I'll admit I stole the title of this post from John Stewart's book "America: a Guide to Democracy Inaction." When I first got that book for Christmas years ago and read it I was amused, but lacked some of the knowledge and understanding I have now. Sad though it is, the book is aptly titled. We have reached a point where democracy inaction is the norm.
I've spent plenty of time lambasting Republicans for their failure to do anything about the impending fiscal cliff, and rightfully so. The party's woeful lack of leadership and ideas is an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America, but Republicans are not the only group in need of some public shaming. Credit (or in this case scorn) must be given when credit is due, and in this instance Democrats are deserving of scorn as well.
It's true that Republicans have rejected offers that are not only fair, but even favorable to their positions because they are unwilling to compromise even a little bit, but given their past history that's unsurprising. If Republicans don't want to contribute to the nation's future - and they've shown they don't have any interest in that - I still expect Democrats to propose ideas. Sadly the Democratic party, while hugely preferable to the alternative is good in a comparative sense, acceptable in an absolute one. The current haranguing over missing a self-imposed deadline (more on that in a moment) has proven to be a real facade for the American people. While we rightfully blame Republicans for their intransigence and compete lack of ideas, their embarrassing collapse the week before the holidays left an opening that Democrats are either unwilling or unable to exploit. It doesn't matter whether or not they have no ideas or are unwilling to bring them to the table, in the last week, Democrats have shown they are poor leaders as well. In the eight days since House Republicans could not or would not pass their own plan we have gotten...eight days closer to missing a self-imposed deadline. Democrats have been absent. Literally. They went home for the holidays. Gifted both a political and policy win by the disaster that is the Republican party, Democrats have so far given us nothing.
And so we are now three days away from missing a self-imposed deadline that would perhaps lead us into another recession, at the very least scare markets and be a disastrous few days for people's portfolios. And again, all of this is self-imposed. I find myself wondering what the leaders and people of other countries think to themselves - especially those who live in countries suffering from the global economic downturn - when they see that the United States of America, the world's supposed leader, has created a scenario in which we may send ourselves into recession. Democracy inaction indeed. Compromise has become the antithesis of success in the political mind and in political discourse, just not in reality. So we continue to elect those who promise to do nothing useful if it compromises their "values." Compromise, of course, is not one of compromisable values.
Our nation needs fixing, and we need it quickly. In a matter of days we will face tax hikes and spending cuts that we imposed on ourselves to ensure that we got a deal done to avoid those tax hikes and spending cuts. This is the best we can do? The first step in fixing America is fixing our political system. I don't know what that is going to take short of voting the entire lot of politicians out of office and starting from scratch. Democracy inaction has gotten to be both an embarrassment and a threat to the future of our country.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Back to Taxes
Now over a week removed from the tragedy in Connecticut, it appears as though the debate over gun control will have to wait until January at which point President Obama has said he will address it again. I hope this is the case as just yesterday another three innocent people were shot dead in a rampage in Pennsylvania. Of course in between now and then who knows how many individuals have been murdered or committed suicide using guns. The tragedies keep piling up.
But since the gun debate is going to be on hold for the time being and because I am not confident that America is willing to take action steps to address the issue, let us now return to the immediacy of the fiscal cliff, the cuts and tax hikes slated to begin going into effect on January 1, 2013. Even as business leaders and executives were dropping their opposition to tax increases for the wealthy, presumably because they understand the damaging effects of spending cuts, House Republicans were steadfast in their refusal to support higher taxes for anyone, even the people who support higher taxes for themselves. Never was this more evident than on Thursday night when House Republicans refused to support their own leader's plan to raise taxes for only those making over a million dollars annually as a stopgap measure. The bill - a joke anyhow - would have at least put the political pressure on Democrats to do something, but alas the Republican Party is in such disarray that it can't even agree to put pressure on Democrats. It is a truly laughable and embarrassing situation.
The Republicans failure to show any kind of leadership or present any kind of real ideas on taxes and spending opens the door for Democrats to win the day politically and introduce policy that will actually benefit the country. If Democrats can come together quickly and put together a package that passes through the Senate with bipartisan support it could go to the House and presumably pass there with bipartisan support as well. Of course, it is a leap of faith to assume that there are enough Republicans willing to take positive action steps for this to be reality, but at the very least party leaders have to realize that the party is sunk if they can't do anything about the fiscal cliff. Last month's electoral drubbing and the poll data showing that overwhelming numbers of Americans would blame Republicans for falling over the fiscal cliff - and rightfully so - has to terrify party leaders.
As much as I feel gleeful thinking about the far right wing of the Republican Party working themselves out of jobs, I prefer a healthy economy, which means we need sound policy soon. The American people are on board and America's business leaders are on board. In fact everyone is on board except a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives, the place were America's future goes to die. Democrats in the Senate should work with the President and those Republican Senators who are willing to compromise on taxes and spending to craft legislation that will increase revenue by raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals, but also find meaningful spending cuts, especially from the military and entitlement programs. This sounds daunting, but it's not. Many of the tax increases and spending cuts have already been identified in the multiple "negotiations" between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. All that needs to be done is crafting the legislation and counting the votes. Can a bill get enough support - 60 votes - to overcome a filibuster and pass the Senate? I think it can. There are sensible Republican Senators, more than can be said for their House colleagues. A bipartisan bill that still reflects Democratic priorities could pass the Senate and perhaps the House. A best case scenario is that this results in actual policy that negates the fiscal cliff and places us on sound fiscal footing so that the economy can prosper. A worst case scenario is that House Republicans reject any bipartisan Senate bill further proving that they live in a fantasy world devoid of intellect and ideas, thus hampering their ability to rebound politically in the future.
America needs action and President Obama and the Democrats have been handed an opportunity to forge needed legislation. The onus is now on them to take the initiative and move forward with a bill that will help put us soundly and irrevocably on the path towards economic recovery. Republican intransigence and disarray has reached a nadir that has presented an opening, Democrats must seize it.
But since the gun debate is going to be on hold for the time being and because I am not confident that America is willing to take action steps to address the issue, let us now return to the immediacy of the fiscal cliff, the cuts and tax hikes slated to begin going into effect on January 1, 2013. Even as business leaders and executives were dropping their opposition to tax increases for the wealthy, presumably because they understand the damaging effects of spending cuts, House Republicans were steadfast in their refusal to support higher taxes for anyone, even the people who support higher taxes for themselves. Never was this more evident than on Thursday night when House Republicans refused to support their own leader's plan to raise taxes for only those making over a million dollars annually as a stopgap measure. The bill - a joke anyhow - would have at least put the political pressure on Democrats to do something, but alas the Republican Party is in such disarray that it can't even agree to put pressure on Democrats. It is a truly laughable and embarrassing situation.
The Republicans failure to show any kind of leadership or present any kind of real ideas on taxes and spending opens the door for Democrats to win the day politically and introduce policy that will actually benefit the country. If Democrats can come together quickly and put together a package that passes through the Senate with bipartisan support it could go to the House and presumably pass there with bipartisan support as well. Of course, it is a leap of faith to assume that there are enough Republicans willing to take positive action steps for this to be reality, but at the very least party leaders have to realize that the party is sunk if they can't do anything about the fiscal cliff. Last month's electoral drubbing and the poll data showing that overwhelming numbers of Americans would blame Republicans for falling over the fiscal cliff - and rightfully so - has to terrify party leaders.
As much as I feel gleeful thinking about the far right wing of the Republican Party working themselves out of jobs, I prefer a healthy economy, which means we need sound policy soon. The American people are on board and America's business leaders are on board. In fact everyone is on board except a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives, the place were America's future goes to die. Democrats in the Senate should work with the President and those Republican Senators who are willing to compromise on taxes and spending to craft legislation that will increase revenue by raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals, but also find meaningful spending cuts, especially from the military and entitlement programs. This sounds daunting, but it's not. Many of the tax increases and spending cuts have already been identified in the multiple "negotiations" between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. All that needs to be done is crafting the legislation and counting the votes. Can a bill get enough support - 60 votes - to overcome a filibuster and pass the Senate? I think it can. There are sensible Republican Senators, more than can be said for their House colleagues. A bipartisan bill that still reflects Democratic priorities could pass the Senate and perhaps the House. A best case scenario is that this results in actual policy that negates the fiscal cliff and places us on sound fiscal footing so that the economy can prosper. A worst case scenario is that House Republicans reject any bipartisan Senate bill further proving that they live in a fantasy world devoid of intellect and ideas, thus hampering their ability to rebound politically in the future.
America needs action and President Obama and the Democrats have been handed an opportunity to forge needed legislation. The onus is now on them to take the initiative and move forward with a bill that will help put us soundly and irrevocably on the path towards economic recovery. Republican intransigence and disarray has reached a nadir that has presented an opening, Democrats must seize it.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
It's a Gun Problem
I'm going to start this post by acknowledging the obvious, America will not be banning guns any time in the foreseeable future, perhaps not ever. Let me also admit that I like guns. I think they are fun. I have fired guns plenty of times, and I understand why people like them.
Now let's move on to why we must have meaningful gun control in America, and why Friday's tragedy was at its core, a gun issue.
For starters, it is worth pointing out that The shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was by no means an isolated incident, it has happened time and again in our country over the years. It is also worth pointing out that despite all of the public massacres that attract media coverage, most gun deaths in America go unnoticed and unacknowledged. No one reports on the suicides that add up to thousands of individual tragedies, and no one cares about gun violence that claims the lives of thousand more poor minorities. As awful as Friday's massacre was, those type of events represent but a fraction of the gun deaths in America each year.
Over the past few days I've engaged in numerous debates with a variety of people about the role of guns in America, and there is no denying that boiling this down to a simple gun vs. anti-gun argument does not adequately address the complexity of the issues surrounding our gun-related murder rate. There are a variety of factors at play, all of which must be addressed if we are to prevent more tragedies.
But let's not kid ourselves, the underlying issue is guns. We can start by just examining murder statistics. Americans die from gun violence in alarming numbers. We could significantly reduce, though not eliminate, these unnecessary deaths by implementing meaningful gun reform. But we most also rid ourselves of the fallacy that having guns makes us safer. That's actually not true either. In fact owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one, whether that death is a suicide or simply an accident. So owning guns don't make us safer, they put us in more danger. It is a statistical fact that guns make our country a more dangerous, rather than a less dangerous place.
In the conversations I've had recently, many people have pointed to things other than guns as being THE issue: mental illness; crime; drugs; etc. It is again worth mentioning that all of these factors play a role, but we can see how the availability of guns, especially of the variety that only America allows, plays an important role.
For starters we must admit that while mental illness is not exclusive to America, gun rampages by mentally ill individuals largely is a uniquely American issue. Not entirely, but largely. Off the top of my head I can think of one example of this in other countries, the shooting in Norway that claimed 81 lives. Of course there are others, but here in America we have had two in a week, one at a mall in Oregon and one at a school in Connecticut. These kinds of things happen all the time here because we are the only country that makes guns so readily available that anyone can get them. Should we do better destigmatizing and addressing mental health issues? Absolutely, and that will probably help, but we can also limit access to guns.
What about suicide rates? Obviously if someone is determined to kill themselves they will find a way to do it even without a gun, but we make it harder to do this in other manners, such as erecting barriers or fences around bridges, or by restricting access to many drugs or chemicals that may be used for poison. Would limiting access to guns result in a decline in the suicide rate? Perhaps, but I think it's undeniable that by making guns easily accessible we do nothing to deter individuals from using them to end their own lives.
Finally, we should consider the deaths that are by-products of crime and poverty. There are again a variety of factors at play here, but an article in the Economist details a few of the difference from gang and drug related violence in Britain as contrasted with America. In that country, far fewer criminals wield guns and thus there are far fewer gun deaths. There are still problems with drugs and crime, but less violent crime due to less guns.
I recently finished reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Among the many issues that he discussed as contributing factors to a society's potential collapse is a refusal to change values when they have lost their utility. While I don't think that guns have lost all utility, and I certainly don't think that our love of guns has put us on a path towards a societal collapse, I absolutely think that we need to reevaluate our thinking on guns. If we read the 2nd Amendment literally, the right to bear arms does not apply to private citizens, but even if we believe that it does, are we really hoarding weapons as a deterrent to government tyranny? I find that argument somewhat insulting to people who actually suffer under the yoke of dictatorships and also laughable as a real solution to the imaginary threat of a hostile government intent on trampling our rights. Assault rifles are deadly when fired at crowds of innocent people, but are they really going to stop military tanks? This is nothing short of ludicrous. The American public is protected now by the American military, there is no need for militias either as means of protecting our well-being or as a deterrent towards a perceived hostile government. What we have instead is an over-abundance of deadly weapons that are turned on our own citizens. Innocent Americans are dying, and it is a gun problem.
I don't long for an America without guns. I think that is unrealistic and unfeasible. I do long for an America that recognizes it's addictions to guns is dangerous and silly. I do want us to examine our gun culture and realize that guns have lost a lot of utility in today's world and that we would be safer if we took steps to regulate and restrict them as we do with other dangerous things. We are the only developed country in the world that has problems with gun crimes, and it can be traced to just that - guns. Other countries struggle with drug issues, gang issues, mental illness and whatever other factors play into violent crime, but they don't have a problem with guns and so their citizens do not suffer, die, and mourn like we do in America. It's a real problem, it's a gun problem, and we need to address it.
Now let's move on to why we must have meaningful gun control in America, and why Friday's tragedy was at its core, a gun issue.
For starters, it is worth pointing out that The shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was by no means an isolated incident, it has happened time and again in our country over the years. It is also worth pointing out that despite all of the public massacres that attract media coverage, most gun deaths in America go unnoticed and unacknowledged. No one reports on the suicides that add up to thousands of individual tragedies, and no one cares about gun violence that claims the lives of thousand more poor minorities. As awful as Friday's massacre was, those type of events represent but a fraction of the gun deaths in America each year.
Over the past few days I've engaged in numerous debates with a variety of people about the role of guns in America, and there is no denying that boiling this down to a simple gun vs. anti-gun argument does not adequately address the complexity of the issues surrounding our gun-related murder rate. There are a variety of factors at play, all of which must be addressed if we are to prevent more tragedies.
But let's not kid ourselves, the underlying issue is guns. We can start by just examining murder statistics. Americans die from gun violence in alarming numbers. We could significantly reduce, though not eliminate, these unnecessary deaths by implementing meaningful gun reform. But we most also rid ourselves of the fallacy that having guns makes us safer. That's actually not true either. In fact owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one, whether that death is a suicide or simply an accident. So owning guns don't make us safer, they put us in more danger. It is a statistical fact that guns make our country a more dangerous, rather than a less dangerous place.
In the conversations I've had recently, many people have pointed to things other than guns as being THE issue: mental illness; crime; drugs; etc. It is again worth mentioning that all of these factors play a role, but we can see how the availability of guns, especially of the variety that only America allows, plays an important role.
For starters we must admit that while mental illness is not exclusive to America, gun rampages by mentally ill individuals largely is a uniquely American issue. Not entirely, but largely. Off the top of my head I can think of one example of this in other countries, the shooting in Norway that claimed 81 lives. Of course there are others, but here in America we have had two in a week, one at a mall in Oregon and one at a school in Connecticut. These kinds of things happen all the time here because we are the only country that makes guns so readily available that anyone can get them. Should we do better destigmatizing and addressing mental health issues? Absolutely, and that will probably help, but we can also limit access to guns.
What about suicide rates? Obviously if someone is determined to kill themselves they will find a way to do it even without a gun, but we make it harder to do this in other manners, such as erecting barriers or fences around bridges, or by restricting access to many drugs or chemicals that may be used for poison. Would limiting access to guns result in a decline in the suicide rate? Perhaps, but I think it's undeniable that by making guns easily accessible we do nothing to deter individuals from using them to end their own lives.
Finally, we should consider the deaths that are by-products of crime and poverty. There are again a variety of factors at play here, but an article in the Economist details a few of the difference from gang and drug related violence in Britain as contrasted with America. In that country, far fewer criminals wield guns and thus there are far fewer gun deaths. There are still problems with drugs and crime, but less violent crime due to less guns.
I recently finished reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Among the many issues that he discussed as contributing factors to a society's potential collapse is a refusal to change values when they have lost their utility. While I don't think that guns have lost all utility, and I certainly don't think that our love of guns has put us on a path towards a societal collapse, I absolutely think that we need to reevaluate our thinking on guns. If we read the 2nd Amendment literally, the right to bear arms does not apply to private citizens, but even if we believe that it does, are we really hoarding weapons as a deterrent to government tyranny? I find that argument somewhat insulting to people who actually suffer under the yoke of dictatorships and also laughable as a real solution to the imaginary threat of a hostile government intent on trampling our rights. Assault rifles are deadly when fired at crowds of innocent people, but are they really going to stop military tanks? This is nothing short of ludicrous. The American public is protected now by the American military, there is no need for militias either as means of protecting our well-being or as a deterrent towards a perceived hostile government. What we have instead is an over-abundance of deadly weapons that are turned on our own citizens. Innocent Americans are dying, and it is a gun problem.
I don't long for an America without guns. I think that is unrealistic and unfeasible. I do long for an America that recognizes it's addictions to guns is dangerous and silly. I do want us to examine our gun culture and realize that guns have lost a lot of utility in today's world and that we would be safer if we took steps to regulate and restrict them as we do with other dangerous things. We are the only developed country in the world that has problems with gun crimes, and it can be traced to just that - guns. Other countries struggle with drug issues, gang issues, mental illness and whatever other factors play into violent crime, but they don't have a problem with guns and so their citizens do not suffer, die, and mourn like we do in America. It's a real problem, it's a gun problem, and we need to address it.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
What is a Right?
There are no words to describe Friday's tragedy in Connecticut. I cannot say anything that will ease the pain or make things right. I can only offer condolences and prayers to those affected.
What happened was most likely the act of a mentally sick individual who probably needed support he was not getting. In the coming days and weeks we will undoubtedly learn more about the killer, but will we have the fortitude to tackle the underlying issue behind this and similar tragedies or will we sit by passively until another shooting unfolds?
That underlying issue of course is our country's embarrassing obsession with guns, a "right" protected by the second amendment - an antiquated and dangerous sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There's a silly idea if I've ever seen one. Can someone show me the closest well regulated militia? Can someone show me a single well regulated militia? Am I missing something or are these well regulated militias out there putting their lives on the line for our country everyday? I've written before about the stupidity that is Constitution worship, but this tragedy highlights - again sadly - the need for serious changes to our Constitution. I find guns fun, I grew up in Mississippi and I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was fun to shoot a gun, but let's get real with this. We're handing out guns like they're lollipops at the bank, and we're giving out the biggest and baddest lollipops available to whoever wants one. It's asinine in the extreme and people are dying because of it.
It's worth reflecting on what exactly a right is. Rights are meant to protect people, to ensure our safety and our freedom. Many rights do that. We are lucky to live in a country that values our rights and freedoms, but when those rights become destructive then we must question them. The second amendment has no place in our country. Show me that well regulated militia and I'll show you a group of people entitled to their automatic weapons. Owning guns may be a "right," but that reflects our national collective refusal to acknowledge its stupidity. It may be a right, but it should not be. We allow individuals to buy and keep assault weapons. Think about that, assault weapons. It's nothing short of a national embarrassment and innocent people die as a result. When was the last time you read a story about the heroic gun-wielding private citizen who used their firearm to stop a deadly assault? Can someone send me the link to that news story? If a right is meant to protect our freedom and safety then why do we continue to cling to a fake one that costs literally thousands of innocent Americans their lives every year. Do we really think the country will be better off as an armed camp of paranoids who walk around hand on hip eying everyone suspiciously? Shoot first, ask questions later, right? In what world does this make sense? It's a flimsy argument before we examine the data, and once we see the data we realize how truly ludicrous and farcical it is to believe that we are safer if we have guns. I mean it's just simply not true. That's all there is to say.
It's time to reevaluate our "rights" and acknowledge that some of them are actually wrong. Owning weapons should not be a right, and while I acknowledge that we will never rid America of guns, we need to stop celebrating a culture of death. This is not the wild wild west. There are no outlaws or Apaches or grizzly bears lurking beyond the unconquered frontier waiting to be vanquished by the heroic pioneers of yesteryear. We seem to still think we need guns for those kinds of things, but sadly instead we get countless innocent victims. My prayers are with those affected by yesterday's tragedy and for all those who will suffer in the future if we cannot accept the error of our thinking.
What happened was most likely the act of a mentally sick individual who probably needed support he was not getting. In the coming days and weeks we will undoubtedly learn more about the killer, but will we have the fortitude to tackle the underlying issue behind this and similar tragedies or will we sit by passively until another shooting unfolds?
That underlying issue of course is our country's embarrassing obsession with guns, a "right" protected by the second amendment - an antiquated and dangerous sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There's a silly idea if I've ever seen one. Can someone show me the closest well regulated militia? Can someone show me a single well regulated militia? Am I missing something or are these well regulated militias out there putting their lives on the line for our country everyday? I've written before about the stupidity that is Constitution worship, but this tragedy highlights - again sadly - the need for serious changes to our Constitution. I find guns fun, I grew up in Mississippi and I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was fun to shoot a gun, but let's get real with this. We're handing out guns like they're lollipops at the bank, and we're giving out the biggest and baddest lollipops available to whoever wants one. It's asinine in the extreme and people are dying because of it.
It's worth reflecting on what exactly a right is. Rights are meant to protect people, to ensure our safety and our freedom. Many rights do that. We are lucky to live in a country that values our rights and freedoms, but when those rights become destructive then we must question them. The second amendment has no place in our country. Show me that well regulated militia and I'll show you a group of people entitled to their automatic weapons. Owning guns may be a "right," but that reflects our national collective refusal to acknowledge its stupidity. It may be a right, but it should not be. We allow individuals to buy and keep assault weapons. Think about that, assault weapons. It's nothing short of a national embarrassment and innocent people die as a result. When was the last time you read a story about the heroic gun-wielding private citizen who used their firearm to stop a deadly assault? Can someone send me the link to that news story? If a right is meant to protect our freedom and safety then why do we continue to cling to a fake one that costs literally thousands of innocent Americans their lives every year. Do we really think the country will be better off as an armed camp of paranoids who walk around hand on hip eying everyone suspiciously? Shoot first, ask questions later, right? In what world does this make sense? It's a flimsy argument before we examine the data, and once we see the data we realize how truly ludicrous and farcical it is to believe that we are safer if we have guns. I mean it's just simply not true. That's all there is to say.
It's time to reevaluate our "rights" and acknowledge that some of them are actually wrong. Owning weapons should not be a right, and while I acknowledge that we will never rid America of guns, we need to stop celebrating a culture of death. This is not the wild wild west. There are no outlaws or Apaches or grizzly bears lurking beyond the unconquered frontier waiting to be vanquished by the heroic pioneers of yesteryear. We seem to still think we need guns for those kinds of things, but sadly instead we get countless innocent victims. My prayers are with those affected by yesterday's tragedy and for all those who will suffer in the future if we cannot accept the error of our thinking.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Premature New Republican
In the wake of last month's election trouncing many people, including me, have taken it upon themselves to analyze the tumultuous situation in which the Republican party finds itself. Have they lost the demographics war? Are they still viable politically? Can they come back?
In two posts since the election I have warned against a premature Republican death knell and lauded - or at least hoped for - a new kind of Republican. I'm not a doomsday prophet, and I want a resurgent and contributing Republican party, not one that fizzles into obscurity.
So while I remain optimistic that the Republican party can and will find itself, it's now time for me to come to grips with reality. The Republican party can change, and it must, and I believe it will, but it's going to be a slow, painful process. This was highlighted just this week by uncertainty among House Republicans about whether or not they will back a compromise on the deficit that a majority of Americans support.
House Republicans, sadly, do not worry about the majority of Americans. They, like many politicians, care more about their constituents, or rather, more about the people whose votes they need to keep their jobs. One would think that among those constituents it would be possible to find quite a view of those Americans who want compromise, but alas, due to gerrymandering, that isn't often the case. It's hard to criticize Republicans for gerrymandering without condemning Democrats for doing the same, but the state and local elections broke the Republicans' way in 2010 and so even though Democrats took over 50% of the national popular vote in House Elections, they control only 46% of the seats. So while they can't be blamed too much for gerrymandering, House Republicans can be blamed for setting their own job security over the good of the nation.
This isn't anything truly new, most recently Republicans were seen placing their dogma over the good of the nation, but many of them seem to be coming around on letting go of dogma and pursuing the pragmatic. But enough for a compromise? We'll have to wait and see. There are still plenty out there who shun compromise and solutions. Said Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, "I don't see any scenario where raising tax rates, in any combination of compromise, will solve our problem." Said the rest of the nation to Ted Poe, get it together, man.
Individual Republicans may feel comfortable in their gerrymandered districts for now, but those districts will be gerrymandered again in the future, and the majority of Americans know that a balancing the budget is going to take compromise and dialogue, not "holding the line," against the opposition. There was never any intellectual merit to that idea, and it failed as a political tool as well. Republicans lost seats on "holding the line." As more Americans come to see what many already know, even those gerrymandered districts won't seem as safe.
It's time for the Republican party to become a national party with positive ideas, not a group of deadbeats clinging to outdated dogma and horrifically antiquated views on social morality. Sitting in an ivory tower - or a hand-crafted Congressional District in Texas for that matter - doesn't make you right, and it doesn't allow you to hold the nation hostage so you can continue to pursue dogmatic purity. America needs fixing, and the American people spoke last month. Come on board, or eventually the American people will speak again and find someone who wants to make the nation better.
In two posts since the election I have warned against a premature Republican death knell and lauded - or at least hoped for - a new kind of Republican. I'm not a doomsday prophet, and I want a resurgent and contributing Republican party, not one that fizzles into obscurity.
So while I remain optimistic that the Republican party can and will find itself, it's now time for me to come to grips with reality. The Republican party can change, and it must, and I believe it will, but it's going to be a slow, painful process. This was highlighted just this week by uncertainty among House Republicans about whether or not they will back a compromise on the deficit that a majority of Americans support.
House Republicans, sadly, do not worry about the majority of Americans. They, like many politicians, care more about their constituents, or rather, more about the people whose votes they need to keep their jobs. One would think that among those constituents it would be possible to find quite a view of those Americans who want compromise, but alas, due to gerrymandering, that isn't often the case. It's hard to criticize Republicans for gerrymandering without condemning Democrats for doing the same, but the state and local elections broke the Republicans' way in 2010 and so even though Democrats took over 50% of the national popular vote in House Elections, they control only 46% of the seats. So while they can't be blamed too much for gerrymandering, House Republicans can be blamed for setting their own job security over the good of the nation.
This isn't anything truly new, most recently Republicans were seen placing their dogma over the good of the nation, but many of them seem to be coming around on letting go of dogma and pursuing the pragmatic. But enough for a compromise? We'll have to wait and see. There are still plenty out there who shun compromise and solutions. Said Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, "I don't see any scenario where raising tax rates, in any combination of compromise, will solve our problem." Said the rest of the nation to Ted Poe, get it together, man.
Individual Republicans may feel comfortable in their gerrymandered districts for now, but those districts will be gerrymandered again in the future, and the majority of Americans know that a balancing the budget is going to take compromise and dialogue, not "holding the line," against the opposition. There was never any intellectual merit to that idea, and it failed as a political tool as well. Republicans lost seats on "holding the line." As more Americans come to see what many already know, even those gerrymandered districts won't seem as safe.
It's time for the Republican party to become a national party with positive ideas, not a group of deadbeats clinging to outdated dogma and horrifically antiquated views on social morality. Sitting in an ivory tower - or a hand-crafted Congressional District in Texas for that matter - doesn't make you right, and it doesn't allow you to hold the nation hostage so you can continue to pursue dogmatic purity. America needs fixing, and the American people spoke last month. Come on board, or eventually the American people will speak again and find someone who wants to make the nation better.
Friday, December 7, 2012
The New Republican
Last month I blogged about the premature obituary being written for the Republican party. Sure all of their voters are old and white in a nation that is rapidly becoming less of each, but there is no need for Republicans to go quietly into the night. Well...actually there is a need for some Republicans to go quietly into the night, which is exactly what I blogged about, but it now seems as though I'm not the only one saying it.
In his op-ed yesterday, David Brooks, a man I cite frequently as one of my favorite Republicans, wrote about "The Republican Glasnost," lauding Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Paul Ryan for recent speeches they gave for the Jack Kemp Leadership Foundation Award. In their speeches Ryan and Rubio sought to distance themselves from the callousness that has become official party platform. In doing so they also distanced themselves somewhat from the stupidity, acknowledging for example that extreme poverty is both morally unacceptable and an economic drag. In essence, they disavowed much of what their party has become. While these new Republican "revelations" are nothing that decent and intelligent people don't already know, they still represent an important step forward for a party that has spent most of the last three decades rotting in a moral and intellectual vacuum.
But while Brooks lauds Rubio for his soaring rhetoric, it was Ryan's comments that most illustrate the significant step the Republican party COULD take. Said Ryan when discussing how to combat poverty, "The truth is, there has to be a balance. Government must act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
This is actually spot on though still lacking specifics. Still these kinds of speeches aren't meant for specifics, they're meant for laying out big ideas, and Ryan nailed it. Where was this guy during the Presidential campaign? This is exactly what we need to hear, because it is exactly what we need. The public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive, they are partners. Until we realize that and work on harnessing the power of both entities, we are doomed to remain in the rut of mediocrity, with a dysfunctional system that cannot solve our problems.
By no means does this mean that the Republican Party is a reasonable and responsible party ready to contribute to the national conversation. It's possible that the extremists will again show their ugly heads during the upcoming battle over the fiscal cliff, but there was really only one direction for the party to move given how low they have sunk recently. It is encouraging to see Republicans starting to eschew fringe ideology for respectable and effective centrist ideas. If they can now figure out how to drop their ugly social values and contribute positive ideas about streamlining government and applying market solutions to our nation's woes then we may very well see a resurgent Republican party, and we may very well benefit from it.
The new Republican is a work in progress, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but it seems as though the electoral drubbing has shocked some sense into the party. For America's sake, I hope that is the case.
In his op-ed yesterday, David Brooks, a man I cite frequently as one of my favorite Republicans, wrote about "The Republican Glasnost," lauding Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Paul Ryan for recent speeches they gave for the Jack Kemp Leadership Foundation Award. In their speeches Ryan and Rubio sought to distance themselves from the callousness that has become official party platform. In doing so they also distanced themselves somewhat from the stupidity, acknowledging for example that extreme poverty is both morally unacceptable and an economic drag. In essence, they disavowed much of what their party has become. While these new Republican "revelations" are nothing that decent and intelligent people don't already know, they still represent an important step forward for a party that has spent most of the last three decades rotting in a moral and intellectual vacuum.
But while Brooks lauds Rubio for his soaring rhetoric, it was Ryan's comments that most illustrate the significant step the Republican party COULD take. Said Ryan when discussing how to combat poverty, "The truth is, there has to be a balance. Government must act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
This is actually spot on though still lacking specifics. Still these kinds of speeches aren't meant for specifics, they're meant for laying out big ideas, and Ryan nailed it. Where was this guy during the Presidential campaign? This is exactly what we need to hear, because it is exactly what we need. The public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive, they are partners. Until we realize that and work on harnessing the power of both entities, we are doomed to remain in the rut of mediocrity, with a dysfunctional system that cannot solve our problems.
By no means does this mean that the Republican Party is a reasonable and responsible party ready to contribute to the national conversation. It's possible that the extremists will again show their ugly heads during the upcoming battle over the fiscal cliff, but there was really only one direction for the party to move given how low they have sunk recently. It is encouraging to see Republicans starting to eschew fringe ideology for respectable and effective centrist ideas. If they can now figure out how to drop their ugly social values and contribute positive ideas about streamlining government and applying market solutions to our nation's woes then we may very well see a resurgent Republican party, and we may very well benefit from it.
The new Republican is a work in progress, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but it seems as though the electoral drubbing has shocked some sense into the party. For America's sake, I hope that is the case.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Plan that Isn't
As we get closer and closer to the new year and the looming "fiscal cliff," it appears as though progress on rectifying our budget issues is further away though the time left to solve them draws nearer.
In the aftermath of the election, it seemed as though both Republicans and the President struck something of a more conciliatory tone, but since then things have predictably gone sour. Republicans rejected the President's initial offering that would have increased revenue by $1.6 trillion primarily by raising taxes on the wealthy.
This plan was of course met with howls of disgust from Republicans, many of whom still believe that it is possible to close the deficit on spending cuts alone, but many of whom also don't actually care about really closing the deficit, and apparently none of whom can do math.
Republicans are right to ask for spending cuts to go along with tax hikes, but here's the problem, they don't actually have a plan, and they're still unwilling to accept that tax increases are necessary. Their stupidity and intransigence is becoming farcical. Take recent comments made by Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor:
“I’m not asking the president . . . to adopt our principles. I’m simply asking him to respect our principles by not insisting that we compromise them. Because we won’t.”
What Mitch has said, is that Republicans won't compromise. Their principles, no, their signed pledge, dictates that they not raise taxes. It is not only mathematically impossible to cut the deficit without tax increases, it is ludicrous and dangerous to to try, but Mitch McConnell has stated on the Senate floor that Republicans will not compromise their principles. So what's it going to be Mitch? Are you going to break your oath to Grover Norquist and do what's best for America, or are you going to remain stubborn until the American people vote all of you out of office?
Of course, all this Republican refusal to cooperate only sheds more light on the fact that they simply do not have a plan. Mitt Romney's whole campaign was built around bashing Obama's record and talking about his time as governor or CEO of Bain. The goal of this being to mask the fact that he and his party lack real ideas for America's future. It's not that they couldn't have good ideas if they tried, it's that they simply aren't trying. I've said time and time and time again that America would benefit greatly from a Republican party that brought real ideas to the table; a Republican party that experimented with market-oriented solutions to issues like transitioning us to clean energy, or that actually proposed targeted cuts that would make the government smaller and more efficient without sacrificing the Americans who rely upon government services. But that Republican party does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination, something we wish for, but it is not real. No, the Republican party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and it is to all of our detriment.
I'm confident Republicans will eventually stop making a fuss over taxes and begin to compromise, though this won't be driven by any sense of urgency to help the country, but rather the fact that, according to polling data, a vast majority of Americans will blame them if the talks fail. Still, their protests have lost credibility if not volume, and Republicans have been exposed for what they really are, a party of ideology and not ideas. The plan that isn't is the best thing Republicans can bring to the table. It's an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America.
In the aftermath of the election, it seemed as though both Republicans and the President struck something of a more conciliatory tone, but since then things have predictably gone sour. Republicans rejected the President's initial offering that would have increased revenue by $1.6 trillion primarily by raising taxes on the wealthy.
This plan was of course met with howls of disgust from Republicans, many of whom still believe that it is possible to close the deficit on spending cuts alone, but many of whom also don't actually care about really closing the deficit, and apparently none of whom can do math.
Republicans are right to ask for spending cuts to go along with tax hikes, but here's the problem, they don't actually have a plan, and they're still unwilling to accept that tax increases are necessary. Their stupidity and intransigence is becoming farcical. Take recent comments made by Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor:
“I’m not asking the president . . . to adopt our principles. I’m simply asking him to respect our principles by not insisting that we compromise them. Because we won’t.”
What Mitch has said, is that Republicans won't compromise. Their principles, no, their signed pledge, dictates that they not raise taxes. It is not only mathematically impossible to cut the deficit without tax increases, it is ludicrous and dangerous to to try, but Mitch McConnell has stated on the Senate floor that Republicans will not compromise their principles. So what's it going to be Mitch? Are you going to break your oath to Grover Norquist and do what's best for America, or are you going to remain stubborn until the American people vote all of you out of office?
Of course, all this Republican refusal to cooperate only sheds more light on the fact that they simply do not have a plan. Mitt Romney's whole campaign was built around bashing Obama's record and talking about his time as governor or CEO of Bain. The goal of this being to mask the fact that he and his party lack real ideas for America's future. It's not that they couldn't have good ideas if they tried, it's that they simply aren't trying. I've said time and time and time again that America would benefit greatly from a Republican party that brought real ideas to the table; a Republican party that experimented with market-oriented solutions to issues like transitioning us to clean energy, or that actually proposed targeted cuts that would make the government smaller and more efficient without sacrificing the Americans who rely upon government services. But that Republican party does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination, something we wish for, but it is not real. No, the Republican party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and it is to all of our detriment.
I'm confident Republicans will eventually stop making a fuss over taxes and begin to compromise, though this won't be driven by any sense of urgency to help the country, but rather the fact that, according to polling data, a vast majority of Americans will blame them if the talks fail. Still, their protests have lost credibility if not volume, and Republicans have been exposed for what they really are, a party of ideology and not ideas. The plan that isn't is the best thing Republicans can bring to the table. It's an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Advice that is Hard to Ignore
If Warren Buffett gave you financial advice, you would be wise to listen. After all he is one of the most successful investors ever, a self-made man who is now one of the wealthiest people on the planet. I certainly think Mr. Buffett has some useful financial advice.
This is not the first time I've mentioned Warren Buffett in my blog, and I'm sure it won't be the last. After all, what's not to like about an incredibly rich man, who has the sense to realize that higher taxes on people like him will do no damage to the economy, and will actually help close the deficit. I don't know whether this qualifies as altruism, but it certainly counts as intelligence.
In his most recent plea for the government to raise his taxes, Buffett debunks the myth that higher tax rates will deter investment. As Buffet points out, if you have chance to make a significant profit by investing, are you really going to say no and leave your cash in a saving account earning 1% interest because the tax rate is 39% instead of 35%? And of course, tax rates on capital are only 15%, not nearly as high as the income tax rate.
Rather than spurring more investment, these absurdly low rates have instead led to a gross disparity in income inequality that is not only morally unjust, but it bad for our nation's future. We have chosen to neglect a significant percentage of the population and instead succumb to the myth that by giving more to those with the most, that somehow some of it will find its way to those at the bottom. If this doesn't happen, and it hasn't, we suppose that the problem is that we haven't given the wealthy enough and that therefore the solution must be to give the wealthy more. Surely cutting taxes on the rich will lead to economic growth and prosperity for all, right? Right? Right...
We've passed that point. Tax rates are already so low that lowering them further does nothing but line the pockets of those whose pockets are already very nicely lined. It does nothing to spur job creation, it does nothing to reduce income inequality that is a further drag on the economy because consumers don't have the means to consume. Lowering taxes further obviously does nothing to reduce the deficit since it leads to reduced revenue. In short, we have reached a point where talking about lower taxes as an economic solution is a fairy tale unworthy of our time and attention.
The world's savviest and most successful investor has been trying to tell us this for quite some time. A self-made billionaire whose fortune is wrapped up in exactly the kind of business endeavors that would supposedly crumble if we raise taxes is pleading for his taxes to be higher. It is advice that is hard to ignore, and if we have any sense, we will start paying closer attention.
This is not the first time I've mentioned Warren Buffett in my blog, and I'm sure it won't be the last. After all, what's not to like about an incredibly rich man, who has the sense to realize that higher taxes on people like him will do no damage to the economy, and will actually help close the deficit. I don't know whether this qualifies as altruism, but it certainly counts as intelligence.
In his most recent plea for the government to raise his taxes, Buffett debunks the myth that higher tax rates will deter investment. As Buffet points out, if you have chance to make a significant profit by investing, are you really going to say no and leave your cash in a saving account earning 1% interest because the tax rate is 39% instead of 35%? And of course, tax rates on capital are only 15%, not nearly as high as the income tax rate.
Rather than spurring more investment, these absurdly low rates have instead led to a gross disparity in income inequality that is not only morally unjust, but it bad for our nation's future. We have chosen to neglect a significant percentage of the population and instead succumb to the myth that by giving more to those with the most, that somehow some of it will find its way to those at the bottom. If this doesn't happen, and it hasn't, we suppose that the problem is that we haven't given the wealthy enough and that therefore the solution must be to give the wealthy more. Surely cutting taxes on the rich will lead to economic growth and prosperity for all, right? Right? Right...
We've passed that point. Tax rates are already so low that lowering them further does nothing but line the pockets of those whose pockets are already very nicely lined. It does nothing to spur job creation, it does nothing to reduce income inequality that is a further drag on the economy because consumers don't have the means to consume. Lowering taxes further obviously does nothing to reduce the deficit since it leads to reduced revenue. In short, we have reached a point where talking about lower taxes as an economic solution is a fairy tale unworthy of our time and attention.
The world's savviest and most successful investor has been trying to tell us this for quite some time. A self-made billionaire whose fortune is wrapped up in exactly the kind of business endeavors that would supposedly crumble if we raise taxes is pleading for his taxes to be higher. It is advice that is hard to ignore, and if we have any sense, we will start paying closer attention.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Truth and Taxes
As I pointed out in yesterday's post, it would behoove us to remember from time to time, that the American experiment only works if it works for everyone, that we are only as good as our weakest link, that the future of America rests on the shoulders of all Americans. It is important to keep in mind that when everyone benefits, I do as well, you do as well, we do as well.
The conversation about taxation is perhaps the crux of the deteriorating political discourse in America. A discourse in which we are given talking points rather than facts or ideas, and a political discourse that too often forces Americans to think in terms of what is best for me vs. what is best for all of us. To this point, the Republican party has been remarkably successful packaging and selling a flawed product to the American public. It is a selfish, me-first argument that is cloaked under the guise of economic growth.
The Republican story about taxes is simple: lower them and the economy grows and we all benefit. This isn't untrue. In fact, if you unwrap all the ideology around this basic narrative, it makes a lot of sense and incorporated into it are quite a few good ideas. But it has become perverted. The Republican anti-tax crusade, spurred ever-forward by Grover Norquist - an American truly dedicated to the decline of our country - is now nothing but a sham. Problematically it is an appealing sham because it reflects a natural "me-first" tendency. We all want more money! I would love to have more money! I even mention it to my boss from time to time. And when Republicans tell us that if we all just keep a little more money for ourselves rather than giving it to Uncle Sam then we will be better off and the economic pie will grow, they are selling us our greed wrapped in a faux altruism.
So what is the truth about taxes? And how does the truth play into a national conversation about taxes? The truth about taxes is that there is no hard data, no real numbers to prove that further lowering taxes will contribute to economic growth. If tax rates were absurdly high as they have been in the past, then maybe, but we've already passed the tipping point there. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have so much money left over that they give vast sums to charity, and in Buffet's case beg the government to take more of it from him and other super rich Americans. Tax rates of 70% or higher as they have been in the past are stifling for growth. Tax rates of 35% are not. Ronald Reagan is hailed as a conservative hero in part for presiding over a period of growth. Reagan raised taxes. Bill Clinton is hated by conservatives because he presided over a period of growth. Clinton raised taxes. I'm not trying to say that raising taxes is a recipe for growing the economy, but supply-sided economics has no data to back it up, and besides, supply vs. demand is not like chicken vs. egg. Perhaps we can endlessly debate which came first, the chicken or the egg, but there is no supply without demand. Giving "job creators" more and more money in the form of tax cuts with which to produce more goods and services does not lead to more goods and services if there is no demand for those goods and services. Demand precedes supply.
On November 6th, Americans rejected the notion that lowering taxes even further for the wealthy - and paying for it by cutting services for everyone else - would increase economic growth. We were wise to make this decision. The truth will set you free or some cliche like that. But if we know that taxes for the wealthy are already low enough so that further cuts won't contribute significantly to growth, why are we still having this conversation? Well if we know the truth about taxes, we also know how the Republican party handles the truth. They ignore it, or when they can, suppress it. And that is what we are seeing now in the national conversation about taxes. Just a few weeks ago, Republicans strong-armed the Congressional Research Service - a nonpartisan branch of the Library of Congress - into withdrawing an economic report that found no correlation between economic growth and lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Imagine that. A report citing what most people already understand was removed because Republicans disagreed with its "findings and wording."
So we know the truth about taxes, and we know how Republicans handle the truth, and this should scare us. I despise Mitt Romney not because I think all his ideas are bad, but because he was willing to lie blatantly time and time and time and time again to realize his ambition. His campaign would not be dictated by fact-checkers. Most people thought Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate, but every major news outlet pointed out that he lied multiple times throughout that debate. Not what-ifs, not speculations, not even half-truths. The man simply lied. And now we see that this isn't specific to Mitt Romney though in fairness we knew that before. When Republicans see facts and data that contradicts their beliefs, they suppress it. A nation built on free speech finds itself in the awkward position of having one of its major political parties suppressing reports that disprove its ideology. This is dangerous for our nation's future.
We already know that Republicans are in denial of science as it pertains to evolution and climate change, now we see firm evidence that they are in denial of the truth when it comes to their economic agenda as well. It was just two years ago that Congressional Republicans were ignoring an inconvenient report by the Congressional Budget Office that repealing Obamacare would actually cost more than implementing the law. And now we get this.
Getting taxing and spending right is important to America's immediate and long-term future, but nothing is more important to the survival of our country than the truth. If our electorate is uninformed and inundated with lies then we will make decisions that exacerbate rather than ease our problems. America cannot survive without the truth, and one party has made the decision that its ideology - flawed and disproven though it may be - has trumped cold hard facts.
The conversation about taxation is perhaps the crux of the deteriorating political discourse in America. A discourse in which we are given talking points rather than facts or ideas, and a political discourse that too often forces Americans to think in terms of what is best for me vs. what is best for all of us. To this point, the Republican party has been remarkably successful packaging and selling a flawed product to the American public. It is a selfish, me-first argument that is cloaked under the guise of economic growth.
The Republican story about taxes is simple: lower them and the economy grows and we all benefit. This isn't untrue. In fact, if you unwrap all the ideology around this basic narrative, it makes a lot of sense and incorporated into it are quite a few good ideas. But it has become perverted. The Republican anti-tax crusade, spurred ever-forward by Grover Norquist - an American truly dedicated to the decline of our country - is now nothing but a sham. Problematically it is an appealing sham because it reflects a natural "me-first" tendency. We all want more money! I would love to have more money! I even mention it to my boss from time to time. And when Republicans tell us that if we all just keep a little more money for ourselves rather than giving it to Uncle Sam then we will be better off and the economic pie will grow, they are selling us our greed wrapped in a faux altruism.
So what is the truth about taxes? And how does the truth play into a national conversation about taxes? The truth about taxes is that there is no hard data, no real numbers to prove that further lowering taxes will contribute to economic growth. If tax rates were absurdly high as they have been in the past, then maybe, but we've already passed the tipping point there. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have so much money left over that they give vast sums to charity, and in Buffet's case beg the government to take more of it from him and other super rich Americans. Tax rates of 70% or higher as they have been in the past are stifling for growth. Tax rates of 35% are not. Ronald Reagan is hailed as a conservative hero in part for presiding over a period of growth. Reagan raised taxes. Bill Clinton is hated by conservatives because he presided over a period of growth. Clinton raised taxes. I'm not trying to say that raising taxes is a recipe for growing the economy, but supply-sided economics has no data to back it up, and besides, supply vs. demand is not like chicken vs. egg. Perhaps we can endlessly debate which came first, the chicken or the egg, but there is no supply without demand. Giving "job creators" more and more money in the form of tax cuts with which to produce more goods and services does not lead to more goods and services if there is no demand for those goods and services. Demand precedes supply.
On November 6th, Americans rejected the notion that lowering taxes even further for the wealthy - and paying for it by cutting services for everyone else - would increase economic growth. We were wise to make this decision. The truth will set you free or some cliche like that. But if we know that taxes for the wealthy are already low enough so that further cuts won't contribute significantly to growth, why are we still having this conversation? Well if we know the truth about taxes, we also know how the Republican party handles the truth. They ignore it, or when they can, suppress it. And that is what we are seeing now in the national conversation about taxes. Just a few weeks ago, Republicans strong-armed the Congressional Research Service - a nonpartisan branch of the Library of Congress - into withdrawing an economic report that found no correlation between economic growth and lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Imagine that. A report citing what most people already understand was removed because Republicans disagreed with its "findings and wording."
So we know the truth about taxes, and we know how Republicans handle the truth, and this should scare us. I despise Mitt Romney not because I think all his ideas are bad, but because he was willing to lie blatantly time and time and time and time again to realize his ambition. His campaign would not be dictated by fact-checkers. Most people thought Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate, but every major news outlet pointed out that he lied multiple times throughout that debate. Not what-ifs, not speculations, not even half-truths. The man simply lied. And now we see that this isn't specific to Mitt Romney though in fairness we knew that before. When Republicans see facts and data that contradicts their beliefs, they suppress it. A nation built on free speech finds itself in the awkward position of having one of its major political parties suppressing reports that disprove its ideology. This is dangerous for our nation's future.
We already know that Republicans are in denial of science as it pertains to evolution and climate change, now we see firm evidence that they are in denial of the truth when it comes to their economic agenda as well. It was just two years ago that Congressional Republicans were ignoring an inconvenient report by the Congressional Budget Office that repealing Obamacare would actually cost more than implementing the law. And now we get this.
Getting taxing and spending right is important to America's immediate and long-term future, but nothing is more important to the survival of our country than the truth. If our electorate is uninformed and inundated with lies then we will make decisions that exacerbate rather than ease our problems. America cannot survive without the truth, and one party has made the decision that its ideology - flawed and disproven though it may be - has trumped cold hard facts.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Remembering the Public Good
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a storm from which far too many of our fellow citizens are still recovering, it is worth spending time during the holidays to help those who need it, and to reflect on the nature of what our government should be doing.
It seems - and I fear - that lost in the ongoing conversation about the scope of government, has been the fact that we are all Americans and that we are only as great as our weakest link. It is worth spending the day remembering the public good, and reminding ourselves that we all contribute to it somehow.
With that in mind, I was startled and somewhat embarrassed to find that one of the reasons so many are still recovering from the storm is because our national power grid was graded a D+ in 2009. A D+!!!! This is America, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, and we're satisfied with a D+ power grid, one result of which is that many of those affected by a devastating hurricane are still without power! This is nothing short of unacceptable.
While the debate around economic recoveries and fiscal cliffs has too often become a debate simply about taxing the wealthy, we have forgotten that all of us benefit from the prudent expenditure of tax dollars, and that without investment in the public our neighbors are in trouble, and our nation is at risk. America cannot be a 21st century superpower with a D+ infrastructure. It just isn't going to happen.
So as we spend time stuffing ourselves in the comfort of friends, family, and loved ones, let us remember that what is good for all is good for us individually. What makes America great is a common belief that WE can overcome, not that I will or you will. It is imperative that when we discuss and debate the merits of whom to tax and for how much, we remember that those tax dollars are paying for services upon which all of us rely, and that allow us to prosper both individually and as a country. If we fail to acknowledge, respect, and invest in the public good, all the wealth of a private individual will become meaningless.
Happy Thanksgiving.
It seems - and I fear - that lost in the ongoing conversation about the scope of government, has been the fact that we are all Americans and that we are only as great as our weakest link. It is worth spending the day remembering the public good, and reminding ourselves that we all contribute to it somehow.
With that in mind, I was startled and somewhat embarrassed to find that one of the reasons so many are still recovering from the storm is because our national power grid was graded a D+ in 2009. A D+!!!! This is America, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, and we're satisfied with a D+ power grid, one result of which is that many of those affected by a devastating hurricane are still without power! This is nothing short of unacceptable.
While the debate around economic recoveries and fiscal cliffs has too often become a debate simply about taxing the wealthy, we have forgotten that all of us benefit from the prudent expenditure of tax dollars, and that without investment in the public our neighbors are in trouble, and our nation is at risk. America cannot be a 21st century superpower with a D+ infrastructure. It just isn't going to happen.
So as we spend time stuffing ourselves in the comfort of friends, family, and loved ones, let us remember that what is good for all is good for us individually. What makes America great is a common belief that WE can overcome, not that I will or you will. It is imperative that when we discuss and debate the merits of whom to tax and for how much, we remember that those tax dollars are paying for services upon which all of us rely, and that allow us to prosper both individually and as a country. If we fail to acknowledge, respect, and invest in the public good, all the wealth of a private individual will become meaningless.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Premature Republican Death Knell
In the wake of last week's election there has been a solemn and somber recap of how the Republican Party has hosted its last tea party. Despite overwhelming demographic evidence, it took Republicans until 11/6/2012 to recognize that America is no longer a nation of old white people. In fact, America is even less a nation of old white people as I write this than it was six days ago. The Republican party, pundits tell us, is dead and gone...dead and gone.
The problem, of course, with this analysis is that it isn't true. Like most of what is said on television, this is being talked about more to fill time than because it is a real issue. Don't get me wrong, the poor showing of Republican candidates in this election was remarkably encouraging, partially because half of them are true fools, and partially because the other half were willing to hide their good ideas beneath a mountain of lies and politically distasteful maneuvers simply to get elected.
So in some sense, the pundit drumbeat is positive. If Republicans have learned anything from this perhaps it is that rape is real and so are pregnancies resulting from rape. Perhaps they've also learned that lying for political gain gets you the opposite, and that when you're whole political strategy puts elections ahead of the welfare of the American people you get bit on the butt. At least that is what I hope they've learned. If not, Republicans are in fact in dire trouble.
But there is no reason why the party can't recover and in a meaningful and positive manner. If Republicans want to have any place in America's future, they will have to drop the whole social issues act and find a home in the 21st century, a century in which all men and women regardless of their sexuality, skin color, or country of origin, were created equal. If Republicans refuse to believe that, they're doomed, but if they accept that, drop antiquated social mores, and decided to instead focus on contributing economically, then the Republican party has a bright future indeed.
America is still a nation in need of fixing, and Democrats do not have all the answers. A responsible Republican party, dedicated to facts and data and without all the social baggage would be both a boon to the national conversation and an appealing alternative to voters who loathe Republican social "values," but who recognize the benefits of small, efficient government. Imagine if Republicans showed willingness to compromise on taxes, brought meaningful ideas about entitlement reform (as some have already), accepted climate change and tried to apply market solutions to growing clean energy, and offered budgets based on analysis of what works and what doesn't with targeted and substantial cuts rather than willy-nilly Tea Party style hacking. That is what America needs, and if that's what Republicans offered, they probably wouldn't need to focus on lies and obstruction to win elections, they could probably win seats on merit and ideas.
Republicans should be chastised after this election. The American people saw through the lies and obstruction and were not compelled to vote for a candidate whose only ideas was to cut taxes even more and just hope things got better. In some instances, Republican candidates lost where they should have won because voters rejected outright their oppressive social views, especially when it came to abortion and - and I can't believe I'm writing this - rape. When you start trying to explain away rape, you really are living in an alternative reality. But demographics do not have to doom Republicans. The death knell is premature. Drop the social issues, embrace science and data, and apply your positive economic ideas to the problems confronting America. Once that happens, I'm sure you'll find plenty of room at the table, or better, seats in the chambers of Congress.
The problem, of course, with this analysis is that it isn't true. Like most of what is said on television, this is being talked about more to fill time than because it is a real issue. Don't get me wrong, the poor showing of Republican candidates in this election was remarkably encouraging, partially because half of them are true fools, and partially because the other half were willing to hide their good ideas beneath a mountain of lies and politically distasteful maneuvers simply to get elected.
So in some sense, the pundit drumbeat is positive. If Republicans have learned anything from this perhaps it is that rape is real and so are pregnancies resulting from rape. Perhaps they've also learned that lying for political gain gets you the opposite, and that when you're whole political strategy puts elections ahead of the welfare of the American people you get bit on the butt. At least that is what I hope they've learned. If not, Republicans are in fact in dire trouble.
But there is no reason why the party can't recover and in a meaningful and positive manner. If Republicans want to have any place in America's future, they will have to drop the whole social issues act and find a home in the 21st century, a century in which all men and women regardless of their sexuality, skin color, or country of origin, were created equal. If Republicans refuse to believe that, they're doomed, but if they accept that, drop antiquated social mores, and decided to instead focus on contributing economically, then the Republican party has a bright future indeed.
America is still a nation in need of fixing, and Democrats do not have all the answers. A responsible Republican party, dedicated to facts and data and without all the social baggage would be both a boon to the national conversation and an appealing alternative to voters who loathe Republican social "values," but who recognize the benefits of small, efficient government. Imagine if Republicans showed willingness to compromise on taxes, brought meaningful ideas about entitlement reform (as some have already), accepted climate change and tried to apply market solutions to growing clean energy, and offered budgets based on analysis of what works and what doesn't with targeted and substantial cuts rather than willy-nilly Tea Party style hacking. That is what America needs, and if that's what Republicans offered, they probably wouldn't need to focus on lies and obstruction to win elections, they could probably win seats on merit and ideas.
Republicans should be chastised after this election. The American people saw through the lies and obstruction and were not compelled to vote for a candidate whose only ideas was to cut taxes even more and just hope things got better. In some instances, Republican candidates lost where they should have won because voters rejected outright their oppressive social views, especially when it came to abortion and - and I can't believe I'm writing this - rape. When you start trying to explain away rape, you really are living in an alternative reality. But demographics do not have to doom Republicans. The death knell is premature. Drop the social issues, embrace science and data, and apply your positive economic ideas to the problems confronting America. Once that happens, I'm sure you'll find plenty of room at the table, or better, seats in the chambers of Congress.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
What I Hope For
Needless to say I am pleased with the results of last night's election. Four more years of Obama is a far superior choice than any of the competing alternatives, particularly the one that was the most likely option.
But while an Obama victory is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that the country will move in the right direction. So with that in mind, I have listed the major issues that I hope the President - and what I hope will be a not-as-intransigent Congress - will address. I'll start by saying that the first and most important issue on everyone's mind is obviously the state of the economic recovery, and the parties need to come together to make real progress here, progress that starts with averting the fiscal cliff looming less than two months away.
But everyone knows and expects economic progress and even cooperation is looking good at this point! Regardless of whether they work together or not (and I'm optimistic they will), Democrats and Republicans will spend much of their either fixing or ranting about the economy. With that said, onto the list!
1. Reduce the deficit - In many ways this is linked to the economic recovery. After all if we put people back to work we broaden the tax base and increase revenues without raising tax rates. Tax hikes for the super rich must be a part of this deal, as well as a re-evaluation and reduction of entitlement programs and spending. Maybe this means experimenting with some of Paul Ryan's ideas, maybe it means raising the retirement age or Medicare eligibility age. Maybe it just means dedicating less money to those programs. Most likely it means something new and creative that is beyond me. But it has to happen. Once we've raised taxes on top earners, reformed the tax code and curbed entitlement (and military) spending, we will have taken a very solid step towards putting our country on a sustainable path.
2. Fix education - I work in education, so this is near and dear to me, but no amount of fiscal solvency will overcome the problems we face if we don't train and educate Americans. I have seen what good schools look like as both a student and as a teacher, and I have seen what horrible schools look like. The difference between the two makes the Grand Canyon look tiny by comparison. Without an educated populace not only will good jobs leave the country, but the principles on which the country was built will become meaningless. Democracy works when informed citizens make analyzed decisions about competing ideas. If citizens are not informed, then lies and propaganda take the place of facts and data. We saw a lot of this in the last few months when both candidates, but Romney in particular, lied to the American people time and time again. We need an educated workforce and an informed electorate.
3. Energy independence - With a strong focus on green and renewable energy sources. I wish Obama had approved the Keystone Pipeline, and I think he may now that he has been re-elected. I have come out in favor of fracking in the past, and I will support it in the future as well so long as it is done safely, but I've also said repeatedly that fossil fuels are the energy sources of the past. To retain our competitive economic and technological edge, we need to live in the present and look to the future, not settle for lower gas prices because we found a ton of oil under Alaska. I expect the President and Congress to work together to help us harness our natural resources and begin the transition from the old, dirty, and limited to the new, clean, and renewable.
These are but a few of the issues facing America. The list could go on and on, but in my opinion, these are the things that are most imperative after fixing the economy. I think Obama can be the man to start fixing these problems. In some ways he already has. And while I remain excited and happy about the outcome of last night's election, all of that is meaningless if we don't make ourselves better over the next four years.
But while an Obama victory is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that the country will move in the right direction. So with that in mind, I have listed the major issues that I hope the President - and what I hope will be a not-as-intransigent Congress - will address. I'll start by saying that the first and most important issue on everyone's mind is obviously the state of the economic recovery, and the parties need to come together to make real progress here, progress that starts with averting the fiscal cliff looming less than two months away.
But everyone knows and expects economic progress and even cooperation is looking good at this point! Regardless of whether they work together or not (and I'm optimistic they will), Democrats and Republicans will spend much of their either fixing or ranting about the economy. With that said, onto the list!
1. Reduce the deficit - In many ways this is linked to the economic recovery. After all if we put people back to work we broaden the tax base and increase revenues without raising tax rates. Tax hikes for the super rich must be a part of this deal, as well as a re-evaluation and reduction of entitlement programs and spending. Maybe this means experimenting with some of Paul Ryan's ideas, maybe it means raising the retirement age or Medicare eligibility age. Maybe it just means dedicating less money to those programs. Most likely it means something new and creative that is beyond me. But it has to happen. Once we've raised taxes on top earners, reformed the tax code and curbed entitlement (and military) spending, we will have taken a very solid step towards putting our country on a sustainable path.
2. Fix education - I work in education, so this is near and dear to me, but no amount of fiscal solvency will overcome the problems we face if we don't train and educate Americans. I have seen what good schools look like as both a student and as a teacher, and I have seen what horrible schools look like. The difference between the two makes the Grand Canyon look tiny by comparison. Without an educated populace not only will good jobs leave the country, but the principles on which the country was built will become meaningless. Democracy works when informed citizens make analyzed decisions about competing ideas. If citizens are not informed, then lies and propaganda take the place of facts and data. We saw a lot of this in the last few months when both candidates, but Romney in particular, lied to the American people time and time again. We need an educated workforce and an informed electorate.
3. Energy independence - With a strong focus on green and renewable energy sources. I wish Obama had approved the Keystone Pipeline, and I think he may now that he has been re-elected. I have come out in favor of fracking in the past, and I will support it in the future as well so long as it is done safely, but I've also said repeatedly that fossil fuels are the energy sources of the past. To retain our competitive economic and technological edge, we need to live in the present and look to the future, not settle for lower gas prices because we found a ton of oil under Alaska. I expect the President and Congress to work together to help us harness our natural resources and begin the transition from the old, dirty, and limited to the new, clean, and renewable.
These are but a few of the issues facing America. The list could go on and on, but in my opinion, these are the things that are most imperative after fixing the economy. I think Obama can be the man to start fixing these problems. In some ways he already has. And while I remain excited and happy about the outcome of last night's election, all of that is meaningless if we don't make ourselves better over the next four years.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
It's Your Civic Duty
Today is the day on which Americans can exercise a right that many people all over the world yearn for, a right without which our nation would cease to exist. We are lucky enough to live in a country where our voice matters. Go make your voice heard today.
Regardless of your politics, it is imperative to vote. It is a right and a privilege that we are lucky to have, but if we choose not to exercise it, it may ultimately get taken away. VOTE! It is your civic duty. VOTE!
If my goading isn't enough, check out my friends at Democracy Prep, once more! It's your civic duty!
Regardless of your politics, it is imperative to vote. It is a right and a privilege that we are lucky to have, but if we choose not to exercise it, it may ultimately get taken away. VOTE! It is your civic duty. VOTE!
If my goading isn't enough, check out my friends at Democracy Prep, once more! It's your civic duty!
Monday, November 5, 2012
One last Pitch
Tomorrow is the big day, and so one final pitch is necessary to convince you that there is only one path forward for America.
I've made my pitch numerous times, so in this blog I thought I would rely on those who are more informed than I to make the case for the President.
Two days ago The Economist endorsed President Obama in an article that clearly details the president's failings - and he has them - while simultaneously pointing out that Romney is not the man to overcome Obama's shortcomings.
It's an easy case to make. The President has not been perfect, and Democratic policies are not perfect. In fact, the country would benefit greatly from a debate between a left-of-center pragmatist (which Obama can be) and a right-of-center pragmatist (which is one of Mitt's manifestations). Unfortunately we cannot count on Mitt to be reliably right-of-center, and even his right-of-center self still has lots of bad ideas - especially his social views which are more in step with his party's ugly extreme - and either cannot or will not give specifics on how he plans to do what he says he will do. I'm all about lowering tax rates and making up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. The problem is that the plan as currently presented (yes, the day before the election) doesn't specify which loopholes would be closed, and is therefore mathematically impossible.
Is there room for Obama to be better? Absolutely. Is it possible that Romney would pick his right-of-center cloak if elected and bring good ideas to the table? Sure it is. I am a left-of-center guy, so I might not like all his ideas, but a right-of-center Romney could do good. But by and large Romeny has not picked that cloak, and because he lacks the backbone to stand up to some of the truly horrible economic and social ideas his party brings to the table, I have no confidence he will change if elected. In my opinion as a left-of-center guy, Obama has more upside, but I think it's undeniable that Romney has a much lower downside. If Romney picks the "severely conservative" cloak he tried to wear in the primaries then America is in trouble if he's elected.
There is only one route forward for America, and Obama is not the only man who can lead us down that path, but his ideas certainly suggest that he is far more likely to right the ship that Romney. Tomorrow is a big day. I hope America makes the right decision.
I've made my pitch numerous times, so in this blog I thought I would rely on those who are more informed than I to make the case for the President.
Two days ago The Economist endorsed President Obama in an article that clearly details the president's failings - and he has them - while simultaneously pointing out that Romney is not the man to overcome Obama's shortcomings.
It's an easy case to make. The President has not been perfect, and Democratic policies are not perfect. In fact, the country would benefit greatly from a debate between a left-of-center pragmatist (which Obama can be) and a right-of-center pragmatist (which is one of Mitt's manifestations). Unfortunately we cannot count on Mitt to be reliably right-of-center, and even his right-of-center self still has lots of bad ideas - especially his social views which are more in step with his party's ugly extreme - and either cannot or will not give specifics on how he plans to do what he says he will do. I'm all about lowering tax rates and making up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. The problem is that the plan as currently presented (yes, the day before the election) doesn't specify which loopholes would be closed, and is therefore mathematically impossible.
Is there room for Obama to be better? Absolutely. Is it possible that Romney would pick his right-of-center cloak if elected and bring good ideas to the table? Sure it is. I am a left-of-center guy, so I might not like all his ideas, but a right-of-center Romney could do good. But by and large Romeny has not picked that cloak, and because he lacks the backbone to stand up to some of the truly horrible economic and social ideas his party brings to the table, I have no confidence he will change if elected. In my opinion as a left-of-center guy, Obama has more upside, but I think it's undeniable that Romney has a much lower downside. If Romney picks the "severely conservative" cloak he tried to wear in the primaries then America is in trouble if he's elected.
There is only one route forward for America, and Obama is not the only man who can lead us down that path, but his ideas certainly suggest that he is far more likely to right the ship that Romney. Tomorrow is a big day. I hope America makes the right decision.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
#Voteforsomebody
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I want to start what I hope will be a happy and exciting post on a more somber note. The devastation wrought on the northeast, New York and New Jersey in particular, is horrific, and my thoughts are with all of those who have been affected. As the president and other state and local officials have said repeatedly the last few days, we stand by you and we will rebuild, repair, and recover.
On a lighter, but also important note, I came across a video recently that I wanted to share. While my political affiliations are no secret, our society will only prosper and succeed if we fulfill or duties as citizens. We must remain informed, and exercise our rights in order for the American democratic experiment to work. Though I hope most people will vote for the President on November 6th, it is important that they vote period. Know the issues and vote for the candidate you think will do the best job addressing them.
This is an important message, especially in light of the fact that fewer and fewer people vote and America faces a myriad of problems that we must address to ensure our country's future remains bright. So with that in mind I give you the Harlem Prep Hawks, imploring you - in the cutest possible manner - to get out there and vote on November 6th!
These scholars have an important and powerful yet simple message. Know the issues, and use your knowledge to make a difference. Vote for Obama, or vote for Romney. It's your civic duty. And it is a duty. We all have obligations: obligations to our jobs; our families; our friends and loved ones; but also to our country. It is your responsibility to vote. America will only work if we take advantage of the rights and freedoms we are lucky to have. I don't want to be the first nation that ends up on the ash-heap of history because people just didn't care. So go vote! Election day is less than a week away! Don't do it for me, do it for you, do it for America, and if you need one more reason, do it because the scholars of Harlem Prep need a bright future for America and we owe them that!
On a lighter, but also important note, I came across a video recently that I wanted to share. While my political affiliations are no secret, our society will only prosper and succeed if we fulfill or duties as citizens. We must remain informed, and exercise our rights in order for the American democratic experiment to work. Though I hope most people will vote for the President on November 6th, it is important that they vote period. Know the issues and vote for the candidate you think will do the best job addressing them.
This is an important message, especially in light of the fact that fewer and fewer people vote and America faces a myriad of problems that we must address to ensure our country's future remains bright. So with that in mind I give you the Harlem Prep Hawks, imploring you - in the cutest possible manner - to get out there and vote on November 6th!
These scholars have an important and powerful yet simple message. Know the issues, and use your knowledge to make a difference. Vote for Obama, or vote for Romney. It's your civic duty. And it is a duty. We all have obligations: obligations to our jobs; our families; our friends and loved ones; but also to our country. It is your responsibility to vote. America will only work if we take advantage of the rights and freedoms we are lucky to have. I don't want to be the first nation that ends up on the ash-heap of history because people just didn't care. So go vote! Election day is less than a week away! Don't do it for me, do it for you, do it for America, and if you need one more reason, do it because the scholars of Harlem Prep need a bright future for America and we owe them that!
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Third Time's a Charm
An easy cliche of a title, but certainly the truth. The final debate was far and away the most substantive of the three. Sure, the bar was low, and it was good only in a comparative sense, but there was significantly less posturing and a bit more substance.
And that is why I think this debate was a win for my guy. I have blogged before about Romney's foreign policy gaffes. Quite frankly, while I have avoided dissing Romney's career at Bain as that of a vulture capitalist, I do not buy into the argument that a successful career in business qualifies one to be a successful politicians. I'm much more receptive to Romney's arguments about his time as governor of Massachusetts as a case for why he would make a good president. Sure, running a successful business means he has managerial and leadership qualities, but a government and a for-profit corporation are very different entities.
But when it comes to foreign policy, experience does matter. It matters quite a bit. The closest thing Romney has to foreign policy experience is running the winter Olympics. He also managed to offend the British. This does not bode well.
I will admit that I was impressed, though not surprised by many of Romney's stances last night. Despite his attempts to hammer Obama on foreign policy, Romney's views aren't really that different, and that is a good thing since foreign policy is a major strength of the President. I will also admit that my biggest fear about candidate Obama in 2008 was his lack of foreign policy experience. I was worried that he wouldn't be able to make tough decisions. I was wrong.
But that gets me back to last night's debate, and why Obama is much better suited to the role of Commander-in-Chief. As I watched I noticed a look on Obama's face that struck me as "yeah right," in response to much of what Romney said. Tougher sanctions on Iran? Well yeah, of course, but anyone can say that. Obama made it happen. He has the experience of working with other nations to clamp down on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Disposing of Middle Eastern dictators? Obama's approach to the Libyan uprising was superb though in its aftermath we have some sorting out to do. The same thing is true for ordering the attack inside Pakistan that took down bin Laden. Not to politicize that and say Romney wouldn't have done the same - I'm sure he would have - but Obama has had to make that tough decision. He can weigh the information and has shown himself to be a shrewd decision-maker who can and will do what is necessary to keep America safe and promote our values.
The third debate was certainly the most substantive of the three, and in the third debate, though Romney did not look bad, only one candidate showed himself to be the one who really knows what it takes to make tough decisions. Obama's experience and wisdom showed, and while Romney was right to agree with the President on many points, he displayed his lack of experience glaringly on a few other occasions.
It has been no secret for quite some time that only one man is the right one to lead our country. And though Romney has etch-a-sketched pretty well, last night's debate cemented the fact that the President has what Romney lacks, fortitude and integrity. Flat in the first debate, aggressive in the second, last night Obama proved that the third time is a charm. He was composed and assertive and showed why he is the commander-in-chief that America needs for the next four years.
And that is why I think this debate was a win for my guy. I have blogged before about Romney's foreign policy gaffes. Quite frankly, while I have avoided dissing Romney's career at Bain as that of a vulture capitalist, I do not buy into the argument that a successful career in business qualifies one to be a successful politicians. I'm much more receptive to Romney's arguments about his time as governor of Massachusetts as a case for why he would make a good president. Sure, running a successful business means he has managerial and leadership qualities, but a government and a for-profit corporation are very different entities.
But when it comes to foreign policy, experience does matter. It matters quite a bit. The closest thing Romney has to foreign policy experience is running the winter Olympics. He also managed to offend the British. This does not bode well.
I will admit that I was impressed, though not surprised by many of Romney's stances last night. Despite his attempts to hammer Obama on foreign policy, Romney's views aren't really that different, and that is a good thing since foreign policy is a major strength of the President. I will also admit that my biggest fear about candidate Obama in 2008 was his lack of foreign policy experience. I was worried that he wouldn't be able to make tough decisions. I was wrong.
But that gets me back to last night's debate, and why Obama is much better suited to the role of Commander-in-Chief. As I watched I noticed a look on Obama's face that struck me as "yeah right," in response to much of what Romney said. Tougher sanctions on Iran? Well yeah, of course, but anyone can say that. Obama made it happen. He has the experience of working with other nations to clamp down on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Disposing of Middle Eastern dictators? Obama's approach to the Libyan uprising was superb though in its aftermath we have some sorting out to do. The same thing is true for ordering the attack inside Pakistan that took down bin Laden. Not to politicize that and say Romney wouldn't have done the same - I'm sure he would have - but Obama has had to make that tough decision. He can weigh the information and has shown himself to be a shrewd decision-maker who can and will do what is necessary to keep America safe and promote our values.
The third debate was certainly the most substantive of the three, and in the third debate, though Romney did not look bad, only one candidate showed himself to be the one who really knows what it takes to make tough decisions. Obama's experience and wisdom showed, and while Romney was right to agree with the President on many points, he displayed his lack of experience glaringly on a few other occasions.
It has been no secret for quite some time that only one man is the right one to lead our country. And though Romney has etch-a-sketched pretty well, last night's debate cemented the fact that the President has what Romney lacks, fortitude and integrity. Flat in the first debate, aggressive in the second, last night Obama proved that the third time is a charm. He was composed and assertive and showed why he is the commander-in-chief that America needs for the next four years.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
At It Again
After watching El Presidente and Mittens go at it again in round two, I walked away thoroughly unimpressed by either. I'm glad Obama hit Mitt back this time, calling him out on some of his egregious lies, but Obama told some fibs of his own, and didn't do any better providing policy details. If you were just tuning in for the first time you would think neither Obama nor Romney had a real plan, and perhaps that is the case.
More than anything, last night's debate made me sad. After the first debate I was concerned about Romney's momentum, but now I'm concerned about the state of American politics. Last night both Romney and Obama took the opportunity to rehash talking points and bash each other without talking about facts or details. Both men pettily stooped to pointing out that the other isn't perfect. Neither was very specific about details, and rather than provide them, both took time pointing out that the other didn't really have any.
It would have been refreshing if either of them had actually answered the questions they were asked. Obama completely sidestepped a question about security in Libya. To his credit, he took responsibility for what happened, but in a roundabout manner that did not address the question at all. Romney, when asked about assault weapons, somehow found himself talking about single parent households and strengthening marriage. If only we had a lower divorce rate, we would have fewer guns. It all makes perfect sense.
Worst of all is the way they talk to the audience. They are patronizing. Listening made me feel like I was a third grader who had just stolen a pack of gum. Part of this has to do with the fact that they both apparently think we are in third grade. Does no one notice that neither of them really says much of substance? If I designed a drinking game around taking a shot every time either candidate gave a real vision for America's future I would have been one sober guy. Both, of them excel at being belittling each in his own way. Obama gets off topic and rambles about his achievements. Romney is worse, he seems to think talking last makes him right, and when he finds himself in a sticky spot he just talks about how is a job creator and reflects on that time he was governor without really saying what he did as governor.
This is what we're left we're left with. This is what has become of politics. I imagine if I had listened to that debate and missed the facial expressions, hand gestures, and posture that I probably would have thought I was listening to a bunch of middle school kids arguing about which one is cooler. Is this our fault? Does the American electorate demand such insipidness from our politicians? I know both Obama and Romney have some ideas, I assume they even have many in common. Why won't they talk about them?
Put simply, our political system is near defunct. Our politicians care more about poll data than policy, prefer talking points to ideas, would rather blast each other for real and perceived failures than take an intellectual and moral risk by proposing something substantive for the future. To his credit, Paul Ryan actually does have a detailed policy when it comes to the budget, problematically, those details are scary and the plan is bad.
As American citizens we need to demand more. We need to demand facts, not lies. We need to demand ideas, not condemnations. If we are going to fix our nation's problems, we need to start by fixing our nation's politics.
More than anything, last night's debate made me sad. After the first debate I was concerned about Romney's momentum, but now I'm concerned about the state of American politics. Last night both Romney and Obama took the opportunity to rehash talking points and bash each other without talking about facts or details. Both men pettily stooped to pointing out that the other isn't perfect. Neither was very specific about details, and rather than provide them, both took time pointing out that the other didn't really have any.
It would have been refreshing if either of them had actually answered the questions they were asked. Obama completely sidestepped a question about security in Libya. To his credit, he took responsibility for what happened, but in a roundabout manner that did not address the question at all. Romney, when asked about assault weapons, somehow found himself talking about single parent households and strengthening marriage. If only we had a lower divorce rate, we would have fewer guns. It all makes perfect sense.
Worst of all is the way they talk to the audience. They are patronizing. Listening made me feel like I was a third grader who had just stolen a pack of gum. Part of this has to do with the fact that they both apparently think we are in third grade. Does no one notice that neither of them really says much of substance? If I designed a drinking game around taking a shot every time either candidate gave a real vision for America's future I would have been one sober guy. Both, of them excel at being belittling each in his own way. Obama gets off topic and rambles about his achievements. Romney is worse, he seems to think talking last makes him right, and when he finds himself in a sticky spot he just talks about how is a job creator and reflects on that time he was governor without really saying what he did as governor.
This is what we're left we're left with. This is what has become of politics. I imagine if I had listened to that debate and missed the facial expressions, hand gestures, and posture that I probably would have thought I was listening to a bunch of middle school kids arguing about which one is cooler. Is this our fault? Does the American electorate demand such insipidness from our politicians? I know both Obama and Romney have some ideas, I assume they even have many in common. Why won't they talk about them?
Put simply, our political system is near defunct. Our politicians care more about poll data than policy, prefer talking points to ideas, would rather blast each other for real and perceived failures than take an intellectual and moral risk by proposing something substantive for the future. To his credit, Paul Ryan actually does have a detailed policy when it comes to the budget, problematically, those details are scary and the plan is bad.
As American citizens we need to demand more. We need to demand facts, not lies. We need to demand ideas, not condemnations. If we are going to fix our nation's problems, we need to start by fixing our nation's politics.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Memory Spans
The election is nearing. We are in the home stretch. In less than a month we will choose, for better or for worse, the next president of the United States. We will decide which path we want for our country's future.
I remain optimistic that President Obama will carry the day. Though his first debate performance was lackluster, there is still time for him to bounce back from that. If Americans tune in for debate two, I'm certain they will see the president expose Mitt Romney for the fraud that he is.
But what is really important is that we don't need the president to do that for us, we should already know better. It is true that most politicians play to their base during the primaries and swing towards the center for general elections. Mitt Romney's etch-a-sketch strategy - while another example of his numerous gaffes - isn't unique to this election, to his candidacy, or to politics. It's a tried and true tactic that has worked before, and may work again come November.
But that's not really the point. While we expect certain measures of of malleability from our politicians, what we have gotten from Mitt Romney is different. We haven't gotten changing attitudes on certain positions; we have gotten a complete 180 on most things. We haven't gotten vague statements that can be interpreted in numerous ways depending on the audience; we have gotten vague details on policy proposals that Mitt is now totally eschewing. Perhaps the reason President Obama seemed to be caught off guard during the debate was because a brand new Mitt Romney showed up, one we have never seen before.
What America needs is a longer memory span. It's bad enough that we let ourselves be seduced by the gospel of trickle down. Do we not remember the Bush years? Do we not remember that Reagan and Clinton raised taxes? Do we not remember that the prescriptions offered by Mitt Romney are the same toxins that created our economic problem?
If we cannot remember the W. Presidency, perhaps at least we can remember this summer's Mitt Romney, but alas, those memories seem to have long since faded as well. As Obama pointed out in the first debate, Mitt Romney had a totally new tax plan than he has had for the last eighteen months. To anyone who was paying attention, this was obvious. But how many of us were paying attention?
If our memory spans were a bit longer we would realize that Mitt Romney isn't just playing the accepted game of political shape-shifter, he is a brand new person with brand new bad ideas. In fact, the old old Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney would be highly preferable to this new incarnation. It's okay when politicians do political jigs, and it is a good thing when politicians examine evidence and facts and come to new conclusions based on said facts.
It is disturbing and troublesome when a candidate who has reinvented himself entirely has a real shot at winning the presidency. Mitt Romney's (current) ideas are bad enough, but the various masks he wears to cover his naked ambition should scare all Americans. Mitt Romney does not believe in anything except his overwhelming desire to be president, and that is not the kind of person we want leading our country.
I remain optimistic that President Obama will carry the day. Though his first debate performance was lackluster, there is still time for him to bounce back from that. If Americans tune in for debate two, I'm certain they will see the president expose Mitt Romney for the fraud that he is.
But what is really important is that we don't need the president to do that for us, we should already know better. It is true that most politicians play to their base during the primaries and swing towards the center for general elections. Mitt Romney's etch-a-sketch strategy - while another example of his numerous gaffes - isn't unique to this election, to his candidacy, or to politics. It's a tried and true tactic that has worked before, and may work again come November.
But that's not really the point. While we expect certain measures of of malleability from our politicians, what we have gotten from Mitt Romney is different. We haven't gotten changing attitudes on certain positions; we have gotten a complete 180 on most things. We haven't gotten vague statements that can be interpreted in numerous ways depending on the audience; we have gotten vague details on policy proposals that Mitt is now totally eschewing. Perhaps the reason President Obama seemed to be caught off guard during the debate was because a brand new Mitt Romney showed up, one we have never seen before.
What America needs is a longer memory span. It's bad enough that we let ourselves be seduced by the gospel of trickle down. Do we not remember the Bush years? Do we not remember that Reagan and Clinton raised taxes? Do we not remember that the prescriptions offered by Mitt Romney are the same toxins that created our economic problem?
If we cannot remember the W. Presidency, perhaps at least we can remember this summer's Mitt Romney, but alas, those memories seem to have long since faded as well. As Obama pointed out in the first debate, Mitt Romney had a totally new tax plan than he has had for the last eighteen months. To anyone who was paying attention, this was obvious. But how many of us were paying attention?
If our memory spans were a bit longer we would realize that Mitt Romney isn't just playing the accepted game of political shape-shifter, he is a brand new person with brand new bad ideas. In fact, the old old Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney would be highly preferable to this new incarnation. It's okay when politicians do political jigs, and it is a good thing when politicians examine evidence and facts and come to new conclusions based on said facts.
It is disturbing and troublesome when a candidate who has reinvented himself entirely has a real shot at winning the presidency. Mitt Romney's (current) ideas are bad enough, but the various masks he wears to cover his naked ambition should scare all Americans. Mitt Romney does not believe in anything except his overwhelming desire to be president, and that is not the kind of person we want leading our country.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Round One
Most people, myself included, think Mitt Romney won last night's debate. He took charge, was more assertive, and though he displayed his usual tendencies for lying and flip-flopping, dominated the narrative.
But as Mitt Romney himself has already pointed out, most people don't matter; 47% of us are voting for the President no matter what. A similar percentage of people will vote for Romney no matter what. Last night my Facebook wall was full of my Romney friends crowing about his success, and my Obama friends lamenting our guy's lackadaisical performance. I'll be the first to say I agree. I wish Obama had slam dunked some of the alley-oops Romney tried to throw him. I wish he had capitalized on Jim Lehrer's use of trickle down and made a case for how it is just that, trickling down. Put simply, I wish he'd worn his boxing gloves, not his mittens.
But who cares what I think? My vote is signed, sealed, and delivered. Much more important is what those undecided sliver of voters thought. And I see a lot of positive takeaways for the president there.
For starters, though he allowed Romney to dictate the pace and direction of the conversation, Obama exposed Romney for the flip-flopping fraud he is. It seemed at times that the President's approach was to bait Romney. Obama says X, Romney interrupts and interjects in an overly aggressive manner, refutes himself or gives few specifics, while Obama sits back and looks austere and presidential.
This happened on numerous occasions last night. It happened first early in the debate when Obama described Romney's tax plan, only to have Romney hijack the debate to characterize Obama's description as inaccurate. Obama ceded the ground, let Romney talk himself in circles and then simply said, "Well for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is 'never mind.'"
Now personally, I would have liked the President to take Mitt apart right there. I would have liked to have seen Obama pound home the truth in stronger terms, and call Romney out for his hypocrisy. But instead he made his point more subtly and came off looking presidential. Meanwhile, while poor Jim Lehrer - who couldn't have imposed his will on a cow last night - argued with Romney who was over eager to rebut the president.
This happened time and time again, to the point where even Jim Lehrer - doing his best carpet impersonation - finally told Romney, "No, let's not" when Romney tried to interject. Would I have liked more talking points, more sound bites, more aggression from the President? Absolutely. I would have like him to destroy Romney last night, and it wouldn't have been all that difficult. Romney may have dominated the narrative, but his lies, his flip-flopping, and his gross lack of specifics (something of which the President is also guilty but to a lesser degree) were on full display. Obama could have had his way with Romney, but he didn't. But he made his points, he got his jabs in, and he did it in a way that I think was probably more thought-provoking to the undecided voter.
Of course that doesn't mean the strategy worked, if in fact, that was the strategy. Perhaps Obama was just tired, or bored, or wishing he were spending time with his wife on their anniversary. But Obama is smarter than to overlook this; he knows what is at stake - his job; and I believe he went into last night knowing it was the first debate of three and that he could collect his ammunition - and Romney gave him plenty - and sit back and play president to Romney's bull-in-a-china-shop.
Whether this was actually the plan, I can't say for sure. Whether it was effective if it was the plan, I also can't say for sure. And while I do think that Romney "won" last night's debate by dominating the narrative and dictating the pace, he also exposed himself as a hypocrite and failed to give many specifics. He gave Obama a lot of ammunition, and if the President brings the thunder next time, he will not only be able to reclaim the narrative, he will win the fact war too.
But as Mitt Romney himself has already pointed out, most people don't matter; 47% of us are voting for the President no matter what. A similar percentage of people will vote for Romney no matter what. Last night my Facebook wall was full of my Romney friends crowing about his success, and my Obama friends lamenting our guy's lackadaisical performance. I'll be the first to say I agree. I wish Obama had slam dunked some of the alley-oops Romney tried to throw him. I wish he had capitalized on Jim Lehrer's use of trickle down and made a case for how it is just that, trickling down. Put simply, I wish he'd worn his boxing gloves, not his mittens.
But who cares what I think? My vote is signed, sealed, and delivered. Much more important is what those undecided sliver of voters thought. And I see a lot of positive takeaways for the president there.
For starters, though he allowed Romney to dictate the pace and direction of the conversation, Obama exposed Romney for the flip-flopping fraud he is. It seemed at times that the President's approach was to bait Romney. Obama says X, Romney interrupts and interjects in an overly aggressive manner, refutes himself or gives few specifics, while Obama sits back and looks austere and presidential.
This happened on numerous occasions last night. It happened first early in the debate when Obama described Romney's tax plan, only to have Romney hijack the debate to characterize Obama's description as inaccurate. Obama ceded the ground, let Romney talk himself in circles and then simply said, "Well for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is 'never mind.'"
Now personally, I would have liked the President to take Mitt apart right there. I would have liked to have seen Obama pound home the truth in stronger terms, and call Romney out for his hypocrisy. But instead he made his point more subtly and came off looking presidential. Meanwhile, while poor Jim Lehrer - who couldn't have imposed his will on a cow last night - argued with Romney who was over eager to rebut the president.
This happened time and time again, to the point where even Jim Lehrer - doing his best carpet impersonation - finally told Romney, "No, let's not" when Romney tried to interject. Would I have liked more talking points, more sound bites, more aggression from the President? Absolutely. I would have like him to destroy Romney last night, and it wouldn't have been all that difficult. Romney may have dominated the narrative, but his lies, his flip-flopping, and his gross lack of specifics (something of which the President is also guilty but to a lesser degree) were on full display. Obama could have had his way with Romney, but he didn't. But he made his points, he got his jabs in, and he did it in a way that I think was probably more thought-provoking to the undecided voter.
Of course that doesn't mean the strategy worked, if in fact, that was the strategy. Perhaps Obama was just tired, or bored, or wishing he were spending time with his wife on their anniversary. But Obama is smarter than to overlook this; he knows what is at stake - his job; and I believe he went into last night knowing it was the first debate of three and that he could collect his ammunition - and Romney gave him plenty - and sit back and play president to Romney's bull-in-a-china-shop.
Whether this was actually the plan, I can't say for sure. Whether it was effective if it was the plan, I also can't say for sure. And while I do think that Romney "won" last night's debate by dominating the narrative and dictating the pace, he also exposed himself as a hypocrite and failed to give many specifics. He gave Obama a lot of ammunition, and if the President brings the thunder next time, he will not only be able to reclaim the narrative, he will win the fact war too.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Peace is Possible
I’ve already chimed in on Mitt Romney’s callous remarks
about half of our fellow countrymen, but today I’d like to address another
distressing aspect of his secretly recorded comments, the idea that peace in
the Middle East isn’t possible, and that the best thing America can do is kick
the can down the road.
Let me start by referring you to a previous post about MittRomney’s laughable trip overseas meant to display his foreign policy prowess.
Mitt began his trip in London where he managed to piss off the British! Piss of
the British! Think about that. I’m actually pretty certain the last time that
happened was 1812. It’s literally been 200 years. Seriously, Britain is our
closest ally. You would have to try to offend the British. Unless you’re Mitt
Romney and you are just so socially inept that you can’t help but say the wrong
thing.
But that can be brushed aside. After all it’s nothing more
than a laughable gaffe. Sure Romney demonstrated that he can’t get along with
our best friend, but since Britain is our best friend it doesn’t really matter.
Far more important, more disturbing, and more dangerous are Mitt’s comments
both from his overseas foray and from the fundraiser about peace between Israel
and the Palestinians.
While in Israel, Romney did the only thing he knows how to
do when it comes to foreign policy and cozied up to Benjamin Netanyahu. Perhaps
the only person who wants to bomb Iran more than Netanyahu is Mitt Romney.
Romney spent time lecturing about the inferiority of Palestinian culture when
compared to Israel, and stated that if it weren’t for the fact that they were
just so darned lazy and inferior, the Palestinians would have built themselves
a thriving economic state, this despite the fact that there is no Palestinian
state, and that the Palestinian territory has no access to a port or even a
working airport, not to mention that even overland access to the West Bank is controlled by
Israel. Yet despite all of that, Palestinian leadership has done a remarkable
job of building a 21st century economy with the limited resources at
their disposal. Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks that Palestinians are like 47% of
Americans – dependent. Except that Palestinians are dependent. They depend on
Israel for access to ways to receive imports and ship exports.
Romney’s comments were offensive and untrue, and implied
that he didn’t think the Palestinians were capable of much. But we no longer
have to rely on Romney’s implicit meaning because at the fundraiser we were
treated to his explicitly asinine thinking on the Middle East peace process:
that it isn’t possible.
The best we can do says the man who wants to lead: is to
just hope for the best. There is no hope for peace. At best we punt, we kick
the can, and we hope that those culturally inferior Palestinians don’t cause
too much trouble for our war-mongering friend Bibi Netanyahu. This is leadership?
This is about the most dangerous attitude one can take
towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is dangerous for Israelis, it is
dangerous for Palestinians, and it is dangerous for Americans. Romney thinks a
two-state solution is the dumbest idea in the world, so perhaps he prefers an
apartheid state in which a minority Jewish Israeli population controls by force
a majority Palestinian population who are denied the right to self government.
Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks that if that happens those culturally inferior
Palestinians will just fall into place and live happily as second-class
citizens instead of fighting for the right to self-govern. Strange isn’t it,
that Mitt Romney supports American values such as free speech when American
embassies are attacked, but won’t support the right of people to govern
themselves. I’m reminded of 1919 when Ho Chi Minh showed up at Versailles
begging for self-governance for what was then French Indo-China. Rebuffed he
went back to Vietnam and the rest, as they say, is history.
But Republicans have shown themselves to be poor students of
history and Mitt Romney is no different. 1919 was almost a century ago, the
Vietnam War is now almost half a century ago, but our conflicts with the Arab
and Muslim world are ongoing. If Republicans can’t learn from the past, we can
at least expect them to learn from the present, right? Wrong.
A two state solution for Israel and a future Palestine will
not lead to the immediate cessation of all violence between Israelis and
Palestinians. Neither will it lead to the end of the absurd Holocaust denial
and anti-Israeli rhetoric from the Ayatollahs in Iran. Nor will it solve all of
the problems spawned from the violent creation of Israel in 1948. But a
Palestinian state would be a significant step in the right direction. It would
allow Palestinians to channel their energy towards building their state. It
would help undermine the myth that America is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and
anti-Palestinian, thus depriving violent jihadist of some of their propaganda.
If a stable and democratic Iraq is a linchpin of stability in the Middle East,
is the same not true of a stable and democratic Palestine?
Peace is possible, and it is important. It is important for
the stability of the Middle East and it is important for the security of
America. We all know the process won’t be easy or short. It has already proven
to be neither. But when Mitt Romney claims to stand up for American values but
denies Palestinians the right to self-government he exposes himself as a
hypocrite. When he claims to be a leader, but admits that there is no solution
to a tough and important issue he exposes himself as spineless and fearful.
It is no secret that Mitt Romney is not what America needs.
Now we know that Mitt Romney is not the leader the world needs. As the world’s
premier power, America should be at the forefront of solving the world’s
problems. Not hiding timidly and abdicating responsibility because there are no
solutions and the best we can do is hope.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
I am 47%
47% of the country will not, under any circumstances vote for Mitt Romney. I am part of that 47%. I wouldn't shake the man's hand if it met him. I wouldn't vote for him if he was running against this guy. Previously I only thought Mitt Romney was spineless. Now I know he is soulless as well. His callous disregard for nearly half the country puts him at odds with everything it means to be American. In fact, I'm ready to pass harsher judgement. Mitt Romney is decidedly un-American.
Just as importantly, he is a liar and a hypocrite. I will start by referring to a great article in the Economist that exposes Republican hypocrisy on the issue of taxes. At the article details, Republicans are largely responsible for the fact that many working Americans don't pay federal income tax. They have lowered tax rates so many times, that lower income people have fallen off the scale entirely. So although 28% of the country (not the 47% referenced by Romney, a number that includes retirees and extremely impoverished people), work they do not pay federal income tax but they do pay payroll taxes. So the "problem" if you consider it that, is one for which Republicans are largely responsible. But this leads us to the great deception, the idea that income tax and tax are synonymous.
This is obvious of course, but Republicans throw the word tax around with such regularity that it is easy to forget that there are many different kind of taxes, and while 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, the aforementioned 28% do pay payroll taxes, and nearly everyone who purchases good pays sales tax. So when Republicans talk about 47% of the country being freeloaders, they are telling a lie about an issue they are largely responsible for creating. It is the height of deception and hypocrisy. The great irony here is that while these people preach class warfare anytime someone accurately points out that the huge and growing disparity in wealth between the rich and poor is a moral injustice and an economic problem, they are more than willing to stand in front of a group of millionaires and talk about how lazy half the country is.
And that brings me to my second point which will come in the form of a personal anecdote. I work for a network of schools, and I recruit employees - primarily teachers - for our network. I am 26 and pay all my taxes, but this story isn't about me. It is about the hundreds of faceless names that I see on resumes every day. Mitt Romney would have you believe that half the country doesn't want to work, but I am here to tell you otherwise. I see the resumes, and many of them are not pretty. They aren't funny, they are sad. It is easy to tell when people lack the education or the skill necessary to be competitive, but that isn't stopping them from trying. People want to work. People want to make something of themselves. The people Mitt Romney thinks he is speaking of are looking for jobs. They are applying not once, not twice, but three or four times even if they have been turned down in the past. I often see resumes that I don't even consider because I know we would never hire that person, but it kills me each time that happens because I imagine that many of those people are unemployed and doing everything in their power to provide for themselves and their families. Those people and all of us deserve more than what Mitt Romney is selling. Despite the odds beings stacked against them they are trying, and they deserve someone who will empower them further, not callously dismiss their efforts.
Mitt Romney and Republicans think that what America great is an idea. That is wrong. What makes America great is the people who make that idea a reality. What makes America great is Americans. What America needs is a president who believes in Americans, not Mitt Romney.
Just as importantly, he is a liar and a hypocrite. I will start by referring to a great article in the Economist that exposes Republican hypocrisy on the issue of taxes. At the article details, Republicans are largely responsible for the fact that many working Americans don't pay federal income tax. They have lowered tax rates so many times, that lower income people have fallen off the scale entirely. So although 28% of the country (not the 47% referenced by Romney, a number that includes retirees and extremely impoverished people), work they do not pay federal income tax but they do pay payroll taxes. So the "problem" if you consider it that, is one for which Republicans are largely responsible. But this leads us to the great deception, the idea that income tax and tax are synonymous.
This is obvious of course, but Republicans throw the word tax around with such regularity that it is easy to forget that there are many different kind of taxes, and while 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, the aforementioned 28% do pay payroll taxes, and nearly everyone who purchases good pays sales tax. So when Republicans talk about 47% of the country being freeloaders, they are telling a lie about an issue they are largely responsible for creating. It is the height of deception and hypocrisy. The great irony here is that while these people preach class warfare anytime someone accurately points out that the huge and growing disparity in wealth between the rich and poor is a moral injustice and an economic problem, they are more than willing to stand in front of a group of millionaires and talk about how lazy half the country is.
And that brings me to my second point which will come in the form of a personal anecdote. I work for a network of schools, and I recruit employees - primarily teachers - for our network. I am 26 and pay all my taxes, but this story isn't about me. It is about the hundreds of faceless names that I see on resumes every day. Mitt Romney would have you believe that half the country doesn't want to work, but I am here to tell you otherwise. I see the resumes, and many of them are not pretty. They aren't funny, they are sad. It is easy to tell when people lack the education or the skill necessary to be competitive, but that isn't stopping them from trying. People want to work. People want to make something of themselves. The people Mitt Romney thinks he is speaking of are looking for jobs. They are applying not once, not twice, but three or four times even if they have been turned down in the past. I often see resumes that I don't even consider because I know we would never hire that person, but it kills me each time that happens because I imagine that many of those people are unemployed and doing everything in their power to provide for themselves and their families. Those people and all of us deserve more than what Mitt Romney is selling. Despite the odds beings stacked against them they are trying, and they deserve someone who will empower them further, not callously dismiss their efforts.
Mitt Romney and Republicans think that what America great is an idea. That is wrong. What makes America great is the people who make that idea a reality. What makes America great is Americans. What America needs is a president who believes in Americans, not Mitt Romney.
Monday, September 17, 2012
'Rithmetic
Bill Clinton said it best, but he's not the first one to say it, and it is worth repeating, Mitt Romney's tax plan simply does not add up. Of course, Romney has already made it clear that his campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers, presumably because that would derail the whole presidential bid given the Republican party's severe allergy to facts and data. Put simply Romney's plan is arithmetically impossible. No surprise there.
Perhaps this is the case because Republicans still adhere stringently to the gospel of trickle down even though this plan - while it sounds good in theory - has failed in practice. No matter what Republicans preach, tax cuts and economic growth are not synonymous. In fact it is very possible that any growth prospects from tax cuts would be more than off set by the damage of some of the spending cuts Ryan and Romney propose. Of course that is merely conjecture since - despite Ryan's claims not to "duck tough issues" - the campaign hasn't offered any real ideas and is now reevaluating it's position a month and a half before the election because it has been "short on specifics." Maybe Romney and Ryan are short on specifics because they know their plan isn't credible.
Here is the real issue though. Supply-sided economics does not work. It looks good on paper, but in practice it fails. As I have pointed out before, the failure of far left economic policies - centrally planned economies for example - does not mean that far right economic planning is the solution to our economic woes. Supply-sided economics is a failure as well. There is no evidence to show that lower taxes leads to economic growth. In fact in the past three decades, economic growth has come despite taxes. Romney and Ryan's plans to cut taxes is just that, a plan to cut taxes. It is not a plan to reduce the deficit. That has already been proven mathematically impossible, and it is surely not a plan to spur economic growth given that A) it isn't even possible to implement, and B) even if it were, it has been tried and proven ineffective.
Romney and Ryan have no economic plan, and worse, no credibility. Their plan does not reduce the deficit, it adds to the deficit by giving the super rich money they don't need. Their plan doesn't spur economic growth, it gives the super rich money they don't need. Oh, and they spend a lot more on defense, because nothing is cooler than having enough nukes to end life as we know it ten times over. The Romney/Ryan vision of America is a millionaire's sandbox with a military.
So if you are willing to buy into economic fantasy that is presented as purposefully vague in order to mask it's glaring deficiencies, then Romney and Ryan are your men. If you are willing to accept that mathematics, like global warming and evolution, is pure fiction then vote for Romney and Ryan. If you want more of what led to our current crisis and less of what will fix it, then vote Romney/Ryan in November.
If however, you think 'rithmetic is important, you have faith in data and science, and you want a prosperous America for everyone, I'd consider that Obama guy.
Perhaps this is the case because Republicans still adhere stringently to the gospel of trickle down even though this plan - while it sounds good in theory - has failed in practice. No matter what Republicans preach, tax cuts and economic growth are not synonymous. In fact it is very possible that any growth prospects from tax cuts would be more than off set by the damage of some of the spending cuts Ryan and Romney propose. Of course that is merely conjecture since - despite Ryan's claims not to "duck tough issues" - the campaign hasn't offered any real ideas and is now reevaluating it's position a month and a half before the election because it has been "short on specifics." Maybe Romney and Ryan are short on specifics because they know their plan isn't credible.
Here is the real issue though. Supply-sided economics does not work. It looks good on paper, but in practice it fails. As I have pointed out before, the failure of far left economic policies - centrally planned economies for example - does not mean that far right economic planning is the solution to our economic woes. Supply-sided economics is a failure as well. There is no evidence to show that lower taxes leads to economic growth. In fact in the past three decades, economic growth has come despite taxes. Romney and Ryan's plans to cut taxes is just that, a plan to cut taxes. It is not a plan to reduce the deficit. That has already been proven mathematically impossible, and it is surely not a plan to spur economic growth given that A) it isn't even possible to implement, and B) even if it were, it has been tried and proven ineffective.
Romney and Ryan have no economic plan, and worse, no credibility. Their plan does not reduce the deficit, it adds to the deficit by giving the super rich money they don't need. Their plan doesn't spur economic growth, it gives the super rich money they don't need. Oh, and they spend a lot more on defense, because nothing is cooler than having enough nukes to end life as we know it ten times over. The Romney/Ryan vision of America is a millionaire's sandbox with a military.
So if you are willing to buy into economic fantasy that is presented as purposefully vague in order to mask it's glaring deficiencies, then Romney and Ryan are your men. If you are willing to accept that mathematics, like global warming and evolution, is pure fiction then vote for Romney and Ryan. If you want more of what led to our current crisis and less of what will fix it, then vote Romney/Ryan in November.
If however, you think 'rithmetic is important, you have faith in data and science, and you want a prosperous America for everyone, I'd consider that Obama guy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
This is Not Acceptable
Last night's attacks on American personnel in Egypt and Libya are entirely unacceptable and a complete travesty. While I have nothing but contempt and disgust for those who knowingly incite violence with unnecessary and inflammatory commentary, I have even more contempt and disgust for those who lash out with violence when ridiculed or insulted.
The loss of four members of the American diplomatic corps who had committed themselves to establishing democracy in Libya is an appalling and unforgivable atrocity. The world would be a better place without the likes of Terry Jones (whose name has been mentioned in connection with the video that sparked the attacks, but who is a good example of a bigot even if he is innocent here) whose hateful words are deliberately designed to provoke these responses, but Terry Jones and his ilk have every right to be ignorant bigots. No one has any reason to take innocent lives because they are offended. No one. Not now, not ever.
Muslims around the world may be very offended by depictions of Muhammad. They may be upset that others belittle their beliefs. That's all well and good. I'm offended and upset by much of the venom and lies spewed by the Republican party, but violence is not the answer. People have a right to their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether those opinions are enlightened or bigoted. They have a right to say that they think Islam is a violent and nutty religion, and as long as even a small fraction of Muslims react to those comments with violence then the assaults will keep coming.
There is nothing to say about last night's attacks except that they are not acceptable. Any world view that espouses violence when threatened has no place in the world we should be striving to create. America can and should to continue to promote values of tolerance at home and abroad, but that obviously that includes a respect for human life above all else.
Just as my thoughts and prayers were with the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks yesterday, so today are they with the families and victims of the senseless attacks in Libya. We should salute the brave Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice to help make the world a better place.
The loss of four members of the American diplomatic corps who had committed themselves to establishing democracy in Libya is an appalling and unforgivable atrocity. The world would be a better place without the likes of Terry Jones (whose name has been mentioned in connection with the video that sparked the attacks, but who is a good example of a bigot even if he is innocent here) whose hateful words are deliberately designed to provoke these responses, but Terry Jones and his ilk have every right to be ignorant bigots. No one has any reason to take innocent lives because they are offended. No one. Not now, not ever.
Muslims around the world may be very offended by depictions of Muhammad. They may be upset that others belittle their beliefs. That's all well and good. I'm offended and upset by much of the venom and lies spewed by the Republican party, but violence is not the answer. People have a right to their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether those opinions are enlightened or bigoted. They have a right to say that they think Islam is a violent and nutty religion, and as long as even a small fraction of Muslims react to those comments with violence then the assaults will keep coming.
There is nothing to say about last night's attacks except that they are not acceptable. Any world view that espouses violence when threatened has no place in the world we should be striving to create. America can and should to continue to promote values of tolerance at home and abroad, but that obviously that includes a respect for human life above all else.
Just as my thoughts and prayers were with the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks yesterday, so today are they with the families and victims of the senseless attacks in Libya. We should salute the brave Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice to help make the world a better place.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
11 Years Later
It has been 11 years and the memory has not faded. A day that will live in infamy. A day which we will never forget. A day that our brave men and women in uniform work every day to prevent from happening again.
We should honor the dead everyday, but we do so especially today. Our hearts and prayers are with those innocent victims and their families.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day, but the American spirit is stronger than any tower of steel. I am proud of my country, I am proud to be an American, and I am grateful for those who endeavor to keep us safe just as I mourn those whose lives were senselessly taken.
We should honor the dead everyday, but we do so especially today. Our hearts and prayers are with those innocent victims and their families.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day, but the American spirit is stronger than any tower of steel. I am proud of my country, I am proud to be an American, and I am grateful for those who endeavor to keep us safe just as I mourn those whose lives were senselessly taken.
Monday, September 10, 2012
As Conservative as the Constitution
Mitt Romney appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in typical Mitt Romney fashion, twisted himself into knots trying to explain the inexplicable - his ever changing, ever evolving, never set-in-stone views on everything. As I've said before, Mitt Romney has never met a position his audience didn't like. Right now that means Etch-a-Sketching his way back towards the center for the general election, but let us not forget that very recently, Mitt was a "severe" conservative.
I find the term amusing, but also strikingly accurate. When I hear the word severe I often think of an illness. A severe cold for example. There is a negative connotation. To me, Romney painted an accurate picture of the far right with the term. The ideas espoused by many of these people are awful. Their social views are abhorrent, and their economic policies are misguided and have been tried and found wanting. If there still existed such a thing as a moderate Republican, a right-of-center pragmatist just as the President is a left-of-center pragmatist, then Republicans could contribute to the national debate. Alas, Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a right-of-center pragmatist, but since he has the spine of an eel, I don't trust anything he says. Severe conservatism is an epidemic that has taken over most of the Republican party to the detriment of the country.
But Romney pivoted to the center on Sunday, and instead of a severe conservative he is now only "as conservative as the Constitution." This sounds less extreme, and it probably is, but it is still deeply misguided and represents a severe step backwards for America.
For starters, the Constitution is hardly a conservative document. Though far from perfect, it was, at the time it was penned, well ahead of its time. A first-of-its-kind document, the Constitution represented something that had never really been tried before. It established a new form of government and provided people essential and basic protection under the law. It is only conservative from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century. At the time it was written, it was perhaps the most progressive document on the planet.
But today, it is most certainly a conservative document, and that is part of the problem. Why on Earth are some people committed to running a 21st century society based on laws established in the late 18th century? It's worth mentioning that the all-knowing founding fathers were wise enough to establish a mechanism to amend the Constitution and then to immediately amend it themselves, giving us the Bill of Rights. It's worth mentioning that even though the original document was forward-thinking, it had to be amended multiple times to eliminate grave injustices such as the acceptance of slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. As society moves forward and new challenges arise, we should have a means of addressing them.
The point of a Constitution in my view is two-fold; it must establish stability so that people have confidence that they are acting within the law thus establishing a solid foundation for society, but it must also allow for the flexibility of a rapidly changing world so that we are not left behind. The United States Constitution is stability heavy, with almost no room for flexibility. It is rigid in an age in which we need to be more nimble.
This is best illustrated by an oft-mentioned (at least by me) episode from a few years ago in which the rights of people on the terrorist-suspect list were being debated. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham defended his position that terrorist suspects could be barred from airplanes, but not prevented from buying a gun by pointing out that airplanes weren't mentioned in the Constitution!
Senator Graham is right. Airplanes are not mentioned in the Constitution. Apparently, the foresight of the founders extended only so far. Wise though they were, there was not a Nostradamus among them, and therefore they were unable to fully anticipate how complex a place the world would become. Despite some of these glaring, but understandable, omissions, there are still those in this country who would have us be governed by the Constitution as it was originally written, line for line, word for word, letter for letter. This is, quite frankly, asinine.
So when Mitt Romney says he is as Conservative as the Constitution, we should be afraid. Such a statement reflects his profound misunderstanding of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written, and also shackles us to a a worldview in which the yeoman farmer will explore and tame the vast wilderness of the American frontier.
The Constitution is rightfully the foundation for our society. It reflects the values on which our country was founded, and provides us with a sense of what it means to be American, and a stable set of laws on which to govern our society. However the Constitution does not and cannot answer all the questions posed by a complicated 21st century world. Healthcare reform and airplanes were not on the minds of the founding fathers, and if we continue to think we can determine the path forward based on a rigid interpretation of an 18th century document, then we are sure to find ourselves looking up at the societies who have found a way to create both stability and flexibility.
I find the term amusing, but also strikingly accurate. When I hear the word severe I often think of an illness. A severe cold for example. There is a negative connotation. To me, Romney painted an accurate picture of the far right with the term. The ideas espoused by many of these people are awful. Their social views are abhorrent, and their economic policies are misguided and have been tried and found wanting. If there still existed such a thing as a moderate Republican, a right-of-center pragmatist just as the President is a left-of-center pragmatist, then Republicans could contribute to the national debate. Alas, Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a right-of-center pragmatist, but since he has the spine of an eel, I don't trust anything he says. Severe conservatism is an epidemic that has taken over most of the Republican party to the detriment of the country.
But Romney pivoted to the center on Sunday, and instead of a severe conservative he is now only "as conservative as the Constitution." This sounds less extreme, and it probably is, but it is still deeply misguided and represents a severe step backwards for America.
For starters, the Constitution is hardly a conservative document. Though far from perfect, it was, at the time it was penned, well ahead of its time. A first-of-its-kind document, the Constitution represented something that had never really been tried before. It established a new form of government and provided people essential and basic protection under the law. It is only conservative from the perspective of someone living in the 21st century. At the time it was written, it was perhaps the most progressive document on the planet.
But today, it is most certainly a conservative document, and that is part of the problem. Why on Earth are some people committed to running a 21st century society based on laws established in the late 18th century? It's worth mentioning that the all-knowing founding fathers were wise enough to establish a mechanism to amend the Constitution and then to immediately amend it themselves, giving us the Bill of Rights. It's worth mentioning that even though the original document was forward-thinking, it had to be amended multiple times to eliminate grave injustices such as the acceptance of slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. As society moves forward and new challenges arise, we should have a means of addressing them.
The point of a Constitution in my view is two-fold; it must establish stability so that people have confidence that they are acting within the law thus establishing a solid foundation for society, but it must also allow for the flexibility of a rapidly changing world so that we are not left behind. The United States Constitution is stability heavy, with almost no room for flexibility. It is rigid in an age in which we need to be more nimble.
This is best illustrated by an oft-mentioned (at least by me) episode from a few years ago in which the rights of people on the terrorist-suspect list were being debated. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham defended his position that terrorist suspects could be barred from airplanes, but not prevented from buying a gun by pointing out that airplanes weren't mentioned in the Constitution!
Senator Graham is right. Airplanes are not mentioned in the Constitution. Apparently, the foresight of the founders extended only so far. Wise though they were, there was not a Nostradamus among them, and therefore they were unable to fully anticipate how complex a place the world would become. Despite some of these glaring, but understandable, omissions, there are still those in this country who would have us be governed by the Constitution as it was originally written, line for line, word for word, letter for letter. This is, quite frankly, asinine.
So when Mitt Romney says he is as Conservative as the Constitution, we should be afraid. Such a statement reflects his profound misunderstanding of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written, and also shackles us to a a worldview in which the yeoman farmer will explore and tame the vast wilderness of the American frontier.
The Constitution is rightfully the foundation for our society. It reflects the values on which our country was founded, and provides us with a sense of what it means to be American, and a stable set of laws on which to govern our society. However the Constitution does not and cannot answer all the questions posed by a complicated 21st century world. Healthcare reform and airplanes were not on the minds of the founding fathers, and if we continue to think we can determine the path forward based on a rigid interpretation of an 18th century document, then we are sure to find ourselves looking up at the societies who have found a way to create both stability and flexibility.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Fired Up but Not Inspired
Two conventions later I'm left feeling fired up but not inspired.
I'm fired up because Republicans reminded me how important it is to reelect President Obama. Their vision of the future is inconsistent with American values, and is built on fiction and fantasy. I'm also fired up because I heard quite a few rousing speeches from the Democrats. From the first lady to the Arkansan I wish we could bring back for a third term to John Kerry's charismatic twin to the President himself, Democrats were rousing. Republicans tend to be incredibly old and boring, Democrats a bit less so.
A lot is at stake in November, and I'm fired up about making sure the President gets reelected. There are multiple paths forward for our country, but only one political party has chosen to move us in that direction.
But that brings me to the disappointment I'm feeling. While I recognize the dangerous path that the Republican party would lead us down, I'm uninspired by the lack of bold leadership from Democrats.
Perhaps they took the easy route. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are easy punching bags after all. Maybe polling data show that Democrats will do better by highlighting how bad Republicans are, but smart people already know that the current Republican platform is dogmatic and silly to the extreme. What people want is a vision from Democrats, and I did not get one.
Sure Obama talked about some policy ideas, and he had some good ones, but they were small time. Reform the tax code? Sounds great, Republicans are saying it too, which loopholes would you close, etc, etc, etc. Nothing substantive there. Recruit more math and science teachers? Sounds awesome, let's do it. Help more people get to community college so they can learn skills? Sure, that will help too.
But none of these things are visionary, they're micro fixes for macro problems. None of them will address any of America's true, long-terms needs. Am I really supposed to believe that America's long-term prosperity hinges on community colleges? I wanted something bigger and better for the Democrats and I didn't get it. I wanted the President to be brave, but instead he was safe. I wanted him to tell me how he was going to transition us to clean energy, or reform immigration policy, or fix the deficit. I wanted in 2012 what healthcare reform was in 2010. I am left wanting.
I'm fired up because Republicans reminded me how important it is to reelect President Obama. Their vision of the future is inconsistent with American values, and is built on fiction and fantasy. I'm also fired up because I heard quite a few rousing speeches from the Democrats. From the first lady to the Arkansan I wish we could bring back for a third term to John Kerry's charismatic twin to the President himself, Democrats were rousing. Republicans tend to be incredibly old and boring, Democrats a bit less so.
A lot is at stake in November, and I'm fired up about making sure the President gets reelected. There are multiple paths forward for our country, but only one political party has chosen to move us in that direction.
But that brings me to the disappointment I'm feeling. While I recognize the dangerous path that the Republican party would lead us down, I'm uninspired by the lack of bold leadership from Democrats.
Perhaps they took the easy route. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are easy punching bags after all. Maybe polling data show that Democrats will do better by highlighting how bad Republicans are, but smart people already know that the current Republican platform is dogmatic and silly to the extreme. What people want is a vision from Democrats, and I did not get one.
Sure Obama talked about some policy ideas, and he had some good ones, but they were small time. Reform the tax code? Sounds great, Republicans are saying it too, which loopholes would you close, etc, etc, etc. Nothing substantive there. Recruit more math and science teachers? Sounds awesome, let's do it. Help more people get to community college so they can learn skills? Sure, that will help too.
But none of these things are visionary, they're micro fixes for macro problems. None of them will address any of America's true, long-terms needs. Am I really supposed to believe that America's long-term prosperity hinges on community colleges? I wanted something bigger and better for the Democrats and I didn't get it. I wanted the President to be brave, but instead he was safe. I wanted him to tell me how he was going to transition us to clean energy, or reform immigration policy, or fix the deficit. I wanted in 2012 what healthcare reform was in 2010. I am left wanting.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Demographics of Progress
Countries, because of the people who populate them, get older and younger in an ebb and flow of generational demographics. Right now, America has an aging population, but that will not be so in a few decades. In fact in a few decades, America will have a much younger population. This natural cycle is true for all countries, but it underscores important and encouraging trends for our future.
The inspiration for this post came from a piece I read in the Economist yesterday dissecting Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC. I was drawn particularly to the following line:
"There was almost a sense of poker at work. In Tampa, Republicans talked a lot about their parents, the second world war and the "greatest generation", and the founding fathers. On the first night in Charlotte, speaker after speaker spoke about their grandparents (ie, I’ll see your mother, and raise you my granny)."
What I found most interesting about this was the alignment between parents and grandparents. I know there is no direct demographic evidence of this, but I find it telling that when talking about the "greatest generation," Republicans are talking about their parents and Democrats about their grandparents. This is equal parts amusing and encouraging.
It's no secret that each successive generation tends to be more liberal than the generation before it, and that, put simply, is the demographics of progress. Much of what we debate in the present has already been determined in the future, but we are fighting the fights now as some cling to the last vestiges of the traditions - real or imagined - of preceding generations, and as none of us yet know what the fights of the future will look like.
This is true for both economic and social issues, but more so for social ones. Can you imagine how some people 50 years ago would have reacted if they had been told that America would elect a black president? How do you think the generation born in 2050 will react to knowing that in 2012 a basic right like marriage was denied to gay people simply because of their sexuality? It will be an even more laughable travesty then than it is now.
Progress is slow but inevitable. The world is moving in the right direction, and the demographics of progress are like unstoppable waves pushing us forward. Today's fights have already been won tomorrow if that convoluted timeline makes any sense. It is important not to let that knowledge make us complacent. We must continue to strive for equality and prosperity, but it is all encouraging to know that we are fighting a winning battle.
The inspiration for this post came from a piece I read in the Economist yesterday dissecting Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC. I was drawn particularly to the following line:
"There was almost a sense of poker at work. In Tampa, Republicans talked a lot about their parents, the second world war and the "greatest generation", and the founding fathers. On the first night in Charlotte, speaker after speaker spoke about their grandparents (ie, I’ll see your mother, and raise you my granny)."
What I found most interesting about this was the alignment between parents and grandparents. I know there is no direct demographic evidence of this, but I find it telling that when talking about the "greatest generation," Republicans are talking about their parents and Democrats about their grandparents. This is equal parts amusing and encouraging.
It's no secret that each successive generation tends to be more liberal than the generation before it, and that, put simply, is the demographics of progress. Much of what we debate in the present has already been determined in the future, but we are fighting the fights now as some cling to the last vestiges of the traditions - real or imagined - of preceding generations, and as none of us yet know what the fights of the future will look like.
This is true for both economic and social issues, but more so for social ones. Can you imagine how some people 50 years ago would have reacted if they had been told that America would elect a black president? How do you think the generation born in 2050 will react to knowing that in 2012 a basic right like marriage was denied to gay people simply because of their sexuality? It will be an even more laughable travesty then than it is now.
Progress is slow but inevitable. The world is moving in the right direction, and the demographics of progress are like unstoppable waves pushing us forward. Today's fights have already been won tomorrow if that convoluted timeline makes any sense. It is important not to let that knowledge make us complacent. We must continue to strive for equality and prosperity, but it is all encouraging to know that we are fighting a winning battle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)