larry,
It has been said that all politics is local. I suspect that this statement is quite accurate.
People are not always enthusiastic to embrace change, It normally takes a crisis to effect change, because there is not much to lose.
People will change quickly, if success can be shown. If we try to change the political process locally, and have success, there will be other communities that notice, and are happy to copy it.
I call it the “new pick up truck law”. When your neighbor shows up with a new pick up truck, everyone wants to know, what they did to get it. The you copy it to get a new pick up truck too.
Effecient government matters.
Keep in mind, that I measure success, as citizens having confidence that their elected leaders always put the citizens interests first.
Specific policies are simply not as important, as trusting your government. All trust is about loyalty.
I will not disagree that these are daunting and difficult challenges, but when a ship is in peril, there is always some one who wants to give up the pumps. I usually give them two choices. Drown quickly, or keep pumping.
Start local. Only attempt the simplest changes, with the most impact. As the impacts become apparent, it will be easier to enact further small detailed changes.
Craig Mayberry //Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 3:42 pm
It was a great discussion Larry, one that needs to continue. Certainly much of my values is driven by my interest in social entrepreneurship and a deeply held belief that problems only get solved through innovation and that in large measure the system strongly discourages innovation (even to the point that I am back in school getting my PhD in this subject). My motto (which I learn from a very progressive Gifford Pinchot III) is “faster learning beats better planning”. If we let communities solve the problems, then some of them will get innovative and that becomes the pilot for other communities to work under. Certainly some communities will fail miserably, but many will have creative solutions and then that becomes a guide for others. The federal government plans to death and then fails and generally only pursues one path which never works as planned.
Larry Horowitz //Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 4:21 pm
Doug and Craig,
Yes, it has been SAID that all politics is local. I suspect there?s some truth to that, as well as evidence that grass-roots movements can be ? and are - effective.
Still, I have a gnawing sensation that many overarching and critical decisions are made by a relatively small group. Some of these decisions are so influential that our everyday lives are directed as if by a puppeteer. Can we not sense the strings that control us?
How can we cut these strings and empower ourselves? Is re-localization the answer? Should we focus on becoming as self-sufficient as possible? each person, each family, each community? Is that approach effective and efficient? What about products and services that cannot be produced or supplied locally? Are there not some advantages of specialization?
You speak of politics; but, there is more to it than who we elect as our representatives (note I did not say leaders). I believe we need to think in terms of governance rather than politics.
I agree with you both that it?s best to change local governance first. Keep it simple. Replicate. Expand.
Political Realignment - Part II
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 3:04 pm // Paul de Armond
(Recap for the reader in a hurry: a previous post defined realignment as a power shift in a two party system whereby a new and stable majority arises. Examples from the two previous realignments: the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution.)
When Barak Obama was elected president in 2008, the possibility of a national realignment was briefly debated. Now, a year later, it is worth reexamining shifts in the political landscape. There are two salient national issues that will effect the dynamics between the major factions in both political parties. The first is health care and the second is immigration. The outcomes of these two policy battles are interlinked in complex ways. The final result is uncertain; neither issue is a forgone conclusion. But the nation is unquestionably gripped by a political struggle unlike any in the last sixty years.
The Republicans and Democrats are both divided by two axes of policy and interest: economic and social. Economic and social issues interact with each other, so they aren't completely independent. The labels most commonly applied to the four factions have the Democrats divided into a majority faction of Centrists and a minority of Progressives. The Republicans have a majority faction of Neo-conservatives (for lack of a better term) and a minority of Paleo-conservatives. I'll explain this with more detail below, but for the time being, imagine the political spectrum with Daffy Duck as a Progressive on the far left, Foghorn Leghorn as a Centrist, Elmer Fudd as a Neo-conservative (if you don't like that term, then say moderate Republican) and Yosemite Sam as a Paleo-conservative.
It's no longer a two-humped bell curve like it was before 1995, with considerable overlap between the Democratic Centrists and Republican Neo-conservatives. In Congress, the two parties have become increasingly polarized and there is little overlap between the parties. The conservative Democrats are to the left of the moderate Republicans. This divergence of the parties since the 1994 mid-terms is graphically illustrated by the the work of Dr. Keith Poole of the University of Southern California, San Diego. He is a pioneer in the statistical analysis of congressional roll-call voting patterns. Poole has written or contributed to over 40 articles as well as being the author of Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting (Cambridge University Press, 2005), a coauthor of Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press 2006), Ideology & Congress (Transaction Press 2007), and of Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. According to Dr. Poole, Congress is more polarized now than at any time since the Civil War.
The public is also becoming more polarized, not only between parties, but within the parties as well.
National policy is guided by a consensus between the majority factions of both parties. If there is a single national political establishment, it consists of the shared consensus between Democratic Centrists and Republican Neo-Conservatives: the Fudds and the Foghorns. The Daffy Duck Progressives and Yosemite Sam Paleo-Conservatives are more directly opposed and serve as the opposite poles of the political spectrum. The tensions within each party and between parties are driven by ideological differences over economic and social policy.
An extremely simplified view of the the two-dimensional economic/social axes boils down to the single principle of equality. Conservatives favor inequality and liberals favor equality. This single principle has historically differentiated on economic and social lines, but those distinctions have become less and less important over the last twenty years. Neither party has a monopoly on contradictions and irrationality in their difficulties in reconciling the internal divisions inside the parties as to the primacy of economic or social issues.
Overall, the Conservative ascendancy of the last thirty years simultaneously created and benefited from the increasing polarization. Wealth and power are now concentrated in a smaller group of contending elites with the majority of the citizens being more deprived of economic security and access to political power than has been the case for several generations. The near-collapse of finance capital at the end of the Bush administration, followed by a financial bailout that favored wealth and power has put us on a path toward a sectoral recovery where the wealthy find their situation improving while the distress of the rest of the nation only increases. The question now is how the nation as a whole is going to deal with the intense pressures created by polarization and political deadlock that puts most of the citizens at a growing disadvantage.
The current populist furor is mostly concentrated on the rage and hopelessness the far right experienced with the election of Barak Obama. The impossible had happened: Progressives, who have been on the upswing since the WTO protests in Seattle and the opposition to Bush's war hysteria, finally got enough traction at the national level to elect a Centrist Black president who campaigned on a platform of liberal reform. It's hard to say what was more shattering to the populist right-wing world view, the notion that the Republican noise machine could no longer make the country dance to a Republican tune or the mere fact that whiteness no longer guaranteed supremacy on the national political scene.
The Tea Party enthusiasts insist the issue is not race, but they continue to lunge toward a politics of scapegoating and extremism. While the Tea Party is deeply prejudiced on social equality (as evidenced by the highly racialist "birther" faction and the hysterical belief that our president is a secret Muslim), they are particularly incensed by the economic distress brought about by thirty years of national policy promoting greater financial inequality. The distress is irrational, since the populist right never got a crumb from the corporate tax-cut table, but that just intensifies the cognitive dissonance and greater political polarization.
In a nutshell, Yosemite Sam has spent most of his working life backing politicians promoting monetarism, trickle-down economics, job outsourcing, increasing privatization, union busting, monetarization of productive capital into casino capitalism and general economic voodoo; like simultaneously promoting an expensive foreign war while backing regressive taxation and financial deregulation. Now there's nothing on Sam's plate and he's getting worried. The economic elites got their bailout and everybody else got pink slips and foreclosure notices.
Unlike Wiley E. Coyote, who at least realizes he is suspended in mid-air before descending to the canyon floor, the Tea Party has adopted a less contemplative approach. Yosemite Sam never seems to realize that the cream pie was aimed at his face the whole time. It's just one temper tantrum after another. So Sam and his Tea Party go off on a rampage looking for scapegoats for the problems which they helped create.
Meanwhile, back at the Democratic ranch, the Progressives may have finally convinced the Centrists that they hold some cards worth playing in national elections. The 2004 presidential flameout was partly due to the fact that John Kerry couldn't convince the Progressives he had anything for them. So, they went off with Dennis Kusinich, the Daffy Duck of the Democratic Party, leaving Kerry as Foghorn Leghorn and the Centrists to have their collective butts kicked. In 2008, Foghorn at least figured out there was some political hay to be made by keeping Daffy inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
Unfortunately for Daffy, Foghorn hasn't yet figured out that what works in the national presidential elections has to be anchored in local House and Senate politics. So Progressives who held the key to the presidential election continue to find their Senators and Congressmen are as aloof and patronizing as Foghorn Leghorn, interposing himself in Daffy's on-going dispute with Elmer Fudd. "Boy, I say boy, you've got to follow my lead in this matter of gutting the president's health care initiative!" Which only infuriates Daffy and opens the possibility for chickens to collect some Fudd buckshot in the upcoming 2010 mid-term duck hunt. see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/27/808503/-Weekly-Tracking-Poll:-New-Feature-Paints-Ugly-2010-Picture
The Republicans can be best visualized as split between the relatively staid Elmer Fudds of the "big business" majority (which used to be known as the Neo-conservative wing in distinction to the now extinct traditional conservatives of the Robert Taft strip) and the howling mob of Yosemite Sam Paleo-conservatives. The Fudds clung to power by cynically cranking up the extreme right of the political spectrum, but never allowed them anything other than the illusion of lip-service to the insubstantial issues of abortion, creationism, opposition to gun control and a hostility to taxation expressed as tax relief for the rich and increasing tax burdens for everybody else. The implosion of the finance capital economy, the inevitable consequence of war deficits and financial deregulation, was followed by a national rejection of the Reagan and Bush legacy through the election of Barak Obama.
In cartoon lingo, Daffy finally put enough spine into Foghorn Leghorn that Elmer Fudd was no longer able to prevail by getting Yosemite Sam steamed up. And now Sam and Elmer are no longer such good friends since Sam has decided Elmer is really a chicken of the same feather as Foghorn Leghorn. It's mind-bending to listen to a Tea Party enthusiast denounce G.W. Bush as a liberal and the Fox Network as the liberal media, but when Sam's having a tantrum anything goes.
Having mapped out the political spectrum as a bunch of Looney Tunes characters, it's probably time to get back to the possibility of a realignment as a resolution to the problem of polarization.
One scenario is as follows: The Tea Party and Yosemite Sam go on a rampage on the far right of the Republican Party, running spoiler campaigns against the Neo-conservative Elmer Fudds. This leads to a number of weird cross-over races with the Republicans internally split, just as happened in the recent New York congressional race. The professional politicians - like Arlen Specter - in the Fudd wing of the Republican party might realize their political careers are over unless they can find some friends. The only willing groom would have to be Foghorn Leghorn and the Centrists in wedding drag. This results in some aisle-crossing on the way to the altar and some of the Fudd Republicans switch parties producing a realignment by reinventing themselves as Foghorn Leghorn Centrists.
Sounds pretty sketchy, eh? Well, it all hinges on the more or less permanent incumbency granted to members of the House and Senate. If the Democrats can swing a national majority in the presidential elections, but Congress remains grid-locked, there may come a tipping point where changing parties is the only way some Republicans in Congress can hang onto a political career.
An alternate scenario: Daffy Duck and the Progressives suffer from their usual attention deficit disorder in off-year elections. The ossification of the Centrists and Foghorn Leghorn's irremediable obtuseness has created some weak Democratic appointments to the Senate (NY, IL for two examples). These new appointees have low chances of getting elected in 2010. This would lead to Foghorn Leghorn losing some of the majority edge in the upper chamber or winding up as a Senate minority because of increased activity in the Republican Party, with Elmer Fudd benefiting from Yosemite Sam's rampage on the right. This scenario hinges on Yosemite Sam exhausting his temper tantrum and going back to working as Fudd's wacky side-kick instead of sabotaging Republican chances with an extended moral-purity tantrum.
If this is the resolution to the rogue Republican rebellion, the long-term prospect will be increasing gridlock and growing economic and social polarization.
The two major legislative battles between now and the Congressional mid-terms are going to be health care (which is starting to look like a defeat for the Republicans even if it isn't a clear win for the Democrats) and the upcoming mud-wrestling over immigration policy.
The health-care debate is essentially about restoring some economic equality. The uproar on the far right is intense because deep down in his heart of hearts, Yosemite Sam is an economic egalitarian. The only way the demagogues of the far right have been able to maintain party discipline is to gin up some seriously insane rhetoric about socialist gun-grabbing Muslim death panels. But rationality and politics are rarely seen together in the cartoon world of American politics.
The current tensions in the Republican party are the result of having to dragoon people who are one major illness away from poverty into campaigning against their own best interests.
The next major go-round in this saga will be duck hunting season over the immigration issue, with Daffy Duck and the Progressives as the target in the Republican cross-hairs. If Elmer and Sam can convince Foghorn that he's really a hunting dog and not a chicken, the Republicans could pull their chestnuts out of the fire in time for the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections on a wave of right-wing backlash, Democratic incompetence and increasing polarization. Given the way the Republicans have repeatedly shot themselves silly over racial politics and the Democrats chicken-hearted ability to fumble issues, this could be an epic slugging match.
I'll be having more to say about how this comedy will play out in local politics in Part III.
Related Links:
-> Dr. Keith Poole's Voteview web site-> Godfrey Hodgson underlined the growing polarization several years ago
Tip Johnson // Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 7:03 pm
You sure you got this right, Paul? I’ve been thinking it’s more like Daffy Duck is the Paleo-conservative, Foghorn Leghorn the Neo-conservative, Elmer Fudd the Centrist and Yosemite Sam a Progressive on the far left. I was just sure of that! Great piece, otherwise!
Regarding realignment, I’ll be very surprised if anyone ever lets progressives anywhere near their tent. Witness how more readily your Yosemite Sam (my Daffy Duck) acquires traction on issues relative to progressives. Maybe I’m overly biased, but it’s hard to imagine that progressives don’t have more thoughtful,well developed and useful issues than paleo-conservatives. Progressives have just gotten into the habit of being marginalized, and they get a lot of help with it. Meanwhile, Limbaugh thrives.
Anyway, I expect what we’ll see, and what may even emerge from your local analysis, is that money - not voting - will be calling the shots. Not a grand revelation, mind you, but it is still a question of degree.
If it’s the money, then it’s a slam dunk in health care, but more muddled with immigration. Economic asymmetry, global climate change and the rapidly growing food crisis will give us renewed appreciation of people that will work for a few bucks a day.
Sure, voting will always matter in those district seats, but it’s all a matter of who’s voting. Increasing dislocation, disenfranchisement, dissatisfaction or distrust of the “system” will drive many voters away, leaving thems with the gold to make the rules, as they say.
Allowing that every rule must have its exceptions, it’s still the gold that decides who gets mailed what, what’s available in the media, and which sensational spectacles will distract, inflame and mislead.
It could be that campaign finance and election reform are more important to stabilizing the republic than health care or immigration.
Paul de Armond // Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 8:25 pm
The essence of analysis is the ability to draw meaningful distinctions.
The sharp contrast between the Obama election and all other Democratic presidential races in recent memory is Obama’s success was due in large part to the rise of a viable Progressive faction in the national Democratic Party.
And much of this was due to Howard Dean’s showing the way to overcome the power of large political contributions by mass solicitation of small grass roots contributions. This is a lesson for every politician out there—voters can fund campaigns directly through small contributions. One-dollar-one-vote politics is not how things are going to play in the future. Any politician who wants to stake their future on sucking up to large donors can be knocked off by Progressives who get their act together. This does not mean that Progressives can displace incumbent Centrists by this tactic, but it does mean that they may be able to defeat incumbent Republicans and capture open seats.
Keith Poole’s work clearly demonstrates that there has been a polarization of the political establishment. The animated graph at the bottom of his article comparing Obama and Clinton’s voting patterns shows the division of the two parties that followed the 1994 mid-term election. It’s worth a look.
The corollary is that the conservative ascendancy has very likely peaked. Now it faces the strong possibility of succumbing to internal friction and discord brought on by the massive internal contradictions of increasing inequality.
The danger is that the pendulum doesn’t always swing back and forth. It can loop right over the bar and a weakened democracy can collapse into right-wing ultra nationalism. This was the history of the rise of 20th century fascism. All of the fascist states (Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan) emerged through the internal collapse of democracies. It is worth noting that the communist totalitarian states all emerged from authoritarian states that collapsed from external attack.
So the republic is in danger, but it’s not too late to have this little drama end with a wedding or a party instead of a funeral or the revelation of a deity. In other words, I’m voting for our little political theater producing a comedy rather than a tragedy. Either one is an expurgation of guilt, but one is happy and one is sad.
Ham Hayes // Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 10:59 pm
Unfortunately the drive to grow, centralize and institutionalize power is a game seemingly favored on both sides of our political spectrum. That drive can too easily lead to tyrannies of the state, right, left or otherwise. Perhaps Americans intuitively know they must keep both parties off balance. Action and reaction. Applies to apples, planets and political systems.
Interestingly, there is an excellent measure for how far a country has gone down the path of tyranny. That measure is the degree to which there is a free and unfettered press. And that means freedom from both governmental and private control.
Craig Mayberry // Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 11:03 pm
I will probably have a more thoughtful response in a day or two once I have some time to write a bit more, but I would say in the short term that you do have to be careful to assume the actions by politicians equate to beliefs by those that vote for them. Voters are complex and there is a large number of issues that are more or less important to them, but in the end you have 2 choices in whom to vote for. Just because Bush (or Obama) gets elected does not mean that everyone voting for them believe the same things. For the last 20 years or so many Republicans have had a choice between the less of 2 evils (Bush or Gore/Kerry, which one would be worse). Your analysis may work for the political elite (politicians, radio personality, political commentators), but it is woefully short of explaining tea parties and the conservative movement. If you want to start to explain that then you have to move beyond stereotypes and the political equivalence of ethnocentrism (in other words you have to actually talk to tea party/conservatives instead of assuming what they mean). Progressives and tea party people are much closer in their belief systems than you may think, and I can base that one having spent a great deal of time with actual people (and not politicians) in both camps. I will also throw this out there and explain it more later, but there are far more similarities between the WTO protests in Seattle (and since) and the tea party protests today then there are differences.
Paul de Armond // Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 11:53 am
Ham,
I don’t think the fact that political behavior occupies a broad spectrum of relative measures makes any sort of a case for the equivalency of behaviors or societal outcomes.
The growing inequality in America is a phenomenon that has a history dating back to the late 1960’s (when a trend towards increasing equality and prosperity that began in the 1940’s began) and increased dramatically beginning in the 1980’s. The recent economic turmoil has exacerbated the problem. This is why I linked to Hodgson’s article (which in turn refers to both his and Poole’s books.)
The lack of a central consensus or overlap between political parties and the growing polarization that Poole has found in congressional voting patterns is a historical trend that in the past has been resolved by parapolitical means like social movements, revolutions, political violence, religious schisms, and other forms of conflict. Republics have often died as a result of the failure of political consensus. As I pointed out in the first realignment article, these are long, drawn out processes, not instantaneous events.
Craig,
I’d very much like to hear what you have to say.
If the actions of congressional representatives are so disconnected from the political environment of the voters that no inferences can be drawn between the two, then we’ve already passed into a purely parapolitical era. If that is so, then electoral politics have become meaningless. I don’t think I can see the way clear to making that case, but if you can do it, I want to hear it.
I agree thoroughly that there are similarities between the WTO protests and the Tea Parties - they are both political movements that challenge political institutions. Both derived great power from the falling costs of communications represented by the growth of the internet, cell phones, text messaging, etc.
I brought this up when I was interviewed by one American and one Brazilian who were writing articles about the 10th anniversary of the WTO protests. See my report on the protests here.
However, there is a a very sharp distinction that can be drawn between the WTO protests and the Tea Parties. That is the central role of highly centralized and richly capitalized media, particularly right-wing talk radio and the Fox Network, has played with the Tea Parties. This has led many people, particularly Progressives, to over emphasize the “astroturf” characteristics of the Tea Parties.
While it is clearly true that the conservative establishment, various special interests and right-wing media pundits like Glen Beck have tried to use the Tea Parties as auxiliaries of the national Republican Party, I think this might have been true when the Tea Parties first appeared as a follow-on expression by Ron Paul’s apparatus, the attempts to control the Tea Parties from inside the establishment have failed.
The Tea Parties are a nascent revitalization movement and they have yet to fully evolve into their final state. I’m following them with great interest and will continue to do so in the future. At the current time, they are relying on the power of the right-wing mass media to coordinate their movement and that is a continuing source of friction and contradiction for them.
I agree that there are superficial similarities between Daffy and Yosemite Sam (notice Tip’s confusion as to which is which above.) Most of this similarity is due to a reliance on conspiratorialist ideation. This is a common characteristic of marginalized groups. There is a strong distinction that can be drawn between Progressive and right-wing conspiratorialist narratives, however.
The Progressive conspiratorialist narratives concentrate entirely on emphasizing the role of elite conspirators (911 Truthers, the Vulcan Conspiracy, monolithic Corporate conspiracies, etc.)
The right-wing conspiracy narratives are very different. These all fall into the Producerist family of conspiratorialism. Producerists see themselves trapped between the jaws of a class-based vice. The upper jaw of the vice consists of elite conspiracies but the lower jaw of the vice consists of a sub-human underclass usually described in explicitly racialist terms (immigrants, racial minorities, Jews, aliens, etc.)
Conspiratorialism is the secular superstition of modern politics. Nothing good ever seems to come from it.
Last Friday, Dave Neiwert was at Village Books reading from his new book The Exterminists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. I’ll be posting a review of that book in the future. Dave had some interesting things to say that I think you’ll find interesting.
In the meantime, take a good look at Chip Berlet’s report, Toxic To Democracy. It discusses the similarities and differences of the various types of conspiratorialism.
James J Johann // Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 3:18 pm
I anticipate de Armond’s part III, sans Disney.
de Armond is always thoughtful, yet this time he has clouded his discussion with silly metaphors. As he comes from the left, he may call the factions of the left what he will. But he should allow the right to adopt their own labels. There is little question that the right would eschew his strained Elmer Fudd/Neo-conservative and YosemiteSam/Paleo-conservative labels. The right consists of sundry combinations of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and constitutionalists with factions delineated by fiscal, social, constitutional, and/or religious emphases. Disney hasn’t enough characters for the myriad possibilities.
Working instead from the progressive left to center to constitutionalist right, why not sanitize the discussion by using the less charged terms of minority left, majority left, majority right, and minority right?
After a somewhat serious introduction, now cometh de Armond with his wolf in the fable, the obligatory attack on everything conservative, constitutional, wealthy, corporate, small government, individual, privatized, small tax, de-regulatory, or moral.
He says, ?Conservatives favor inequality and liberals favor equality.? That is a somewhat skewed use of the root word ?equality.? Conservatives would say that they favor equality of opportunity and that liberals favor equality of results; the former being the constitutional tool of the individual and the later being the state enforced imposition of mediocrity.
He says, ?Wealth and power are now concentrated in a smaller group of contending elites with the majority of the citizens being more deprived of economic security and access to political power than has been the case for several generations? blaming ?the Bush administration.? While the bailout of the financial wealthy and powerful is appalling, the wealthy and powerful are not limited to Wall Street. They include the Brobdingagian aggregation of academics, government employees, and unions ? the later of which with Obama at the helm robbed General Motors bond holders of their equity and put it into the hands of the unions.
He speaks of ?war hysteria? failing to see the irony of his claim of conservative hysteria at ?the mere fact that whiteness no longer guaranteed supremacy on the national political scene.? De Armond may look inside his own soul for his interpretation of things, but if decades of psychology have been unable to reliably ferret out the inner workings of even one other soul, by what authority can de Armond divine the anguish of fifty-eight million Republican voters?
By the time he left the ?racialist?, ?prejudiced?, and ?irrational? Tea Party and returned to his beloved Progressives, he launched a tortured overuse of his Disney metaphors which made the rest of the article cumbersome to follow. But he is always worth reading if one can separate the wheat from the chaff, so this reader plodded on.
He claims ?insubstantial issues of abortion, creationism, opposition to gun control and a hostility to taxation expressed as tax relief?
Labeling issues as ?insubstantial? is really not an argument against them. It is merely the author’s conclusion(s), which in this article at least he does not support with premises or reasoning. None of those issues are unworthy of discussion. One does not have to hold those positions to defend those notions. The question of abortion is a bone fide moral issue for those who hold it, based upon the Pro-Life’s unverifiable premise that a fetus is a human life and thus valuable, versus the Pro-Choice’s unverifiable premise that it is not; or if it is it is trumped by not being valuable or being inconvenient. Creationism is a bone fide faith based belief not unlike the faith based belief in global warming ? both being a rabid belief in that which is not demonstrable. Opposition to gun controls merely holds the bone fide interpretation that The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government will not interfere with an individual’s right to own a gun. Many hold the bone fide position that tax relief has clearly demonstrated that it leads to growth and prosperity. In any event, a flippant disregard for any issue held by millions of citizens is not a prescription for a ?resolution to the problem of polarization.?
De Armond goes on to prognosticate on the future of the Parties. Though I take issue with much of what and how de Armond says, in order to ever re-examine my own persuasions I always read him. After wading through his excruciating metaphors, I find that we somewhat agree on what might come to pass. I wrote back in March 2004, in my now defunct quarterly ?The Town Crier?, the following about the Parties:
?....but assuming success, the traditional Republican Party will have flickered brightest right before it goes out. One could predict that socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters will finally give up on a Republican Party which builds upon a gargantuan government, fails to cut spending, fears legislative fights, agrees to protective tariffs, and capitulates rather than stand for principle. Deprived of their favored issues they will no longer vote for candidates who eschew abortion and homosexuality, who increase pork and spending, increase entitlements, and join in the social plunder. They will leave the dead Republican Party to the Christian right.
Both parties will remain in name because the laws are written to favor the two established parties. They will remain in name, but not in makeup. The death of the Republican Party will also be the death of the Democrat Party as we know it, and could happen quicker than one thinks. Moderates from both parties along with Independents, strange bedfellows indeed, will recognize the futility of their rivalry and a symbiotic social capitalism will emerge. It will be a responsible capitalism for creation of wealth in cooperation with a responsible social conscience, the blood sucking propensities of both balanced by legislation. New candidates who promote such a vision will lead a new coalition of voters who will discard the outdated political hacks.
The Republican Party will be left to the uncompromising right. The shrill left will turn Green. The powerful majority of new faces will be the strange bedfellows in command of the new Democrat Party, and the country.?
James J. Johann
David Camp // Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 5:04 pm
Very interesting discussion. I come at US federal politics as an outsider - an immigrant from a parliamentary system (which has its own strengths and weaknesses). Also - had I been able to vote in 2000, I would have voted for GW Bush in the presidential election. Of course, I was duped by the most sophisticated marketing apparatus in the world - the US corporatist media. To me, this speaks of the power and subtlety of the main force in US politics - MARKETING.
I think Paul’s article is accurate more as a description of inside-the-beltway society than of the broader society it purports to represent. In this I agree with Craig - the people are ahead of their representatives, who only tangentially represent their interests. And the so-called “fringe views” on the right and the left have much more in common, and could form the basis for an overthrow of a sclerotic and corrupt system.
I intend to join the next teabag demonstration - with some visible progressive signs. I would encourage teabaggers to come down to the corner of Cornwall and Magnolia (in front of the old federal building) Fridays at 5 pm (4 pm? I’m not really a regular) for the regular running demonstration. Come in solidarity with the peace activists who have been standing up against militarism for thirty years.
Finally, a few comments on Mr. James Johann’s posting, which is as good a summary of popular right-wing memes as any I’ve seen recently.
1) he tries to make the argument that the “Democratic"elite is as pernicious as the “Republican” elite by equating the fact of the growth of wealth held by the top 5% over the last 8 years (compared to the stagnation or shrinkage of the wealth of everyone else) with his idea that Unions and academics caused the bankruptcy of General Motors. I’m sorry - this does not compute. It’s not even a valid comparison.
2) He tries to make the argument that creationists and people who think climate change is a serious issue are both holding faith-based beliefs. An argument like this really taints the rest of his post - since it is so ridiculous. Climate change is SCIENCE, based on thousands of researchers and thinkers analysing and arguing about data and models that explain the data. Models that change as new data is accumulated. Creationism is in fact, faith-based, since as he correctly points out, it is impossible to validate. It is by no means equivalent to Science, or even in the same ballpark. To say otherwise is deliberate ignorance.
On both these points, which the corporatist media is giving much play, consider WHO GAINS by convincing people that the rich aren’t getting richer, the poor aren’t getting poorer, and that we don’t have to worry about climate change since it’s as fake as creationism.
They’re the real enemy.
Doug karlberg // Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 10:06 pm
I just finished reading a book by the political operators Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. One is conservative and the other is a liberal,
They wrote the book TOGETHER. The title is “COMMON GROUND”.
Interesting read. Clearly our system of government in not producing adequate results for its citizens. Polling consistently indicates dissatisfaction has become widespread.
I bought the book for $1 at the Dollar store. It is worth reading, especially for $1.
They show that we have much more in common, than not. The parties and special interests are driving this polarization to keep us fighting each other, rather than putting pressure on our political elite to produce results for us, instead of for themselves.
While national politics titillates us, I believe that we could make some simple concrete steps locally to obtain better government.
First, sponsor debates on issues in depth. Televise and podcast these debates on our public TV and municipal websites. Test the intellect of the candidates on the issues that matter. Let’s see them think on their feet, and finally understand the rationale for their positions. Free TV time will almost eliminate money’s effect on our local politics.
Second, implement the “Instant Run-off Voting”. This is where there is not a primary (saves a lot of money and shortens the campaign cycle). Voters pick their candidates by selecting their first choice, second choice, and so on.
This gives any citizen a fighting chance to be elected, regardless of party support or big money interests.
I believe that many neglect to vote today, because they do not think their vote matters. I can’t argue with them.
We need to first create a system that screams; “Your vote matters”.
I think this is the system.
As the book Common Ground points out;
“Bad officials are elected, by good citizens, who do not vote”
Let’s give them a reason to vote.
There are a lot of them.
Paul de Armond // Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 2:14 am
I’d like to point out that the Daffy-Sam continuum I’ve presented is based on the work of Chuck Jones and Fritz Freeling of Warner Brothers Studios.
Here’s something more to add to the mix, a recent poll done by last week:
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted December 4-5, 2009
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about the groups known as the Tea Party Movement?
27% Very closely
30% Somewhat closely
27% Not very closely
13% Not at all
3% Not sure
2* Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?
18% Republican
36% Democratic
23% Tea Party
22% Not sure
3* Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement?
41% Favorable
22% Unfavorable
37% Not sure
4* Some people say that Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new party is needed to represent the American people. Do you agree?
41% Yes
45% No
15% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Doug karlberg // Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 12:54 pm
Today, when we go to the polls in the General Election, we are privileged to have two choices. Both of these choices are all too often the result of a primary where 25% of the voters choose the winner, and our final choices come the General Election.
The two political parties dominate the primary voting system. As a result the two parties have control of “who” ultimately,is elected.
Allowing for the two parties to generally control whom is elected, is part of the problem. We see it daily the polarization of politics where people cannot seem to get along and accomplish tasks that need doing.
I am not impressed with the candidates the parties are sending us, and clearly much of the nation also feels this way.
Breaking this control is essential, to regaining “our” control, of whom we wish to serve in government.
I will not lower the debate by the use of labels. Labels themselves are an important part of the destructive polarization taking place in American politics today.
When people assign cartoon characters to people who simply have different opinions, it can be insulting. That is no way to begin a civil conversation. Cartoon characters is just another form of demonization, which a weak method of attempting to win a debate.
Both parties do bring a measure of good to our society. Having said this though their influence has morphed into control.
Influence by the parties is healthy, but control is not.
We have not witnessed this level of distrust and anger towards those governing us, in our lifetimes. These are the seeds that historically, revolutions are made of.
Changing the way we are electing our leaders seems to be a healthier solution, than continuing this level of potentially destructive distrust.
Larry Horowitz // Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 2:00 pm
Doug,
I agree. While understanding the history of political realignment is worthwhile and, while good satire is certainly enjoyable, what we really need are solutions to the problems.
But first, we need a concise description of the actual problems we hope to solve. And not from some extreme political perspective.
In what ways is government not performing its functions effectively?
What do we (the majority) want government to do?
What do we not want government to do?
Where is government successful?
Where has it failed?
Is government?s failure the result of the process we use to elect our representatives?
Given the concentration of power and wealth, are we simply fooling ourselves to believe we can exert any influence in how we are governed?
And, if we could have any influence, where is the most effective place for that conversation to take place?
Doug, I know you. You?re a smart guy and you have some spare time. Can you clearly define the overall (big-picture) problems as YOU see them?
What solutions, in additional to changing the way we elect our leaders, would you suggest?
Paul? Tip? Ham? Craig? James? David?
Doug karlberg // Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 3:15 pm
Larry,
Here is the problem: The unquenchable desire for power and greed, have over-taken our ability to control government, and enforce government?s promise to represent the citizen?s interests first.
Simply; it is a question of loyalty. Government has lost its loyalty to its citizens.
As proof, I can only point to the extensive polling which clearly shows anger and distrust of government at historical highs. This wave of distrust began long before this recession.
Polling indicates, Congress, and both political parties have had persistently low levels of citizen trust.
Do we have a democratic republic when special interests are given more consideration from the politicians and their political machines, then the common citizen?
I am increasingly convinced that the solutions to our national problems, begin with local solutions.
When good leaders can be elected, regardless of money or party affiliation, we will begin to not only get better government, but a sense of empowerment to the citizenry. We will begin to feel that we do in fact, have the power to influence government.
Sending people who are interested in serving us and making our communities better, to the special interests and political parties on bended knee for permission and the money required to win; I fear is the end of Democracy as promised by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I don?t recall any mention of citizens going on bended knee to either party or moneyed special interests in either document.
When you take money or sponsorship from these groups, it is not free.
You give up loyalty to the citizens.
Changing the system, as described in above post is simple, and requires no changes to the Constitution. This would allow any one to run for elected office, without getting on bended knee.
When this happens government will naturally get more responsive, and this will be noticed on the State and National level.
Pike and Kremen could authorize the rules for utilizing the public television channel that we already own and operate. Changing the election process to eliminate the primary system and go to an Instant Run-off Voting system, may take action by the City and County Councils. Getting rid of the primary would save a ton of money for the taxpayers, to boot.
The first step; is to get off bended knee.
Craig Mayberry // Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 5:48 pm
Larry,
In response to your request. I do agree with Doug K. from the response that the big problem we have right now is the unequal distribution of power. Right now this takes three forms.
The first is that the Federal Government has substantially more power then state government and state governments have more power than local governments. As I have discussed in a previous blog, this needs to be reversed as the federal government has little to no ability to solve problems and most issues need to be dealt with locally. Solution #1, we need more issues dealt with at the local level and fewer of them dealt with at the federal level.
The second source of unequal power distributions come with incumbents versus opponents. Incumbents have too much power to get election money that it makes it virtually impossible to get rid of an incumbent, even if incompetent (if Harry Reid gets re-elected it will only prove my point). The incumbent will always have a name recognition advantage and a better understanding of the issues, but they should not also have a clear financial advantage that comes from PAC and party money. Solution #2, we need public campaign financing that gives both candidates the same amount of money and then let them both run a campaign focused on the issues and not about raising money. This would also have the added benefit of getting candidates from a wider pool of people that would be willing to run for office, but hate the thought of spending 12 months dialing for dollars.
The third source of unequal power is the relationship between government and citizen and the amount of available information. Despite constant talk about open government, the reality is the government is becoming more closed and less willing to share information, especially if damaging. How many bills are passed in the dead of night or are so complex that no one understands them. Citizen cannot make wise decisions if they do not have all of the information. I spend hours each day teaching students about business ethics and the importance of transparency as the best way to ensure ethical behavior. Government, however, repeatedly withholds information expecting us to trust them. If we cannot trust business without transparency why in the world would we trust government without transparency. Solution #3, the rules under which the legislative and executive branches operate under need to change to ensure ultimate transparency no matter who is in charge. The majority party writes the rules to help them maintain their power and promote their agenda. The governing rules should be written by the citizens (or independent citizen body) and legislative and executive branch so have to follow them no matter what.
If these three solutions were implemented we would have a much cleaner system, more citizen involvement, and more ethical government no matter who was in power. In effect it takes the power out of the 2 political parties and puts it back in the hands of the people. The 2 party system is fine, but not when the driver of each party is more power. There needs to be appropriate checks and balances against party power and these 3 solutions would go along way towards doing that.
Larry Horowitz // Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 1:11 pm
Doug and Craig,
Thank you both for your thoughtful and well-reasoned responses to my questions.
It appears to me that the thrust of your recommendations involve empowering local citizens and reducing the influence of money on elections and electeds.
Doug suggests changing the way local elections are handled (including televised and pod-casted debates and ?instant run-off voting?), and Craig recommends more local influence on key issues, campaign finance reform, and increased openness and transparency.
I agree with these solutions and suspect they would improve the way we are governed. At the same time, I wonder whether or not these cures would amount to much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I?m not a conspiracist, nor am I na?ve. But I recognize that local options are often limited by decisions made nationally and internationally. How can we influence these larger outcomes?
The majority of us are too busy to really get involved. And the misinformation we receive makes it virtually impossible to get a good handle on the actual problems and potential solutions. No wonder we?re experiencing learned-helplessness on a mass scale. And that apathy is at an all time high.
In order to make a difference, a concerted effort to accurately define and prioritize our most challenging issues is needed. Many of these impact each other; if they are not addressed holistically, we?ll simply squeeze one part of the balloon only to expand the other.
Again, thank you both for your time and contributions to this discussion. You?ll never be accused of being apathetic.
Best,
Larry
Doug karlberg // Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 2:34 pm
Larry,
It has been said that all politics is local. I suspect that this statement is quite accurate.
People are not always enthusiastic to embrace change, It normally takes a crisis to effect change, because there is not much to lose.
People will change quickly, if success can be shown. If we try to change the political process locally, and have success, there will be other communities that notice, and are happy to copy it.
I call it the “new pick up truck law”. When your neighbor shows up with a new pick up truck, everyone wants to know, what they did to get it. The you copy it to get a new pick up truck too.
Effecient government matters.
Keep in mind, that I measure success, as citizens having confidence that their elected leaders always put the citizens interests first.
Specific policies are simply not as important, as trusting your government. All trust is about loyalty.
I will not disagree that these are daunting and difficult challenges, but when a ship is in peril, there is always some one who wants to give up the pumps. I usually give them two choices. Drown quickly, or keep pumping.
Start local. Only attempt the simplest changes, with the most impact. As the impacts become apparent, it will be easier to enact further small detailed changes.
Craig Mayberry // Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 3:42 pm
It was a great discussion Larry, one that needs to continue. Certainly much of my values is driven by my interest in social entrepreneurship and a deeply held belief that problems only get solved through innovation and that in large measure the system strongly discourages innovation (even to the point that I am back in school getting my PhD in this subject). My motto (which I learn from a very progressive Gifford Pinchot III) is “faster learning beats better planning”. If we let communities solve the problems, then some of them will get innovative and that becomes the pilot for other communities to work under. Certainly some communities will fail miserably, but many will have creative solutions and then that becomes a guide for others. The federal government plans to death and then fails and generally only pursues one path which never works as planned.
Larry Horowitz // Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 4:21 pm
Doug and Craig,
Yes, it has been SAID that all politics is local. I suspect there?s some truth to that, as well as evidence that grass-roots movements can be ? and are - effective.
Still, I have a gnawing sensation that many overarching and critical decisions are made by a relatively small group. Some of these decisions are so influential that our everyday lives are directed as if by a puppeteer. Can we not sense the strings that control us?
How can we cut these strings and empower ourselves? Is re-localization the answer? Should we focus on becoming as self-sufficient as possible? each person, each family, each community? Is that approach effective and efficient? What about products and services that cannot be produced or supplied locally? Are there not some advantages of specialization?
You speak of politics; but, there is more to it than who we elect as our representatives (note I did not say leaders). I believe we need to think in terms of governance rather than politics.
I agree with you both that it?s best to change local governance first. Keep it simple. Replicate. Expand.
Where to begin?
How to implement your ideas?
Won?t the status quo always oppose change?
It?s been a pleasure, thanks.
Larry