Liberals Suck at Politics

I attended an emergency community meeting the other night sponsored by the AFL-CIO and I came away with one giant take-a-way:  Liberals/progressives suck at politics.  I've actually known this for a while, but it was reinforced by some of the denial that I witnessed.  With the election of Trump, I think it's critical that liberals understand some things.

1. Don't care what the opposition thinks.  There is value in listening to other perspectives and understanding other points of view.  That being said, energy is much better spent trying to get non/low propensity voters to show up to the polls than to persuade conservatives to change their minds.  Are you really going to convince someone who completely disregards the scientific community and thinks climate change is a hoax that climate change is real?  No.  Are you going to persuade someone who thinks that black people have major advantages over white people that racism exists?  Not likely.  Are you going to sway someone who thinks that there is no difference between the two parties that Social Security and Medicare are more likely to be cut if they elect a Republican?  Maybe.
2. Understand the opposition.  If I had to choose Obama's biggest failing as a President, it would be not understanding conservatives.  I think that Obama thinks, that all conservatives are like the ones he met at Harvard (think David Brooks).  They're not. Newsflash:  People who allow your citizenship to become a defining issue for the first part of your presidency are not operating in good faith.  People who impeach a president over lying about a blowjob are not operating in good faith.  People who hold the economy hostage by credibly threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, are not operating in good faith.  People who refuse to even hold hearings for your SCOTUS nominee are not operating in good faith.
3. Emphasize the stakes.  You know what I didn't hear from the Clinton campaign?  I didn't hear about the Supreme Court.  I didn't hear about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I didn't hear about climate change.  I didn't hear about college tuition.  I didn't hear about building infrastructure.  Clinton had policies to improve these things, but they rarely if ever came up. Not in her ads, not in the debates.  The only things I heard were "Trump is a monster" (true) and "Go to HillaryClinton.com" which is the single worst phrase a candidate can utter.
4. Bipartisanship is a means not an end.  Working with the other side is fine if it aimed at achieving a greater good even though you don't get everything you want, but that is never where you should begin the conversation.  Working with the other side is bad if it ends with overly complicated policies that barely address the problem and make it easy for conservatives to label government ineffective.   Too often I see Democrats beginning from a negotiated position before negotiations have even started.  Set high goals and aim for them to be implemented broadly (like Social Security), that way if they're repealed they fuck over a much larger chunk of the population.
5. Politics happens more than once every four years.  Generally speaking, if Democrats show up to the polls, they win.  The problem is, they only show up occasionally and usually only for a presidential election.  Republicans show up to nearly every election like clockwork and that is why they control the majority of statehouses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and the Supreme Court.  Democrats didn't even show up in high numbers in the primary where there was the possibility for real divergence from the party elite.  As brilliant film director and sexual predator, Woody Allen said, "80% of life is showing up".
6.  You don't need to like the politicians you elect.  I very seldom vote for someone I like as a human or don't have some serious disagreements with.  You have to be a little off to run for office, so don't expect these people to be perfect.  At the end of the day, you're electing someone to do a job.  Politicians are vehicles for change, not the catalyst.  It's crazy to place a whole lot of trust in politicians, so regard all of them with skepticism.
7. Voting is a collective act, not personal expression, or a consumer choice.  Refer back to rule six.  If voting was supposed to be a form of self-expression, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anonymous.  Voting is a collective action to assign power.  Nothing more, nothing less.
8. Expect them to cheat.  People cheating to gain power?  Next thing you'll tell me is people lie on their resumes.  Seriously, they cheat because they know the electorate as a whole is not on their side.  What's the best way to respond?  Get more people to vote.
9. Politics is about power.  This is rule number one of political science, but it seems completely lost on many people.  Ultimately, power is being assigned and divided up.  The only difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms of government is how power is assigned.  If you want to understand politics don't watch The West Wing, watch Game of Thrones.

WTF is a "Moderate" Anyway?

From time to time I hear people pining for reasonable "moderates", centrists, and bi-partisans to come together and solve the problems that our political parties won't.  These arguments are non-sensical, self-congratulatory, completely devoid of the political system we operate in, and in many ways...extreme.  There are many problems with the desire for "moderates", among them...

Moderates aren't that moderate

As mentioned in this piece by Ezra Klein, the policies moderates actually believe in aren't that moderate.  It's possible to be a "moderate" who believes in gay rights, supports internment camps for Muslims, wants universal health care, and wants to eliminate the IRS.  None of those policy positions are moderate, but by virtue of statistics, those voters would be considered moderates.

Even insofar as "moderates" exist in American politics, their positions are highly ideological, just not particularly partisan.  For example, there is a certain segment of both parties that embraces things like free-trade, education reform, entitlement reform, austerity, and exploitive immigration.  These are positions that are extremely neoliberal, corporatist, in many cases a divergence from the status quo, and not at all in the interest of most of the American people, but in the context of American politics "moderate".

It's Tax Time! (FY15 Re-Release with More Forms)

 

It's time to do your civic duty and pay your taxes or rather for most of us, fill out a form to verify what the government already knows. It really is silly when you think about it, the IRS actually does your taxes exactly like you and if you make a mistake, they will correct it.  Hell, they'll even correct it if you made a mistake in their favor and then refund you for the correct amount.  So this begs the question, why do we need to file a return at all?  Can't they just send us what they think our income was and ask us to either verify it or dispute the amount?  Why all the extra confusing paperwork?  I don't know with certainty, but I would venture to guess that it has a lot to do with why our government often does silly nonsensical things: lobbyists.  Intuit Inc., the company that brings us TurboTax, ranks 702 of 16,793 in terms of campaign contributions according to Opensecrets.org.  Tax preparers like H&R Block also contribute substantial donations.

Realism for One

One of the things that irritates me the most about the upcoming election is that the media's line of questioning only seems to treat one candidate's policy proposals as though they're actually serious. Bernie Sanders is routinely questioned as though his proposals are crazy and unrealistic despite the fact that he's basically advocating for what every other western democracy already has.  I have no problem with asking Sanders tough questions like how he plans to pay for universal education or how he would get massive overhaul of the health care system through congress.  What I do have a problem with, is why other candidates are not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of "reasonable" policies that under the current congress, where Obama could nominate Robert Bork and still not get him through confirmation in the Senate, would stand absolutely no chance of passing.  Clinton routinely talks about how she "would get stuff done" despite not offering any actual evidence of it.  The only things I see Clinton actually able to do given the current political climate, is work together with the Republicans to get bad free-trade deals and deeper involvement in wars we can't possibly win.

I don't hear how Clinton would pay for her policies.  Sanders at least has the decency to tell us that his "free stuff" would result in higher taxes and not just for the super-rich.  I never hear Clinton questioned on whether her "reasonable" and "technocratic" health care or education policies would create a massive amount of paperwork and bureaucracy for ordinary citizens to navigate.  I haven't heard anything about how these means-tested policies would be extraordinarily easy for congress to remove precisely because they don't apply to everyone.

Podcast 1-31-2016: Pre-Iowa

On this episode, Vinny and I ramble on about the Sanders candidacy, luke-warm progressives, Vermont gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne, hot Supreme Court action, our Iowa predictions, and more.

Iowa Caucus predictions:

VM: 

Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Trump 
2. Rubio 
3. Cruz 

AM:
Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Cruz 
2. Trump 
3. Rubio 

Notes:
When speaking of the overthrow of Mossadegh, I misspoke and said the "Iraqi army" when I should have said "Iranian".
Allen Dulles' law firm was "Sullivan and Cromwell" not "Simon and Cromwell"
"The Devil's Chessboard" http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520372&sr=1-1&keywords=the+devils+chessboard
"All the Shah's Men" http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520442&sr=1-2&keywords=all+the+shah%27s+men
"The Siege of Mecca" http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520556&sr=1-1&keywords=the+siege+of+mecca
"The Seven US Ambassadors Killed in the Line of Duty"
Are agency fees for unions at public sector jobs a violation of free speech protections? http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/supreme-court-tackles-key-public-union-case-on-monday/ Frederichs v. CTA.
History of first amendment protections for public employees: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.pdf
Candidacy filings for president http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2pty.shtml
Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger Tim Canova https://timcanova.com/

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

The Art of the Grift

Wikimedia Commons

Something amazing is happening in this Republican presidential primary, it is my belief that many of the candidates including the two front-runners have no intention of ever being President or holding any kind of public office.  These candidates are after something far more rewarding, profitable, and easier...the grift.

The most obvious example of these grifters is Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee is running for president you say?  I can forgive you if you forgot, but yeah, I mean he is pretending to anyway.  Huckabee hasn't held political office since 2007.  He ran for President in 2008, which got him a nice seven years of a television show on Fox, numerous media appearances, book deals, speaking tours, and supplement sales.  Since 2014, Huckabee has made just short of 1 million dollars in speaking fees alone.  His show on Fox News gave him a reported annual salary of $500,000, and has used his fame and weight loss story to hawk "natural" diabetes supplements.  Huckabee gave up his show to "pursue" the presidency but rest assured he'll have a job at Fox News when it's all said and done.

Today in Moronic Memes #3

 

The warmongers are all a fluster, as they won't get a chance (for at least today) to send someone else to fight an expensive and dangerous war on their behalf.  So now they must criticize substantive diplomacy because Iran=bad.  Ironically, the neo-conservative hawk's disdain for this deal is shared by the very people they are supposedly worried about:  The Mullahs in Iran.  They are kindred spirits of sorts, after-all if you've called someone evil for 36 years; it's awful hard politically to negotiate with them.  

De-fund the D.E.A.

Hey fiscal conservatives, are you looking for a government agency to de-fund?  Why don't you start with the Drug Enforcement Administration?  It seems like the DEA would fit the very definition of a useless government agency.  Even assuming we need law enforcement to enforce criminal drug laws (I'm not particularly convinced of this), why do we need a unique agency to investigate this particular brand of crime?  Isn't the FBI capable of investigating drug crimes?  They can't walk into any bar in America and find some coke?  If they can't, then they're too stupid to be cops in the first place.

It's Tax Time!

 

It's time to do your civic duty and pay your taxes or rather for most of us, fill out a form to verify what the government already knows. It really is silly when you think about it, the IRS actually does your taxes exactly like you and if you make a mistake, they will correct it.  Hell, they'll even correct it if you made a mistake in their favor and then refund you for the correct amount.  So this begs the question, why do we need to file a return at all?  Can't they just send us what they think our income was and ask us to either verify it or dispute the amount?  Why all the extra confusing paperwork?  I don't know with certainty, but I would venture to guess that it has a lot to do with why our government often does silly nonsensical things: lobbyists.  Intuit Inc., the company that brings us TurboTax, ranks 702 of 16,793 in terms on campaign contributions according to Opensecrets.org.  Tax preparers like H&R Block also contribute substantial donations.

And the Plutocrats Continue to Grasp at Staws...

Against my better judgement I continue to scour through the Yahoo homepage news-feed or as I like to call it "bobbing for turds".  This week's search led me to an article titled "Why Elizabeth Warren Is a Threat to America’s Growth" by Liz Peek at the Financial Times.  Peek's poorly written and scatterbrained editorial focuses on Elizabeth Warren and why she believes that Warren is destroying the American economy particularly entrepreneurship.

If Your Forbes Editorial is Based on Kelso, You May Want to Rethink Your Career

I've noticed that over the past two years or so, the content of Yahoo's homepage has deteriorated rapidly, but as I am a creature of habit and a glutton for punishment, I continue to check it daily.  In my daily reading, I came across an editorial written by University of Georgia economist and Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman called "When Did We Get Too Proud For Entry-level Jobs?"  Now admittedly, I read that title and was skeptical, but I decided to hear him out and keep an open mind.  Surely this economics professor would back up assertions with some hard data and force me to reevaluate my own biases.  In retrospect, I have far too much faith in the academic diligence of economists.

Why Not Just Buy All the Opium?

Opium Poppies-Source: Wikimedia Commons

Over the past decade, the United States has spent $7 billion dollars trying to eradicate opium in Afghanistan (Security Inspector General).  The result of this policy has been an all-time high in opium poppy production.  This crop has an annual "farm gate" value of $.85 billion dollars (Al-Jazeera) and contributes to the employment of about 3.3 million Afghans (Guardian) out of a total workforce of about 7.7 million (CIA World Factbook).  Given the relative expense and ineffectiveness of the current policy of interdiction and eradication, why not just buy the opium?