Why Politics In America Suck...!

I'm writing and posting this piece simply because I can't sleep, thanks in part to the neighbors in the apartment above me doing their thing. So I've opted to shut out the sound of the bed squeaks by doing a little online reading. As I surfed to find a distraction to my liking, I came across a piece on Yahoo News that motivated me to post a brief piece on the Beyond-The-Spectrum Facebook page. However, what had originally been slated to be a Facebook micro-blog has turned out to be a an unplanned, unstructured late-night rant about the epiphany I got while reading the Yahoo piece about Republican Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona. 
The writer's thesis is how Flake represents an anomaly among Congressmen--and by extension--among most politicians in America. The impression I got after reading the piece was not of a Congressman who opposes everything President Obama proposes out of ideological knee-jerk reactionism--thus towing the party line.

                                                               Sen. Jeff Flake during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last January.

The impression that I got of Flake was that he is a thinking man's politician, and not necessarily one of the team-player drones we see bursting the seams of Washington's Beltway.
However, as I continued to read about how Flake actually approaches issues with an open-mind--without the presumed automatic party allegiance and anti-Obama fervor--my attention was diverted to the various comments coming from those right within his own party. As I made note of Flake's apparent level-headed approach to deciding on policy proposals, as expected even before finishing the article, I found what I knew would be there--accusations of "treason" and of "capitulating to Obama." And this brings me to my point. One of the biggest problems with politics in America is the polarization of both the representatives and the individuals (i.e., the voters) who support them. We take up sides as if there are ONLY two sides to every issue. Small minds automatically assume that if you're against one issue or its proponent, them you must be FOR the other (i.e., "If you're against Trump, then you must be liberal," or vice-versa). There is too much reflexive side-choosing, and not enough critical thinking in American politics. Paradoxically, it is this pressure to conform to one ideological camp or the other--much like We The People--that promotes the gridlock in the legislative process, and makes those representatives we vote for to do our bidding so hated. In other words, our elected representatives are merely a reflection of our desires...a reason why politics in Washington hasn't worked in years. We The People don't critically analyze policy positions and issues outside of choosing up ideological sides, so our representative don't. This sets of a schizo-dynamic within our body politic that makes us cheer and hate our elected officials at the same time; they do exactly what we do...and we have the nerve to hate them for it. They choose sides based on party and/or group allegiance, not reasoning and critical analysis. And even in the few rare instances when analysis IS employed, its usually only to see if issues fit within the rubric of our preconceived ideological notions rather than analyzing whether our ideological beliefs fit the rubric of reality.
We as voters should not become angry at the likes of Jeff Flake because he doesn't do our bidding. If anything we should strive to be more like him, and not he like us. If politics were more of a noble profession, and less like a bloodsport--and if we ourselves would allow reason, and not emotion or ideology to guide our passions--there wouldn't be more polarization that forces us to gravitate toward (for whatever questionable reasons) the Donald Trumps of America. No, Flake is hardly perfect. But he does represent a semblance of sanity within the insanity that has come to represent what passes for contemporary politics in America.
And now with the quiet returned to my apartment building, I can head back to bed knowing that politics in America doesn't suck as much as it did before.

Read More

Politics, The American Blood Sport

Readers from other countries daily log onto Beyond The Political Spectrum in order to get an insight into the social and political fabric of America…without all of the MSNBC or FOX News-esque ideological spin. And because many foreign visitors to my blog want to know about (either) the social and/or political landscape here in The States, I thought that foreign readers might want to know that we here in America take our politics very seriously. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that after the recent Congressional and presidential election that politics is as much of a blood sport here as soccer is to most of you who live abroad. For example, as you may or may not know, projection polls leading up to the presidential elections indicated that nationally, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were in a virtual tie, while the president was leading in the so-called “battleground states”… states representing the greatest number of votes based on population.

 Despite the fact that many knew the election was to be a referendum on the economy and the razor edge closeness of most mainstream polls, the ever-so-slight battleground states lead the president had had many mainstream news outlets and pundits slightly favoring Obama to win the election. However, Republican/conservative backers of Romney didn’t want to believe what most traditional polls had projected for the election…polls which routinely adhered to industry polling standards. Much like an undermanned, underpowered soccer team ignoring the experience of a better team and the probably outcome, they ignored mainstream polls because they were reflective of a perceived pro-Obama “bias.”

 Fueled in part by conservative media talking heads cut from the Fox News cloth, many Republicans had their anticipated election victory “validated” by the likes of conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen (who based his polling system on flawed assumptions which gave the most inaccurate of projections). The effect was a glut of notable conservative pre-election day predictions. For example:

UnskewedPolls’ Dean Chambers: 

Romney 311, Obama 227. “Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of them commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney.” — Nov. 1, on examiner.com.

Rush Limbaugh: 

“All of my thinking says Romney big. All of my feeling is where my concern is. But my thoughts, my intellectual analysis of this — factoring everything I see plus the polling data — it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus electoral votes for Romney.” — Nov. 5, on his radio show.

Newt Gingrich: 

“I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 Romney, over 300 electoral votes.” – Oct. 25, on Fox News.

Taken together—and despite evidence to pointing to the contrary—Republicans were dealt with an Election Day loss which they never saw coming. This was apparent in the apparent live on-air meltdown of political strategist Karl Rove election night on Fox News as the projections of Obama’s win started to become apparent. Although in Rove’s defense, his being incredulous toward believing the $300 million dollars of the "dark money" his political action committees (American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS) contributed to seeing Obama defeated went for naught would have rendered me just as unhinged. 

In a similar fashion, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who became the largest single political donor in the history of politics had an equal amount of luckless success.

Mr. Adelson donated more than $60 million. But of the eight candidates he supported, none won. That included the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who was battered by negative ads financed by Mr. Adelson during the primary before Mr. Adelson switched to become a supporter (See:  "Times Topics: Sheldon Adelson.")

And although Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by a wide margin, this is not to say that there wasn’t an equal amount of outside money spent on the Democratic side. And although Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by a wide margin, this is not to say that there wasn’t an equal amount of outside money spent on the Democratic side. Organizations like American Bridges and Priorities USA Action benefitted from large donors whose causes reflect left-of-center issues.

2,100,000 - Irwin Jacobs Founder of chipmaker Qualcomm and former M.I.T. professor.

2,100,000 - Jeffrey Katzenberg Chief executive of Dreamworks Animation.

2,000,000 - Jon Stryker Gay rights advocate and founder of the Arcus Foundation.

1,750,000 - Amy P. Goldman Author; daughter of the late Sol Goldman, a wealthy New York real estate investor.

1,600,000 - Anne Cox Chambers Part owner of Cox Enterprises, the media conglomerate.

1,350,000 - Anne Earhart Investor, Corona del Mar, Calif. Granddaughter of the oil baron J. Paul Getty.

                                                      (Source:  "The Big Democratic ‘Super PAC’ Donors").

Needless to say that this list is hardly exhaustive. However, it showcases how—much like in European soccer—interests groups are willing to go blow-for-blow in influencing election politics in America. In a real sense, these outside moneyed groups would be analogous to the Euro-rich tycoons who own the various teams, and try to exert their influence on the game’s outcome from tournament to tournament.
And much like an occasional European soccer game, this election cycle was marked with its own version of the soccer riot; we call them “presidential primaries.” And this year’s GOP presidential primaries were marked by cut-throat accusations, name-calling, and self-destructive gaffes that opponents pounced on drunker soccer fans rooting for a losing team. And although there were no equally visible Democratic presidential primaries this particular election cycle, we saw the same often raucous atmosphere during the election of year of 2008…particularly between then candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These pre-election contests to whittle down the party candidates often reveal genuine animosities as well as personality differences between individuals seeking public office, especially at the federal level.
And sometimes, American politics has its occasional bouts of violence and tragedy related to the electoral process, which is usually confined to state and local contests (such as the 2001 murder a DeKalb County, Georgia Sheriff-elect by the former sheriff of the county). But this year’s presidential elections, as a result of the reelection of the nation’s first black president, have yielded a new level of violent insanity. In Miami, 64-year-old Henry Hamilton had been "very upset about the election results,” according to friends and family members. Prior to the recent presidential elections, Hamilton had allegedly made remarks to the effect that "if Barack gets re-elected, I'm not going to be around.” True to his word, he was found dead November 8th “with the words ‘F--- Obama!’ scrawled on his will and two empty prescription bottles nearby” (See:  "Death of Key West Man Linked to Obama's Reelection").
As if suicide over the election of a particular candidate wasn’t bloody enough, a woman in Phoenix, Arizona was arrested and charged with nearly killing her husband in an incident related to the recent elections. According to news reports, 28-year-old Holly Solomon allegedly chased down her husband with the family car, eventually catching up to him and running him down. The reason? Because he had failed to vote in the presidential elections. According to police, “his wife became angry over his "lack of voter participation" in last Tuesday's presidential election and believed her family would face hardship as a result of Obama winning another term.”(See: "Arizona Woman Runs Down Husband With Car for Not Voting: Police").

And yes like soccer, America politics has its equivalent of hooligans and rowdy roughnecks whose only contribution to the sport is mayhem and deconstructive commotion. You can always tell these individuals by their fear-mongering laced with hyperbolic and exaggerated rhetoric. They usually make unsubstantiated claims, more so than what one would usually expect within the rough-and-tumble world of politics. Claims of “government sanctioned ‘death panels,” how women’ bodies can automatically reject forced pregnancies at the hands of rapists, that abortion is a "Constitutional right," how marijuana “isn’t harmful,” and how climate change “has not been proven” are the give-away signs of these outsiders.
So I say this to those readers who are not Americans that we have more in common with you than you might think. Although we tend to do things in this country a lot differently than they do in the rest of the world, we all play certain games—sometimes to the death—with all the fervor and ferocity of the lower mammals. Where you all play and see games like soccer as being a life-or-death affair, we in this country treat politics with the same level of deathly earnest. And as the 18th century philosopher David Hartley once said, "Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays."

  
Gingrich criticizes former Governor Mitt Romney's recent statement regarding President Obama's election win; that his victory was the result of "gifts" he promised America's minorities, women, and college students. Category:

Read More

Politics & The Art of Bullsh...

As I was watching the various Sunday morning talk shows, I was struck with an unexpected feeling for the appreciation of the humor I often find in politics. Indeed, if not for the way politics impedes the passing of practical legislation based on the needs of the people rather than ideology-peddling and power-politics one-upsmanship, I would find the “process” to be downright hysterical. Take for example the aforementioned Sunday morning talk shows.
As I was watching CBS’ Face The Nation, it was kind of difficult to keep a straight face as the White House’s National Economic Director Lawrence Summers struggled with host Bob Schieffer’s query as to how insurance giant—and the recipient of taxpayer-funded bailout money—American International Group (AIG) could justify its intent to distribute $165 million of the money in bonuses to its employees, both past and present. The individual bonus amounts varied, with payouts ranging from $1,000 to a single $6 million “bonus.” And as if that were not insulting enough to the American taxpayer, 11 of the bonuses recipients are no longer employees of the industry pariah.
The overall bailout of individual financial institutions was part of both former President Bush’s and current President Obama’s plan to deal with the meltdown in the lending and financial industries. But as this latest outrage of financial company excesses came to light, it was obvious that the Obama Administration has been forced to put a spin of justification on AIG’s actions. According to Summers,

"If we simply throw up our hands, refuse to deal with any of this, we'll have the kind of financial catastrophe that we saw after what happened at Lehman Brothers,…[Treasury] Secretary Geithner has negotiated very forcefully with AIG. He has done everything that is legally permissible for the government to do to limit the payment of bonuses. But where there are contracts, binding contracts that were entered into long before the government put any money in to AIG -- we're not a country where contracts just get abrogated willy-nilly."

http://www.joost.com/097top0/t/Face-The-Nation-3-15-09

Predictably, Summers defended the “right” of bailout fund beneficiaries to use the money pay contractual obligations by citing that such a practice was a way for American companies to retain the “best, brightest, and most talented” employees. Yeah…I too thought that was quite the humorous (if not ironic) defense of such an unethical move considering that these “best and brightest” made incompetent decisions which, in addition to driving AIG to near-liquidation, resulted in the company’s recent posting of the largest quarterly loss ever recorded by a company.
What Summers obviously didn’t want to admit is that there were two distinct possibilities underlying the decision were at work here. First, the ball was dropped when it came to crafting regulations regarding the use of the bailout money given to recipients. One has to ask where was the foresight to attach stipulations to the bailout money that would have prohibited any recipient from doing what AIG had decided to do (these bonuses were paid out this past Friday, by the way). Such requirements wouldn’t be all that unusual in the grand scheme; bankruptcy judges modify and even abrogate altogether contracts in the name of repaying creditors. And all of the major automobile makers are currently in negotiations with the United Auto Union, attempting to re-negotiate the terms of their contract in order to save both American jobs and the companies staffed by union members. But in a logical defense—and setting aside the cynical observation that in politics, nothing happens without reason or purpose—it was hard to imagine that any American company would have the brass pair to even considered doing what AIG has done. And this leads to the second possibility that given the signs that AIG and other financial institutions were in trouble due to their greed in trying to capitalize on the open-season atmosphere of the housing bubble, was the possibility that AIG would use taxpayer money to pay out undeserving bonuses known by those who made the decision to prop up the insurance giant? I didn’t envy Summers’ job of administration spin doctor for one second; how could I when I was having so much fun watching him sweat out a defense for the legality of AIG’s actions in front of millions of people?
Going from the ridiculous to the sublime, I decided to flip over to NBC’s Meet The Press, preparing myself this time for some serious political discourse. Imagine my surprise when the theme of trying to make the ridiculous sound sane continued on the network famous for its peacock. In one of those great universal ironies, CBS’ network competitor had a representative of the opposing party on the hot seat. This time, it was Minority Whip and Republican Eric Cantor (R-VA).
Cantor and many Republicans have complained about the cost and the level of spending anticipated by the recently passed and implemented financial stimulus package championed by the Obama Administration. Particularly, they’re concerned with how much such spending will add to the growing federal budget deficit. Many point out the many earmarks stuffed into the stimulus plan inserted by lawmakers from both parties in order to fund pet projects in their local districts as examples of “out of control” deficit spending. Granted that pork spending has always been a concern (and should be outlawed), what I found amusing was the timing of this sudden “concern” about fiscal conservatism.
As host David Gregory rightfully pointed out, Republicans who voted along party lines for former President Bush’s military spending during the early period of the nation’s military action in Afghanistan and later in Iraq had no such qualms about ballooning the deficit then. Consider this exchange between Gregory and Cantor:


MR. GREGORY: Where was all the concern about fiscal conservatism and reining in spending from you and your Republican colleagues during the Bush years?
REP. CANTOR: Well, well, listen, David, if you're asking could we have done better, absolutely. If you're asking us did we blow it in terms of restoring fiscal sanity into this system, absolutely. But that doesn't give now the Democrats in power in this town to go in and repeat the mistakes that perhaps we may have committed in the past. You know, you look at this budget, how can it be that they claim that they're balancing the budget when they are doubling the debt, when they are increasing the deficit to record levels of a trillion, seven hundred billion dollars this year? How is it that, that that is a fiscally sane plan? We've got to remember...
MR. GREGORY: Did you oppose President Bush's budgets that increased the deficit or the debt?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, we were in a time where I think the priority then was to make sure that we could deliver the money for our troops. And I joined along with Democrats on, on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on mine to say the most important thing we needed to do at the time was to support the efforts of our military to insure our national security.
MR. GREGORY: So it was OK to, to support deficit spending at wartime, but it's not OK now during an economic crisis, when Warren Buffett calls that the equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Such policy flip-flopping occurs all the time in realm of politics, and such talk shows provide the forums by which astute and politically savvy individuals such as Summers and Cantor attempt to paint themselves and their political persuasion as the guys in the white coats, while maligning their ideological opposites' stances. And sadly, political independents, aligning themselves with neither ideological pole, stand idle and accept such transparent politicking as the way of things. If not for realizing the earnest consequences resulting from this verbal three-card Monte, I would have broken out in full laughter watching.
The problem I have with this weekly airing—nightly if you’re addicted to such shows on CNN or the Fox News Channel—of such ideological smoke and mirrors tends to, without fail, obscure the facts behind the issue(s) at hand. And in a nation of time constraints, where individuals are forced to rely on political bullets and soundbites for their information on important issues, that makes for a dangerous combination. Moreover, the large numbers of politically apathetic and individuals too lazy to research an issue affecting their lives from all angles is what drives these political monsters. Knowing this is how the dynamics of political disinformation works, politicians have a moral responsibility to put aside such politicking and inform the public along the lines of facts, not ideologically-driven rhetoric; if they were true statements rather than opportunistic, power-driven ideologues, they would make the effort.
Citizens too are complicit as cogs in the political bullsh** machine. People must take it upon themselves to both make themselves informed electors, and to insulate themselves from such issue-obfuscation (In fact, a strong argument can be made that part of the reason that so many printed newspapers are folding is because people don't take the time to buy a daily paper and inform themselves of issues which affect their lives).
People love to complain about their government and the officials we elect to represent us. But too often, they wilfully allow the selfish ambitions and ideological agendas of those same representatives to be the sole motivations for the legislation they impliment in our names.
Whether they succeed or not in this endeavor, we cannot continue to complain about self-serving polticians and policies until we start making better choices in who we elect, whether we choose or not to hold these individuals to a standard of accountability, and how much we choose to inform ourselves to the facts of the issues.

Read More

What's Wrong With American Politics?

Maybe there is something to be said for dictatorships as a form of government. Things have a tendency to get done…fast. The passage of laws—even if they are by decree—makes gridlock a non-factor. There is no partisan wrangling between competing political parties or branches of government. And there is none of the upheaval that has come to symbolize what politics in America has come to.
President Obama’s approval ratings are at an all-time low for his tenure in office. The Mississippi Tea Party is in an uproar after its U.S. Senate primary candidate lost to mainstream Republican opponent Thad Cochran—who in turn appealed to a non-traditional base of African-American voters to beat the T-Party’s candidate. Democrats are set to use populist wedge-issues—immigration and a potential raise in the minimum wage—to beat back predicted Republican gains, while walking on broken egg shells on other issues to protect endangered Democratic candidates. And the list goes on…
What can I possibly say, reveal, or speak to in terms of the broken state of politics in contemporary America that most clear-thinking individual don’t already know? The political—as well as the voting—process has been corrupted by the influence and infusion of money; we know this. The ideological and political gulf between opposing belief-holders has never been wider…much to the detriment of the legislative process. The disdain that many of us Americans have for our political leadership finds most of us ranking their appeal generally somewhere between toilet film and a root canal. And the few optimists who remain loyal to one side or the other are more adherent to party-lines, talking points, and platforms than to rational thinking and objectivity. Why is the American political apparatus so broken?
To list a complete analysis of why politics in America is at such a level of unproductive impotence would take bandwidths of terabytes of Internet bandwidth; even a summary would take volumes. However, the conclusion—as painful as it might be for those wishing otherwise—is that America’s system of politics is broken because we are a nation moving toward an oligarchy rather continually engaging in the ”great experiment” of (a) democracy. What’s more, the basic reasons for the emergence of government by the powerful (and not in fact, “We the People”) can at least be listed inasmuch as those with clearer minds would be open to considering both their reality and validity.

The Voting Electorate. 

I will be blunt here; the American voting electorate is pretty dumb. This is to say that we are very uninformed as a people responsible for picking and choosing our leadership. Most of us do not bother to engage in objective research on the issues in any given election…and those of us who do bother to do what passes for research only look up “facts” that support already-held positions. Those who identify with Republicans (or conservatives) will usually refer to Fox News, The Daily Beast, The Drudge Report, The Bible, or any number of “objective news” sources, while liberals (i.e., Democrats) will go to Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, NPR, or other similar news sources considered “unbiased.” Most American voters start our approaching any issue with a liberal or conservative foundation, and then “research” the “facts” from that point. The problem is that most of these “sources” are little more than platforms for ideological talking points and/or already established beliefs. In other words, most Americans obtain their beliefs of certain issues from propaganda rather than objectivity. We don’t seem capable of suspending our preconceived beliefs and ideas to approach an issue based on the merits rather than their ability to support our individual political ideologies.
What’s more, there are simply too many nuts running loose in our country who lack psychiatric supervision. This is to say that many of the things that “informed voters” believe are beyond the pale. September 11th was a government conspiracy. Abortion is part of a planned genocide against the black community. The female body has mechanisms to “protect against that sort of thing.” Obama is not an American. Political correctness reflects “cultural sensitivity.“ There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Global warming is a hoax. Money is “Free Speech.” The Constitution protects abortion.  Universally affordable health care is akin to slavery. …and these are the “rational” thoughts. We believe anything our elected “leadership” tells us, no matter how insane, how irrational, or how counter-intuitive to reality. These virtual lunatics on both the political left and right share the same voting booths as you and I, and are able to pass themselves off as part of the “informed” electorate, who share the responsibility for putting into office other such “rational” individuals who are only too happy to polly-parrot these extreme beliefs in the name of voter support (just listen to the things that come out of the mouths of Michelle Bachmann or Barney Frank).
We’re also fickle to no end. We have a “Mac-Mentality;” we want “solutions” hot, fast, and now…forgetting that it took years for many of the issues facing the country to make themselves known. We are quick to overlook the fact that our politicians are not magicians…they cannot fix any problem as fast as we would like. Because of this, we will vacillate between election-year political party candidates as often as we change underwear. And quite understandably, our politicians don’t know what issue to support or where people actually stand on a given issue—unless said issues are being spoon-fed to the voting electorate. So they too bounce back and forth between “for” and “against” certain policies. Our political leadership’s inability to stand on one particular aspect of an issue may be irritating, but it’s also a reflection of our own ability to stand still on an issue in a realistic sense. We tend to take sides, as if either side wears the white hats. As I’ve often said on so many occasions, we are too quick to attack the other guy, and reject the worst possibilities of our own political affiliations.

Big Money Influence 

In the last few years, Supreme Court decisions have all-but eviscerated the notion that the voting public effects both legislation and voting rights. Rulings like Citizens United have opened the floodgates for the infusion of endless amounts of cash “donations” into the political process by both private and political interests seeking to influence who makes the laws and how they are made. Under the veneer of “Free Speech,” connected political, financial, and organized private interests groups—those usually tied to business—are now able to purchase public policy (and/or its handlers). Private and moneyed interests are not able to shape and mold a government virtually according to their own design.
And since most of us, the voting electorate, tend to accept and heed the talking points of our political affiliations rather than reason and individual thinking, we buy into this dynamic. Too many Americans—who we only have our votes as an instrument of gaining a say in the political process—are too quick to defend the Big Money interests who have more sway over our lives than we like to think because they can influence how our legislators think and behave. We are literally voting and supporting a status quo that works against our self-interests when we protect and defend the infusion of [the] obscene amounts of money into the political process. This is true whether it be in the legalized form of bribery we call “lobbying,” or when we allow shadowy political groups to throw tons of money into campaigns that call for voting for an issue or candidate that we support simply because it reflects our political affiliations.

The startling takeaway is that we as American citizens now have little impact on governmental and legislative policy by way of our voting. The only exception to this is when highly organized and motivated individuals like those in the partisan Tea Party movement are able to affect a small number within a larger party. But the effect of the Tea Party’s ideological intransigence is also part of the problem in why our politics have become so dysfunctional—they are too wedded to the belief that they are right in what and how they believe government should function. To this effect, many of the movement’s supporters and candidates have often invoked the phrase “no compromise” when it comes to getting legislation passed. This in turn creates the gridlock that stymies current system of governance —such as it is—and destroys any chance for passage of any form of legislation. We now have a system where private, moneyed, and politically-connected interest groups, as well as their lackeys in the various levels of legislative halls, are a law unto themselves. Simply put, the majority doesn’t rule. I know that special interests do not have my interest at heart when they lobby (i.e., pressure) my Congressman or state legislator to either think or vote on their behalf. I’m still waiting to the rest of my fellow Americans to catch up to this fact…but I won’t hold my breath.

The Changing Economy 

Oddly enough, when America had a stable Middle Class, and when we were a nation that actually produced manufactured goods, we had a stable voting electorate. There were fewer socioeconomic and political divisions by which our politicians could drive a wedge through to exploit for personal gain. In fact, quite the opposite; we were more willing to overlook both the political decisions and indiscretions of our elected leaders because the effects of either didn’t seem to have an overt consequence to the public at-large. Iran-Contra didn’t turn into a general clamor for impeachment (except from the extreme Left). Former Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry’s conviction for drug use during an FBI sting—one caught on video—didn’t affect his eventual re-election to that same position. And despite his allusions that his contentious congressional confirmation had racial overtones, Clarence Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Our tolerance for decisions weak and/or questionable political decisions was far greater, relegated to the “all politicians lie,” or the “It doesn’t affect me and my family” ethos. As long as gasoline was cheap, jobs that actually paid the bills were still available, financial institutions were not overtly greedy (and corrupt), and our economy was still the envy of the world, why would any of us have complained…much less organize enough to take sides. But along the way, the economy and our political sensitivities started to change. While good-paying manufacturing began moving offshore in an effort to compete with the invasion of cheaper foreign-made products, a lower-paying service-based economy took over. Organized labor—unions—was assaulted from two points; the reduction in their numbers due to the off-shoring of jobs, and an assault on laws meant to protect union practices by business-friendly Republicans. This assault included curtailing laws that made it easier for Democratic-leaning to fund Democratic candidates and worker-friendly legislation. With unions (and their political money) weakened to historical levels, a supportive money supply to the Democratic Party was dried. This forced the Democrats into bed with the same kind of Big Money and private interest groups that the Republicans had cozied up to years earlier in order to raise party fund money (see: Lobbying Spending By Sector). Although many of those supporting legislation responsible for weakening organized labor will usually make references to “election fairness,” “economic concerns,” accusations of union “corruption” as justifications for doing so, make no mistake about it—attacks on unions were more about securing political advantage for benefitting political parties (and candidates), and not for the greater good (although one would be hard-pressed to deny that denials of such provide for the most elegant of rebuttals).
What's worse, many rank-and-file Americans have started to buy into the political narrative (put forth in part to defend the actions of those jockying for political fund-raising advantage) that "union greed" is what was responsible for the transformation of the American economy rather than the natural and inevitable drive by manufacturers to drastically find a way to increase profits in the face increasing global competition. We have forgetten that it was the labor-friendly demands of unions—higher wages, benefits, and reasonable hours to name a few—that helped to create a stable Middle Class in the first place.  This leads into the final factor contributing to our sad state of politics in America...

The Political Class

When I talk about the political class in America, what I am generally speaking to are not only career lobbyists, but career politicians, elected members of both major political parties, 501 (C )(4) political organizations (associated non-disclosed donors), and regular corporate economic entities—all of which/who form what can be unarguably considered the new ruling oligarchy in America. This is the say that these groups and individuals are so politically active and themselves informed about the inner workings as well as the mechanics of the legislative process that they can literally shape laws that benefit each entity and individual within this ruling political class. Our politicians are merely a means to this end. In most cases, these people and/or groups can be recognized by their constant presence in politics, their last names—especially in the cases of political “dynasties” (e.g., families that constantly produce career politicians)—and the influence they wield in affecting the legislative process.
Regardless of political party affiliation, most of the ruling oligarchy tends to be mainstays in the halls of power in this country, with some 50% of retiring or electorally defeated Congressmen taking up with lobbying firms in continuing to influence the legislative process on behalf of the highest bidder.
Even in the case of the few who aren’t as personally motivated by monetary gain, they are too beholden to their ideological (and by extension, their political party’s) beliefs to be effective legislators. This means that they tend to embrace party-lines and baseless thinking in order to appeal to their respective bases and remain in power for the sake of careers in “public service.” This is why climate change deniers, race-baiters, proponents of immigration “reform,” and those who think all taxes are “bad” tend to maintain their popularity among their respective supporters. This means that many of our elected leadership will literally say and promise anything in order to protect their political positions. Many have conned the American voting electorate into thinking we actually have a choice—via our votes—over which direction our country should go when it comes to the legislative process when in reality, the politically-connected ruling oligarchy makes these decisions.

Admittedly somewhat cynical, our American oligarchs have designs to pull the strings of political system in order to suck as much wealth as possible from the nation (and its people) by ensuring cheaper labor, government subsidies, and other favorable legislation that ensures greater profits and the free flow of capital among and between each other. Additionally, political oligarchs in this country seek to hoard the wealth they collect by saving money in the form of tax cuts and favorable tax rates. To enable these designs, political oligarchs employ a army of lawyers, image consultants, and public relations too sculpt favorable images of politicians who work to protect the wealth of their fellow oligarchs.
Politicians and other members of the political class all-but crippled the Middle Class by sucking all the wealth and promise out from it via usurping the political and legislative process. And without a strong middle class, America cannot offer its citizens a chance to improve their lives, to maintain the infrastructure required for commerce and growth, or support those citizens that need a safety net thanks to lower-paying employment (See: “How the Middle-Class Got Screwed”). The political class cheats the system as it was meant to be in order to steal the wealth of our nation and hoard it for themselves.
But in order to keep attention off of themselves and their designs, oligarchs will often sow the seeds of dissent among competing groups of Americans. Liberal vs. conservatives. Immigrants vs. native-born citizens. Ethnicity vs. ethnicity. We blame each other for “ruining the country,” while the political class benefits. The fact is, when you look at the military, you will find both liberals and conservatives in uniform. I would like to believe that both liberals, conservatives, as well as those in between love that the American Constitution is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the special interests, and certainly not the interests of the political (and economic) ruling class in America. However, as much as we would like to believe that our vote counts, it seems that our country is being controlled and manipulated by the moneyed and politically-connected elite—and not We The People!

Read More

Survivor: White House Run!

Someone pinch me! Did I miss the television promos of the latest incarnation of Survivor? Survivor…you know the show…the one where contestants resort to trickery, backstabbing, name-calling, and other levels of duplicity in order to win the prize at the end of the season? It seems this particular “reality” TV program is reality…at its most real. My guess is, since I must have obviously not paid attention to those annoying corner graphics that normally distract me as I watch my favorite network television shows, that what I’m watching on television is Survivor: White House Run, or something to that effect.
That’s how I’m seeing the current run for the White House by the two major contending presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. It seems that anything in the way of mean-and-bread issues that concern Americans of all stripes has taken a backseat to politics as usual. We hear the ridiculous dollar amounts plopped down by the Republican National Committee on Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, how John McCain (sadly) doesn't know how to operate a computer or surf the web. On the other side, we hear questions about Barack Obama’s questionable ties to domestic terrorists, his lack of patriotism for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, or Senator Joe Biden’s historical faux paux about how FDR would sit down in front of the television set to address the nation during the Great Depression. So much has been made of these issues that they have inevitably degraded into distortions of reality and truth which has come to symbolize Americans’ discontent with electoral politics. The only Saving Grace this time around is the relative novelty of the race’s candidates; the 1st African-American, 1st female (or Gyno-American if you’re into being PC), the oldest American, and the obligatory white male running for the two highest elected spots in the land.
Despite both the novelty of this election, and the promise of civility (from both sides) of an election where issues would be the focus instead of the distractions of mudslinging and opponent degradation, we have witnessed what could be called “civil muckraking;” gutter politics as usual, but with more gentlemanly articulation. I acknowledge this because, compared to 2004 presidential election where Swiftboating attack ads sank John Kerry’s White House bid and the rush to dig up dirt on President Bush helped bury the network career of Dan Rather, we see a more refined level of nastiness, but with the usual political distractions from the issues. It’s too bad that the Survivor series doesn’t require writers…they could take ideas from what’s going on currently.
Is Sarah Palin’s expensive wardrobe really an issue in an arena where image and image building is not only accepted, but necessary to a shallow electorate (Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debate? The 1st televised presidential debate where the tanned and makeup-laden Kennedy looked like a bronze tiger compared to the plain, go it au naturale Nixon). And what about Obama’s supposedly jab at Palin by his use of the time-worn phrase “lipstick on a pig” remark? He could have just as easily used the equally-aged variation, “perfume on a pig.” Either way, unless one is just so partisan, that he or she is just looking for a way to make this rather innocuous statement about Palin, it’s a meaningless barb. Biden’s slip? Nobody’s perfect, especially us historically-challenged Americans. McCain’s lack of computer savvy? He’s 71-years old…is that so usual a condition among that particular age group? Obama being a "Socialist?" Well, hard to ignore the recent nationalization of banks/lending institutions...if that isn't a socialist move, then I don't know what is.
And what about all this talk about “lack of experience?” This particular distraction non-issue deserves special highlighting because to assume that any American lacks experience for public office reeks of the arrogance of the political class--career politicians who tout the honor in being "public servants." If we truly are The People that the Constitution states that we are, then we are own potential representatives too. And our country's history is full of examples of our representatives coming from among ordinary people, such as Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who successfully launched a campaign for Congress, as was elected on a platform of gun control after her husband was killed in 1993 by an armed man on a New York subway. And lest we forget that an entire myth of legendary proportions was built around a certain rail-splitter from Illinois who eventually became one of the most honored U.S. presidents during this country’s most crisis-ridden period. Finally, the Founding Fathers had no experience in cobbling together the legal foundation of a country, but that didn't stop them…and most of them were home-schooled, lacking the formal education, political office experience, and 200+ years of history as a reference that both Obama or Palin has as advantages. As with most elections--sadly--innuendo, negative aspersions, interpretations of an opponent's intents that border on conspiracy theory, and outright lies have become integral components of the process. However, these shady actions are poor substitutes for "issues" by [the] candidates, or of "reasoning" by the so-called "enlightened electorate." And this latter non-issue is among the most irrelevant of the distractions of the current campaign. To believe that only the "experienced" can be our logical representatives is analogous to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church's doctrine of the "necessity" of an intercessor (e.g., priest) to represent us or legislate on our behalf before the "God" of public servitude.
The fact that these distractions are brought to us by nearly every television network is what blurs the line between reality and “reality TV.” Backstabbing, name-calling, character assassination and outright lying may make for questionable entertainment, but as a basis of picking the leader of our nation and the Free World? Looking at things from a Big Picture perspective, I can’t say that I blame the candidates for these types of engagements…if We The People would learn to distinguish between TV and tv, and stop caring so much about the smoke-and-mirrors of show over the life-and-death issues of substance, maybe people like me wouldn’t have such a hard time telling the difference what we watch and what I’m watching. Maybe then, we could force our representatives to address issues such as this current crisis economy and external threats (not perceived threats). Because as it stands right now, we're all playing Survivor.

Read More

Religion…Enough With This S***! (…or, “You People Taking This Way Too Seriously!”), Conclusion

Religion is one of those things which is something of an mystery to me. Logically, I understand that it is (supposedly) a path toward spiritual enlightenment for those whose souls cry out for some level of harmonious existence within the chaos of a world full of upheaval of every stripe. However, as I try to grasp the way it is practiced, I tend to see a manner of thinking among its adherents which makes me question its usefulness in the Grand Scheme. No doubt, many individuals like myself who question the disconnect between what supposedly religious individuals say and do see a gulf between the preaching and practice of proclaimed faith that at times seems to span infinity.
Last month, Muslims in Afghanistan—including Afghani military personnel—who took offense to the accidental burning of copies of the Koran, took their vengeance out on six U.S. servicemen (the same servicemen who helped to liberate their country from the oppressively “religious” Taliban régime) by gunning them down, while at the same time illustrating their frustration with the American presence in the country.
Recent news items have spotlighted the African-based ethnic insurgency calling itself “The Lord’s Resistance Army,” which has been engaged in human rights abuses that includes the forced conscription of male children, and the forced prostitution of female women and children since the late 1980s. Led by a self-proclaimed “spokesperson for God” Joseph Kony, the movement claims among its aims, to be working towards the establishment of a theocratic state in Uganda (although recent news reports fail to disclose that the LRA was mostly driven out of Uganda. And like many spiritually “enlightened” and “holy” movements before it, uses the most reprehensible tactics in its effort to impose its view of the world on others…the least of which include kidnapping, rape, murder, and object-lesson mutilations.
And in America, so-called “Christians” have impugned the religious convictions of President Obama to levels which transcend simple disrespect, including by those seeking to replace him as Commander-in-Chief in the upcoming November 2012 elections.
A few years ago, the president was forced to quickly distance himself from controversial words (as well as membership in the church) of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Chicago, whose fiery videotaped sermons condemning America for its historical mistreatment of African-Americans led to further demonization of the president.
When it’s all said and done, like many things in American politics (and indeed, in the personal lives of many individuals), religion is a tool…a means to an end, to be used as any other. And in the hands of adept politicians and manipulators, it has become every bit as effective a weapon as mudslinging, character assassination, and labeling those to they are opposed to.
Take the current Republican primary for example. Last month, Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum attacked President Obama’s worldview, stating that the president had a “phone theology,” and not a theology “based on the Bible. The ethnocentric nature of Santorum’s remarks notwithstanding, the freedom of religion right of the First Amendment in no way either promotes, nor compels the president or any American to choose one religious belief over another. But when rightfully challenged on this point, individuals like Santorum and his Evangelical brethren most often will reflect the argument back on individuals by implying a level of religious persecution against those who support and share his beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that the secular state is not anti-religious (although the same cannot be said for secular culture). The separation of church and state was designed to protect religious liberties, not promote them. However, religious zealots like Santorum tend to purposefully distort this reality, equating the absence of (any) religious influence in public policy and the effort to maintain the separation of church and state with an active effort to suppress religious liberties. It’s a disingenuous tactic at best, and it simply plays to the ignorance of those who rely on sound bites and talking heads to shape their thinking, as well as caters to those who perceptions and understanding may be similarly distorted and seeking validation of their beliefs.
Former Pennsylvania Senator and Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Santorum,

Religions and their respective doctrinal precepts among their believers—along with human emotions—have done enough to create social and political divisions all over the world since the introduction of monotheism. And sadly, most adherents do not even stop to think about their beliefs and why they embrace them. In most cases, they are merely choosing to believe what they learned from their parent, and their parents before them, and so on. And even in the rare instances where individuals are able to separate themselves from the socialization (or is it “indoctrination”) into their belief systems, they still tend to ignore the purpose of following a particular spiritual path in the first place—to enlighten their souls and to create a level of respect and co-existence with their fellow human beings. In theory, religion is supposed to make believers better individuals. But human ambitions being what they are, have spurred believers to take what are supposed to be spiritual precepts—guideposts for creating better lives and better living—and turn them into yet another means of obtaining what they want. There seems to be just as many confused, duplicitous, and troubled individuals who function under the auspices of “believers” as they appear to be among their “secular” counterparts.
And when these dynamics are thrown into the arena of politics, you get what we have today—a society fragmented along so many ideological lines where arguments and counter-arguments seems to be the goal of governing, not the creation of substantive policies that make lives better. Religion in politics has been used to justify everything from war, support of the death penalty, and abortion clinic bombings, to racism, gay marriage, and rejecting universally affordable health care. And we are the adults.And we are supposedly the adults...
Imagine if the 1962 decision to ban prayer and religious worship in our public schools had not been enacted; our children and their schools would be every bit as socially fractured as our society and our political arenas (in retrospect, great idea).
I suppose that when it comes to religion, who needs "clear thinking" when people have their faith?

Read More

Policy Vs. Facts -- The Economy in Perspective

In the last few days, an interesting article has been making the rounds on various news-oriented websites. Its a piece written by the Wall Street Journal 's Personal Finance columnist, Brett Arends revealing the biggest myths (read: lies/misconceptions) about the American market economy. As I read the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of two things: how much We The People and our elected representatives shape our political policies, beliefs, and actions based on misconceptions, and how much religion—which has managed to creep its way into our national politics—functions in similar ways.
Before I present my point, first read the article in question, reprinted below.


The three biggest lies about the economy
Commentary: The truth about jobs, the market and U.S. socialism

By Brett Arends, WSJ.com and MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- The counter-revolution is underway.

The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.

Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Key updates on the economy this week
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.

Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW:DJIA) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=4CAD4B15-F472-4009-88AF-719A7CD7F5B4

If you're among the few socially and politically astute in America, you may have received an epiphany as you read this piece. If not, think about how liberals on one end and conservatives on the other base and shape their political beliefs on how their misconceptions and/or mis- interpretations of facts; issues like the death penalty, social spending, and gay rights are promoted and/or defended by both sides based religious interpretations of the Bible.
The Tea Party movement is active and engaged in national politics based on how it as a politically conservative organization interprets the economic picture. The Obama Administration, in the wake of its recently passed economic stimulus package, similarly interprets (or misinterprets) the facts about our economy in the realm of reported vs. real unemployment numbers (those of us who are experiencing the pain of being unemployed know all-too well that the monthly reported unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story)
The point is that the American people need to be more well-read and discriminating when it comes to what's real, and what's political spin. Sadly, most of us would rather listen to talking heads spouting and validating our political beliefs than pick up a book, newspaper, or log onto news websites to ascertain the facts for ourselves. We rally, vote, and—to our collective detriments—think based on beliefs rather than facts. And we should never believe everything we think...at least without individual (and objective) research. THINK, don't "feel!"

Read More

Liberal Vs. Conservative--What's In A Label?

Recently during one of my sleepless nights, I found myself doing what so many other Americans doing—flipping through television channels. I stopped when I came across political pundit Lawrence O’ Donnell’s show, “The Last Word.” on MSNBC.
Now I know what some of you might be thinking: Liberal nonsense from a left-leaning propaganda cable channel. Now, if you decide to stick around for the rest of this piece, such thinking is exactly my point; political labeling. “Liberal.” “Conservative.” Depending on which particular ideology you embrace, the other will invariably draw the ire of those who believe that their particular beliefs are what’s good for America. However, in recent decades, the word “liberal” has been so successfully painted and maligned with such negative connotations by conservatives that even liberal themselves will avoid claiming the label—unlike conservatives who will not only proudly brag about being “severely conservative,” but will even argue amongst themselves who’s the most conservative adherent to their ideology’s principles.  This is the point that O’Donnell was making on his piece…how labeling can be so effective in politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their “truths” on a level with the very laws of physics themselves.

(See:  Talking Points Memo.com for the story behind the image).

I took the liberty of uploading O’Donnell’s piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point--that labeling can and has been so effective in modern American politics that our very thinking orbits their manipulated meanings, and equates their “truths” on a level with the very laws of physics themselves. We tend to take the tenets of liberal and conservative doctrine to the point where to argue against any leftist or right-wing-leaning point is tantamount to religious heresy worthy of an automatic rebuke (one usually based on blind adherence rather than a critical analysis of the issues).
I took the liberty of uploading O’Donnell’s piece, whereby he so eloquently articulated this dynamic of our polarized thinking in modern America. Please take a moment to view the monologue in order to get the gist of the point.

For those of you who missed it, the point is not that one is bad while the other is good. It’s that we here in America are often too quick to believe of associate with one party, ideology, or level of thinking simply because we identify with the labels that [supposedly] represents them. The inherent problem with this practice is that it make up highly unlikely to question any wrong decisions and/or policies based solely on labels rather than their intent or effectiveness is eliminating a problem. What’s more, it prevents us from engaging in actual critical thinking about social and/or political policies based on—you guessed it—the labels we attach to them.
With respect to the consequences of political labeling, I will leave it to funnyman Chris Rock’s observational humor to punctuate the point (below) in 60-seconds pure reason (Warning: Contains a liberal use of profanity).

Read More

Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin, Conclusion

As I tuned in to last week’s first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, I couldn’t help but engage myself in deep cynical thinking about how much the political process in America is illusion designed to misdirect the casual observer. After all, as the old adage goes, nothing that happens in politics is by accident. As I watched, I observed how much of this chase for the White House (and Congress) is just theater intended to ensure the self-interests of the political class, and to manipulate both our thinking and our perceptions as voting Americans for the sake of the monied and connected few. With regards to this reality, I am often left wondering if any Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or wannabe political aspirant actually believes what comes out of their mouths at any given moment as they seek public office.
As an illustration, in a Washington Post article dated June 19th, reporters Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam reveal a tactic used by those seeking high-profile political office known as the “money blurt.” The tactic works like this:

An up-and-coming [or established] politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation. And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations (see: "Michele Bachmann, others raise millions for political campaigns with ‘money blurts’")

In some ways, this practice illustrates how those seeking public office often give the poor dumb voter the impression that he has his/her best political interests at heart, while jockeying for position in a field of candidates usually engaged in chasing the same objectives.
Even worse are politicians so wedded to a particular ideology (such as Christianity, conservatism, or even liberalism) that they become inflexible in both thinking and beliefs, deluding themselves into thinking that this intransigence represents "convictions" shared by those who's perceptions they color with their words as they seek a public office as our representatives.
The next GOP candidate seeking the Republican nomination for president exemplifies this dynamic in spades.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann, The first woman to represent the state of Minnesota in Congress, is another Tea Party favorite as well as an arch-conservative many times the magnitude of most of the men seeking the Republican nomination. For example on the issue of abortion, the staunchly anti-abortion (as well as staunchly Christian) candidate called on fellow candidate Mitt Romney to sign a “Pro-Life Pledge “and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.” Up till now, the GOP’s frontrunner has refused, preferring to focus on the economy as his platform issue. Her campaign’s response that “any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death” reveals her ideological “convictions” as well as her political shrewdness. Granted her stance on abortion is no doubt genuine, her attempt to paint another party candidate into a corner on the issue is a transparent attempt not to create a unified ideological front on the issue, but to take a bit out of Romney’s front runner status. To this, I am reminded of Plato’s assertion that anyone who wants to be in charge shouldn’t be.
Bachmann also believes that the theory of “intelligent design” should be taught in public school science classes, supporting her stance that that evolution is a theory that has never been proven, one way or the other (forgetting that, of course, intelligent design can easily be labeled packaged pretty much the same way). Not only does such a stance laugh in the face of the doctrine of [the] Separation of Church and State, but as a lawyer, her stance puts her in a position of promoting her religious beliefs over a clear legal obligation to uphold a Constitutional principle…the same Constitution she professes to defend.

On the economy, Bachmann’s hard right-wing views find her criticizing even her own fellow Republican Party members—far beyond what one could consider campaign politics. In 2003 as a state senator, she disparaged an economic initiative of fellow Republican 2012 presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, comparing his administration’s “tax Free Zones” meant to spur economic growth to Marxist principles.
In her public appearances, she portrays herself as being rabidly against tax increases of any kind (although in 2005, she opposed Minnesota Governor Pawlenty’s proposal for a state surcharge of 75 cents per pack on the wholesale cost of cigarettes, calling it a “tax increase.” She later reversed her position and voted in favor of the cigarette surcharge). She is against minimum wage increases, and in favor of increases in exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas domestically. She is also in favor of pursing alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar (although it is unknown if she would support government economic subsidies for the latter…my guess is no).
She has called for phasing out both Social Security and Medicare, expressing that “we have to do is wean everybody else off” (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-wean-everybody-off-social-security-and-medicare.php).
On social issues, Bachmann is consistent in her hard right-wing. Bachmann supports both a federal and state Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage (admittedly, marriage should be recognized as a union only between a woman and a man, but based on reasons of common sense stated in part 2 of this posting and not via legal codification).
She is against abortion, except in the cases of rape or incest.
She has vehemently attacked the Obama Administration-sponsored Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/health care reform bill, calling it “unconstitutional” (although it’s a certainty that most people who go without or cannot afford health care coverage would not agree that their Constitutional “rights” are of more paramount importance than their ability to receive health care). She has outlined her own ideas for changing the health care system, including: enabling consumers to purchase insurance across state lines; increasing the use of health savings accounts; and allow everyone to “take full deductibility of all medical expenses,” including insurance premiums; and tort reform.
On climate control, Bachmann has called global warming, a "hoax," saying that carbon dioxide is "not harmful" because it is a naturally occurring by-product of the life-cycle on earth. Personally, I have always wanted to know how those doubting the empirical evidence of global warming and climate change can reconcile their belief in an all-powerful invisible God whom they can't perceive by way of the senses, but deny what's going on right in front of their eyes (Read/Listen here for example).
On allowing would-be insurance buyers to purchase across state lines, one has to wonder how this would truly far this would to lower costs for the consumer. Increasing savings accounts sounds like a good idea on the surface, but is really a non-factor considering most service-sector jobs barely pay enough for a subsistence living, yet alone allowing for affording a luxury like health insurance; many consumers still struggle to afford even the deductibles and with more. And with more state governments demanding that their public employees contribute more to their benefits package, savings accounts just aren’t a practical solution for many. However, tort reform and deductibility of medical expense/premiums are viable solutions. Obviously, she is of the mindset that market-based solutions for socioeconomic problems are the only solutions (or the only ones which should be offered in a market-based economy), which is surprising for someone with her education background (she possess a Masters in Laws). But outside of these traditionally conservative options—by addressing costs rather than universal access—with regards to health care, she has not offered anything novel (or even substantive) in the way of a substitute beyond the rhetoric the current option’s unconstitutionality, and its effect of being a “job killer.”
Bachmann has also called for the abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, created under the late Republican President Richard Nixon, also calling it a “job killer” (apparently, labeling policies which don’t agree with her excessively conservative views “job killers” is enough to sway segments of the voting electorate who are susceptible to such manipulations of ideology).
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
A lawyer by profession, Bachmann is quite an elegant and polished speaker. She knows how best to persuade a group of people trying decide for themselves what is right. But most of America’s voting electorate lack the time (or patience) to look into the substance of issues for themselves, and shrewd politicians know this. They are able to take advantage of our propensity to listen to what others have to say on a particular issue, rather than self-research. And if the message is elegant and persuasive enough—fact checking and intentional distortions notwithstanding—expect even the most marginal candidate for office to have a level of legitimacy.
Although clearly competent, her views on how best to govern the country simply do not have the best interests of all Americans at heart. In fact, her view of America seems to reflect the views of a select few whose social, economic, and ideological interests would benefit. And although this is not the case with Obama’s Administration, it appears that at least his attempts to craft policies which the majority can benefit from are more in line with the country’s promise.

Note: Beyond The Political Spectrum will continue throughout the 2012 presidential campaign to look at other contenders for both the Democratic and Republican nominations

Read More