When I wrote the following rambling missive to a friend, I didn't realize how well it could work as a blog post. Thinking about this letter (and my friend's unpublished response), I realize that I am a Jeffersonian at heart, while my friend is a Hamiltonian. In short, I believe in the will of the people, although I believe that it must occasionally be checked and balanced. My friend sees the elite as a needed safeguard against the rabble running amok.
For the most part, our views are two sides of the same coin - both of recognize the public's need to have a say in their own affairs, but we both recognize the need for a buffer to keep the common person from destroying the society in which he lives. And both of us have been lucky enough to avoid the encumbrances that would make us slaves to the society in which we live, instead of controlling our own destinies to a large degree.
Right now, I see the Trump and Sanders campaigns having their successes rooted in the general belief that the public is mad as hell and isn't going to take it any more. A Trump or Clinton win would result in a one term presidency - and would leave the body politic much more unstable than we can afford at this time in history. Yet, I like instability (to some degree) as I like to see the body politic refreshed by healthy blood - something we haven't seen in a while.
So I hope you enjoy today's missive, in the form of rambling thoughts I've written to a friend to provoke conversation....
If I were going to do a War Of The Worlds story today, I'd make the "aliens" look more like us, so that the alien invasion would not be that of a faceless enemy, but of an enemy that lives with us. (This reminds me of a movie that Roddy Piper made - "They Live.") The story would be more of the dilemmas a space faring civilization faces when encountering a "sort of" sentient species, and then the ultimate realization that this planet is too toxic for that species to inhabit - leaving the formerly colonized to think that they had the upper hand in their own right. Of course, one could throw a lot of social metaphors into the story to give the story more gravitas than it deserves, and to score higher ratings from the critics.
The problem with a lot of mass media these days is that it has been dumbed down for a lot of Americans to consume. For example, how many shows will they make about antique and pawn shops, along with the people who run and supply them? How many shows can they make about dwarfs and their families? How many shows can they make of "unusual" families? Of course, I'm biased. I feel that narrowcasting has allowed a significant portion of the American public to avoid exposure to ideas to which they feel uncomfortable.
I think the problem starts in the schools and in the homes. Both liberals and conservatives can make good arguments about the problems in educating our children. But I also think we're seeing signs of structural unemployment which can't be ignored. Low end jobs are being outsourced to low wage places, leaving America to increase the size of its social safety net, lest we have major social unrest. Couple that with middle to high end jobs now gradually being replaced by computer functions, and we may be looking at a situation (which could become worldwide) where there are more people than jobs. How can a society cope?
Before you think that my idea of people outnumbering available jobs is a problem that could result in a radical solution, think of this. Before the Black Plague, "serfs" (I could equate them to newly freed slaves becoming tenant farmers) had no social power, owed most of their production to the manors, and could afford to take no chances with what they grew. There was always another serf to take his place. The plague took away all that excess labor that the manoral economy depended on, took away many of the lords and ladies, and left the remaining labor with the upper hand. They started to grow a wider range of crops, ate better, and were part of an economy that started to develop labor saving inventions because there were more jobs than labor. What could happen in America with roughly one gun in circulation for each of its citizens, if our elites don't address the problems of an economy where there are more jobs than people? Any slight event could radically destabilize things, resulting in great population loss before a new stable state is achieved.
So we go back to the schools and the homes. Religious fundamentalism has shown itself to be a plague on mankind. We have home schooled students who can't prove they know enough to enter trade schools. In fact, many of them can't do the math required for these schools, because their parents decreed that the bible contains everything the child needs to learn. We're already seeing what happens to some states when these clowns get to power - education gets shafted, in one case, the cutbacks meant that there was no local school available for the children of one town. (I wish I remembered the full details of this situation - I think it was in Kansas, but I'm not sure.) I shouldn't pin the blame on religious fundamentalism alone. We've seen the same neglect for our school systems and families in non religious areas of the country. We're seeing an America divided on Rural vs. Urban lines, and the Rural populations are winning for now. They are making the mistake that the solutions that worked 50-75 years ago, when the US was at its greatest level of prosperity vs. the world, are still valid today. Simply praying to god a bit more, and resisting social change (acceptance of the GLBT population as having equal rights), will not solve their problems. Something more is needed from both Rural and Urban populations....
We now have ready made scapegoats for people like Trump to exploit. Before you say I'm about to go into a diatribe against "the Donald", reflect on this - he did bring issues into the political conversation that the political elite would rather not address - albeit in an inelegant, crude way. I'd rather see him as president than Cruz. A vote for Trump is the hard core Republican's way of giving a vote of "No Confidence" to the GOP and its candidates. Sanders is the equivalent from the hard core Democrat's side of things, especially when it's a vote against Hillary Clinton. Although Sanders has not fleshed out his ideas that well, he might be the least dangerous person to elect because a GOP dominated legislature will block his every action.
Both political parties have their own reasons for keeping the insurgents from taking power. But it's harder to see the benefits of the insurgents gaining power. If Trump were to be elected, he'd be a wild card, a joker waiting to do something that would trigger impeachment and conviction - removal from office. It would also mean that the GOP would be able to get rid of its extremist elements and could produce a party ready to govern again. If Sanders were to be elected, it would give the Democrats a reason to stop a continued slide to the political right, and renew its position as a moderate leftist party again. And with both Trump and Sanders, I expect that they would have their reasons to deal with Wall Street and the corrupting influence of its money and power. Trump, to remove power from his enemies. Sanders, to clean up a system which caused the mess we are in....
As I noted, this was the start of a conversation that has lasted several sets of email exchanges so far. The ideas are not well formed yet, but they touch on problems that have been long ignored by our elites. I only wonder whether our leaders will bother to do their job, or continue to push America towards the decline of its empire....
Recently, "The New Yorker" published this little satire about Ted Cruz:
A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.
The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.
In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.
More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.
Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.”
Although I find this article amusing, it says one important thing - the race to the White House is now on.
Lately, I find myself politically leaning towards the left, only because the right has gone off the rails. In the past, being conservative only meant that one prefers a slower rate of social change, where being liberal meant that one prefers a faster rate of social change. Now, conservatives want to roll back change - in part because many people who label themselves as conservative have been sold on the idea that if we restore the values of the 1950's, everything else will fall into place, and a prosperous America will be restored.
In the case of Ted Cruz, he denies reality to stir up his base. How many of us really think it possible to dismantle the IRS? And if we did so (with the dismantling of the government that would ensue), we'd be left with a government in worse shape than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation. Yet, the base cheers him on. But I wonder - Can any sane person take this person seriously? He is a serious risk to this country, but he's more of a bad joke being played at the expense of his base.
- - - - - -
Cruz is only one of a large field of GOP contenders for the office of POTUS. And each one of them is singing the song so popular among the GOP's base: "Repeal Obamacare." But what do any of them have to replace Obamacare?
Obamacare is not the only issue. We also have "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life". It's hard to believe that at one time, Abortion was not an issue in our society. When "Roe vs. Wade" was being decided, it was the pro-choice side that offered a compromise that the pro-life side didn't accept. And SCOTUS gave the Pro-Choice side more than it ever dreamed of. And now, "Choice" is under siege in many states. Terrorism has been used to intimidate anyone connected with or doing business with an abortion clinic. The authors of Freakonomics have shown with statistics that there is a correlation that links legal abortion to a reduction in teenager crime in urban settings. Are we ready for the potential increase in the crime rate if abortion again is illegal?
Regardless of where one stands on these issues (and I can make good arguments against the positions I support), one should be looking at the degree of honesty between a politician's words and actions, as well as that politician's position before supporting him/her.
- - - - - -
You'll note that I painted the Abortion issue from a mildly leftist viewpoint. In order to understand the Right Wing of American politics, one has to come to it from the Left. And we're seeing a GOP (largely old and white) out of sync with America's long term demographics (largely young and people of color).
The GOP's base has some legitimate complaints. We did not bother enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration. There are over 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens resident in the USA, almost 30 years after the blanket amnesty given during the Reagan administration. And the base is rightfully upset about successive GOP and Democratic administrations not doing anything these immigrants who (wrongfully) are seen as taking the jobs once held by white males. The reality is different and more damning - neither political party has a F'ing clue about what to do about structural unemployment.
Fear motivates much of the base. There is a very high correlation between being religious and being an active member of the GOP - this being a result of Nixon's successful "Southern Strategy" which flipped the South from Democratic Blue to GOP Red. Many Christian fundamentalists are very fearful of the wrath of God - and internalize that fear. Tradition is extremely important to the base - breaking tradition is as much a cultural crime as it can be a legal crime, when it comes to maintaining the social order. This is why the battle for civil rights is triggering religious lunatics to commit terrorist acts.
When the base chooses news sources, it chooses sources that speak in the words of fear - whether or not this fear is valid. And the base is manipulated by fear. One does not have to go far to see (what should be) a small issue blown way out of proportion by lies that triggers fear in people without cause. For example, take the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). There is no proof that stable marriages between people of the same sex harms any traditional marriage. Yet, traditionalists are being manipulated: "SSM will lead to marriages between men and livestock", "SSM will cause a complete moral breakdown in America", "God will destroy the world, if we allow SSM." The conservative media chosen by the base repeats the same messages, reinforcing fears, and stirs up hatred. And in fear and the hatred of social dysfunction, the base finds false comfort.
- - - - - -
So, what happens if we elect someone to the office of POTUS who panders to this kind of fearful person? In the past, the political machine would listen to this person (and others like him) and give him lip service. But this person (and others like him) will not be satisfied with the usual broken promises. And here is the point where the left should be concerned.
In the past, there was a ruling clique from both parties which knew how to get things done. People like Goldwater and Kennedy knew how to reach across the aisle and find votes to achieve things that benefited people on both left and right. When Johnson (a former US Senator from Texas) fought "the war on poverty", he changed the focus of bills meant to help poor black people, to laws which helped poor people regardless of color. Johnson knew that the South would never help black people, even though the whites there were directly responsible for the poverty of Blacks. But by refocusing the Southern electorate on poverty (instead of its hatred of Blacks), Johnson was able to make the electorate see that these laws benefited them as well.
Today, things are very different. It is virtually a crime for someone to work across the aisle. The GOP's base will not broach compromise with the left - it is tired of compromises they see as not benefiting them. They want ideological purity at all costs. Only through purity can the results they want be achieved. Sadly, reality differs from that faith....
We are now seeing a lot of "potential" candidates looking to establish funding for the race to the White House. The lunatics are out, because they are stirring up the party base for funds and early primary votes. Thankfully, most are unelectable. But what would happen if one of these candidates actually wins? I doubt the base will get what it wants. Instead, I see something like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happening here - the powers that be will enforce laws to maintain (or roll back to) a conservative cultural conformity we haven't seen since the 1930's, and will not show any restraint in harming Gays, Transgenders, Political Apostates, and People of Color. "Ozzie and Harriet" would be considered leftist by the new standards of the day.
- - - - - -
I am afraid that the Democrats have (mostly) selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee designate. She will not have to fight for her nomination, and as such, she will not be at the top of her game if an energized GOP candidate opposes her. Like many centrists, I will hold my nose if I have to vote for her, as she is someone I can't trust. There is too much history behind this person for me to feel comfortable with her (or anyone named Clinton). A Machiavel like her would make a good president - but only if the people who "own" her have a desire to benefit this country at their own expense. Otherwise, a person like Hillary will use the office of POTUS for her own gain at our expense.
Let's say that something happens to Hillary. Election day 2016 is still a long time away, and anything (such as a health issue) can take her out of the running. Who do the Democrats have on their back bench that can replace her and win the votes needed to keep 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Blue? I do not have a clue. Jerry Brown of California? Possibly - but he isn't running. But who can speak the "fearful" language of the South and gain its trust? Bill Clinton is no longer available, save as someone who can help Hillary. And Obama deserves the much needed rest that he will be required to have....
- - - - - -
It is a good thing that the office of POTUS has term limits. But I wish we had a better filter to prevent unqualified people from holding the office in the first place....
