Sleeves up (a rambling rant)
Nov. 15th, 2006 09:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumIt's been an incredible week. There's lots of talk about the changes which are coming, and what needs to be done to consolidate the "win". We won, make no bones about it. The Right is spinning this, as the narrative has been for years, that the turning out of the guys who are leaving The Hill (I'd say leaving Washington, but there are think tanks, and lobbying firms more than willing to snap them up, those turned out of office are for the former, and the staffers for the latter; unless they parlay their rolodex into a job on the staff of one of those who remains).
There's an interesting breakdown of the changes, with maps over at <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/3221/7147>Kos.
Even if you don't go look at them (and they do some interesting breakdowns of where the gains were, but that doesn't address the question of why) the question still remains, was this a big win, or just an average one? A lot of the spin has been, "this was to be expected, after all every president loses in the sixth year." Except they don't. Clinton didn't (that was four years after the Gingrich crowd came in). Amidst allt the crap going on, he gained seats in his second mid-term election.
"Previous swings have been bigger, so this wasn't about anything but Iraq," which means, when one reads between the lines, "No one was voting for Democrats, hell they weren't even voting against Republicans, they were voting against Bush." The really brassy ones even go on to say that "conservatism" was the real winner; arguing that the guys who won, are really republican-lite, and the Bush "isn't a real conservative," (the last was a gimme. It's been waitig in the wings. One of the repeated mantras of those who believe in conservatism is that it, like Chesterton's christianity, hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been and found difficult, so people come into office, and then; when they see how hard it is (after all, one has to be willing to starve government by moving the tax burden to the middle, releasing the power of the wealthy [by making them richer, to they can rain down largesse on the rest of us; a golden shower which will lift all boats]. Deficits are good; somehow, because they move money from poor working schlubs, who would merely spend it on things like food, housing, education and other things of no real benefit to the economy, and gift it to large corporations, who [by virtue of the inherent decency of businessmen, and the philanthropic princple which drives them; and the market] allow the invible hand to make everyone rich, with a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and employment; with a livig wage for all, oh yeah, and a pony), they get weak-kneed and bail out on the hard choices.
Nope, conservtism never fails it is merely failed.
Right.
It's all bullshit. They lost. I'll argue they lost bigger than even they think. Why? Gerrymander. The science of shaping districts, to favor the incumbent, and make no race truly competitive has gotten very good. Not only are those who do it able to shape them to fit the voter rolls, but the actual habits of those who truly vote (that is one of the spin-points, the myth of the suddenly motivated; who are, we are told, being single issue voters, not looking at the real issues, but only reacting with disgust to the war. That undercuts the, "they only voted for conservative Dems meme, but who cares about a little consitency when trying to salvage a tattered scrap of pride from the dustbin of history?)
With all of that on their side (the fruits of the Delay/Rove effort to establish a "Permanent Republican Majority) they still got whomped.
The vaunted single issue/conservative Dems who beat them. Guys like Ford in Tennesee... what he lost? Never mind.
Or Webb, in Virginia... oh, he has a lot to say about wage inequality, and arrogation/abuse of power by the Executive, and the loss of civil rights in the War Against Some Terrorists? Oh. Never mind.
Because that pattern repeats itself. The Republican-lite candidates lost. The populist candidates won. The war was an issue. So to were torture, and Padilla, and habeas, and wiretapping (and Pelosi deserves a lot of credit, she, and Reid, kept the weak-sisters, and the Liebermice, from listening to the talking heads (the Hannities, et al.) who were so kind as to tell them what they needed to do; to win [why does anyone listen to a Limbaugh, when he says he's trying to "help" the Democrats? It's not as if Coulter, Savage, Reagan, and their ilk believe in a loyal opposition. The fact that I think the Bush policies are ill-thought, and wrong makes me, veteran of the war they love, and all, a traitor. Those are not people one can reason with, and they certainly aren't the people you take strategy advice from. They tell their followers to beat you up, even to kill you, and you listen to them...? Sorry, I'll return to the ramble I was supposed to be on], but Pelosi kept them from caving, and showing some spine made no small amount of difference. Who want's to vote for someone who won't stick it to the guy you don't like?).
We need to remind them of that. They need to be told, again (and again, as needs be) what matters, why it matters, and what we want them to do about it. We can't wait until the ne class is seated. We have a month, and a bit, to tell the returned why they were returned. We have to rally the freshman, so they can avoid being pulled into business as usual.
This crop (like the Gingrich crop) are here because they believe in something. That belief needs to be nurtured. We put them there, they need to remember that, but so do we. Our system of gov't can work, and work well, but it takes an informed, and involved populace.
The elections are over, the race ain't.
There's an interesting breakdown of the changes, with maps over at <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/3221/7147>Kos.
Even if you don't go look at them (and they do some interesting breakdowns of where the gains were, but that doesn't address the question of why) the question still remains, was this a big win, or just an average one? A lot of the spin has been, "this was to be expected, after all every president loses in the sixth year." Except they don't. Clinton didn't (that was four years after the Gingrich crowd came in). Amidst allt the crap going on, he gained seats in his second mid-term election.
"Previous swings have been bigger, so this wasn't about anything but Iraq," which means, when one reads between the lines, "No one was voting for Democrats, hell they weren't even voting against Republicans, they were voting against Bush." The really brassy ones even go on to say that "conservatism" was the real winner; arguing that the guys who won, are really republican-lite, and the Bush "isn't a real conservative," (the last was a gimme. It's been waitig in the wings. One of the repeated mantras of those who believe in conservatism is that it, like Chesterton's christianity, hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been and found difficult, so people come into office, and then; when they see how hard it is (after all, one has to be willing to starve government by moving the tax burden to the middle, releasing the power of the wealthy [by making them richer, to they can rain down largesse on the rest of us; a golden shower which will lift all boats]. Deficits are good; somehow, because they move money from poor working schlubs, who would merely spend it on things like food, housing, education and other things of no real benefit to the economy, and gift it to large corporations, who [by virtue of the inherent decency of businessmen, and the philanthropic princple which drives them; and the market] allow the invible hand to make everyone rich, with a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and employment; with a livig wage for all, oh yeah, and a pony), they get weak-kneed and bail out on the hard choices.
Nope, conservtism never fails it is merely failed.
Right.
It's all bullshit. They lost. I'll argue they lost bigger than even they think. Why? Gerrymander. The science of shaping districts, to favor the incumbent, and make no race truly competitive has gotten very good. Not only are those who do it able to shape them to fit the voter rolls, but the actual habits of those who truly vote (that is one of the spin-points, the myth of the suddenly motivated; who are, we are told, being single issue voters, not looking at the real issues, but only reacting with disgust to the war. That undercuts the, "they only voted for conservative Dems meme, but who cares about a little consitency when trying to salvage a tattered scrap of pride from the dustbin of history?)
With all of that on their side (the fruits of the Delay/Rove effort to establish a "Permanent Republican Majority) they still got whomped.
The vaunted single issue/conservative Dems who beat them. Guys like Ford in Tennesee... what he lost? Never mind.
Or Webb, in Virginia... oh, he has a lot to say about wage inequality, and arrogation/abuse of power by the Executive, and the loss of civil rights in the War Against Some Terrorists? Oh. Never mind.
Because that pattern repeats itself. The Republican-lite candidates lost. The populist candidates won. The war was an issue. So to were torture, and Padilla, and habeas, and wiretapping (and Pelosi deserves a lot of credit, she, and Reid, kept the weak-sisters, and the Liebermice, from listening to the talking heads (the Hannities, et al.) who were so kind as to tell them what they needed to do; to win [why does anyone listen to a Limbaugh, when he says he's trying to "help" the Democrats? It's not as if Coulter, Savage, Reagan, and their ilk believe in a loyal opposition. The fact that I think the Bush policies are ill-thought, and wrong makes me, veteran of the war they love, and all, a traitor. Those are not people one can reason with, and they certainly aren't the people you take strategy advice from. They tell their followers to beat you up, even to kill you, and you listen to them...? Sorry, I'll return to the ramble I was supposed to be on], but Pelosi kept them from caving, and showing some spine made no small amount of difference. Who want's to vote for someone who won't stick it to the guy you don't like?).
We need to remind them of that. They need to be told, again (and again, as needs be) what matters, why it matters, and what we want them to do about it. We can't wait until the ne class is seated. We have a month, and a bit, to tell the returned why they were returned. We have to rally the freshman, so they can avoid being pulled into business as usual.
This crop (like the Gingrich crop) are here because they believe in something. That belief needs to be nurtured. We put them there, they need to remember that, but so do we. Our system of gov't can work, and work well, but it takes an informed, and involved populace.
The elections are over, the race ain't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 05:07 pm (UTC)Golden shower is a particularly apt choice of words there, because trickle down economics really translates to "Vive les oligarchs, piss on the rest of 'em".
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 05:10 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 05:18 pm (UTC)See also the reaction to "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"--afaik, there was approximately no notice that the folks over there might have reasons to resent this.
And a fairly strong consensus that it's ok to have drastically inferior justice for non-citizens.
I agree with your general point that this election was about the current direction of the Republican party as well as about the war in particular, and thanks for pointing out that this win was even more significant because it happened in the face of gerrymandering.
And 3000 dead American solidiers being a major issue (American civilians and those who were killed in Iraq who weren't Americans or Iraqis seem to have mostly fallen off the radar), while 100,000 or so dead Iraqis not being an emotional big deal.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:35 pm (UTC)Lots of little bricks are used to build a wall. The money that was raised in the blogoshpere, the time the Glenn Greenwald got to spend on morning talk shows, the conferfence calls Firedoglake got to take with Reid, they mattered.
Webb won by 7,000 votes, some of them (if you paid attention to his campaign, and not the national press) were about things like the PATRIOT Act, and the excesses of the MCA (on which more later).
Was it as big an issue as it should have been? No.
Which is why we have to keep it above the radar now, before complacency sets in.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 05:19 pm (UTC)At least some in the press are finally starting to acknowledge that Rove isn't the political genius they've been letting him pretend to be:
The Unbelievable Karl Rove (Washington Post)
How did Bush's architect get his specs so wrong?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 10:10 pm (UTC)1: The Dems win.
2: The Fiasco that is Iraq is resolved, and the blame for it falls on them; even though he admits it's not there fault.
3: The Republicans sweep back into office, leaving the Dems in obsurity for the foreseeable future.
I happen to think this a deplorable thing to want, because Jerry, de facto, admitted that his party screwed the pooch, and he wants them to be allowed to duck being held to account for it.
But I can see a clever operative, one with the ability to plan ahead (in a way I don't think Rove has) actually trying to finesse this.
I just don't think it's what happened, though I can see someone, in two-four-six years, trying to bring the middle bit to pass, so as to try repeating (for a third time) the formation of a "Permanent Republican Majority," or whatever you want to call One Party Rule and the death of the Republic, because power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:32 pm (UTC)The military is still going to be a political football. The coach and the playbook has changed, but if this is some "mass mandate" then I'm freakin' Tinkerbell.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:47 pm (UTC)When Jefferson was informed he was the target of investigation, the Dem leadership asked him to step down from his committees.
When DeLay was indicted (actually indicted) the Republicans changed the rules so he could keep his leadership position, and his committee chairs.
Foley wanted to leave, they pressured him into running again.
Ney wasn't asked to leave the House until after he was sentenced.
Cunningham at least had the grace to resign before he was convicted, but no one ever asked him to leave.
I'm willing to pay for the skimpy dress, but I get to take pictures too.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:51 pm (UTC)This is like one side of the whorehouse asking for accountability from the other side.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 08:58 pm (UTC)In other countries I'd say that the independence of the civil service or the judiciary would act as a check on a corrupt government but both seem to be political appointments in America.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 09:25 pm (UTC)Thinking such things is why people will return corrupt thgs like DeLay. Since they've been convinced both houses deserve a pox, they can be swayed by appeals to issues of raw emotion ("San Francisco Values" and "Threats to Marriage" and "They want to outlaw Christianity"), which the party they elect on such issues can't, and won't, deliver.
And in so doing the voters refuse/fail to engage in the oversight they are responsible for. One can be allowed to elect a scumbag. One can be forgiven for not knowing he's a scumbag. One might even argue that at the end of two-years (the length of a House seat) that the scumbagginess of the Representative isn't known.
But to re-elect them, again and again (as with der Liebermouse, and the McCainiac) shows either a lack of care, a wilful ignorance (since they have a long, and recorded voting record) or an endorsement.
I would argue, that for a third, or subsequent term, there is, in any case, a passive endorsement, and the case can be made that such a vote is an active endorsement of the Party to which they belong, and that when the party is engaged in a consistent pattern, that the system they advocate is also being endorsed.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 10:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 10:14 pm (UTC)Until they get their act together, and look to little wins, of a positive nature; and abandon such foolishness as working for the Republicans (Maryland) or letting themselves be used to split the Dem vote; which is what they did in Penn, or at least were willing to accept being the stooge for that sort of nonsense, I can't, in good conscience, support them, not for the least office.
Because they have abused our trust, and used it to support evil men.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 11:12 pm (UTC)It works ok for Australia (here we have MMP which has resulted in a proliferation of smaller parties which the bigger ones must work with in order to get legislation passed)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 11:24 pm (UTC)But it means they endorse the people who look as if they will win, rather than work for the best candidate, because they need to get votes. They then owe the party they endorsed, which leads to conflicts. They support things which are against the actual principles of the party, because they are beholden to the other side.
There's more detail at
But it means they endorse the people who look as if they will win, rather than work for the best candidate, because they need to get votes. They then owe the party they endorsed, which leads to conflicts. They support things which are against the actual principles of the party, because they are beholden to the other side.
There's <a href =http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008152.html#008152 target =blank>more detail</a> at <a http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/ target =blank>Making Light.
It would requires the voters to pass a law; because the legislatures certainly won't.
So, in the short run, the answer is no.
TK
IRV
Date: 2006-11-17 09:42 am (UTC)Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-15 09:47 pm (UTC)OK... Good to know that all the money on brainwashing isn't wasted, and you can quote the lines that have been planted into your head for years. Some political professional is smiling that you've learned to parrot them so well.
Now, what do you think?
Here's what I think. America's great strength -- and great weakness -- is this:
We are the government. The government is us.
In America, this means everyone is a politician. Which gives you two options -- being an effective one, or being an ineffective one. Not being one is not an option, unless you emigrate.
So when you say, "Politicians at that level are dishonest," you're saying I'm dishonest. You're also saying you're dishonest. Hell, you're saying every American citizen is dishonest.
Because, Guess what? We're both at "that level." Mostly because there is only one level in American politics -- citizen.
I think that many of the people elected to political office do a crap job, yes. But I don't think that's because they're "dishonest" -- I think it's because most American are small-l libertarian enough that they want elected officials to do a crap job, and vote accordingly.
In other words, you're saying (or your professional scriptwriter who handed you the lines is saying) that this poor performance is structural, and therefore there's nothing to be done.
I'm saying, no, this poor performance is because the most potent political force on the planet -- the American voter -- wants it, and just as we collectively willingly got ourselves into this mess, we can get ourselves out -- if we're willing to.
Whether or not voters will ever listen to that message -- that's a different discussion.
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-15 10:20 pm (UTC)I do think that most folx are dishonest, to some degree or another. I think that most folx are, in one form or another, corrupted by who and what we are, by our nature. It's got a bit to do with religion, so I doubt that opinion will carry much weight with you, and that's fine. I try to keep my religion out of most other people's laps.
I think that most politicians have lost touch with those of us who might be struggling to make ends meet. I think that on the national level, politicians are too busy worrying about the big fish to give a damn what the guppies are saying, and that most of them are pretty sure that I'm too damned dumb to know what it is I really want in my life.
I think that government, by and large, is too big, and that we are sliding towards making laws that protect us from our own stupidity.
So, until we manage to pull back from this insane notion that life is supposed to be free from anything bad and that the world doesn't run according to the sitcom strips, I'll probably hold to my beliefs.
And honestly, I haven't seen a politician around here I haven't had to hold my nose while voting for. I *loathed* most of the choices in the last election, and don't get me started on the 2004 election.
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-15 10:32 pm (UTC)I think the answer to your complaints is
1: Paying attention to the candidates.
2: Getting involved in the elections. Tell them what you want them to do, and ask them what they plan to do.
3: Keeping on top of them after they get elected.
4: Always voting for the lesser of the two evils (assuming there's no candidate one can support).
5: Holding them accoutable. Vote against them, and if you do, and they still win, tell them you voted against them, and why.
The greatest sin in our form of gov't is the apathy with which most of us approach it. Saying they are all crooks, and so nothing will get better is apathy. It is, in fact, a form of sloth.
TK
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-16 09:35 am (UTC)I do think that most folx are dishonest, to some degree or another. I think that most folx are, in one form or another, corrupted by who and what we are, by our nature. It's got a bit to do with religion, so I doubt that opinion will carry much weight with you, and that's fine. I try to keep my religion out of most other people's laps."
I was originally going to disagree, and try to have a discussion anyway.
But the more I thought about the implications about what you're asserting here about the Creator, the more I realized I couldn't rebut anything without being as wantonly cruel and malicious as such a Creator would have to be to have constructed things the way you describe.
I choose not to do that.
Oh, but one thing before I go:
"I think that government, by and large, is too big..."
No disagreement there. I strongly suggest reading The Breakdown of Nations, by Leopold Kohr, if you haven't done so. As Heinlein once said of Malthus, it's usually a bad idea to bet against Kohr.
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-16 04:23 pm (UTC)Please understand that I am first among sinners and no theologian.
I'm Orthodox Christian, and believe that because we have lost our right relationship with God, we are no longer the perfect reflections of Christ that we are called to be. Because of that, it's easier for the Evil One to influence us, and most of us are all too easy to tempt and lead astray. I know I am. The Evil One whispers to me, telling me that no one will notice if I do this, or that...and that it's okay to put myself first, even if it hurts someone else.
I'll put the book on the "To Read" pile. Sadly, it has gotten rather large this semester.
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-16 04:41 pm (UTC)He was responding to your comment I do think that most folx are dishonest, to some degree or another. I think that most folx are, in one form or another, corrupted by who and what we are, by our nature.
There is a wealth of room for both meaning, and misunderstanding in that comment, and in context there's even more.
If I can try to make a chain of logical connections, to show the least favorable (and not one I believe
You asserted all politicians are crooked (which is commonly referred to as corrupt).
You then asserted all people are dishonest (to greater and lesser degrees), and corrupted by who, and what we are, and that this is a religious belief.
One could read this as all people are Lord of the Flies sorts of base and horrible; that no one among us is capable of being decent. If that's what you believe (which could be read, at the extreme end, from what you said) the Creator of a such a world, would be (by my definition) cruel, and not worthy of worship.
To drift to theology, I think there is a misunderstanding (and I don't know if it's you, or the church, or the teachings you've been given) but I have a problem with the "lost our right relationship with God." Because I am what I am, and what I am is (or was, at the outset) what God made me. So if I am made imperfect, then it was He who made me so, and to hold the threat of punishment for that imperfection over me, is (again) somewhat cruel.
It's the flaw in the fundie Christian argument, that all who don't "know" Jesus are damned to fire everlasting. If God is all-loving, and all-benevolent, then He can't punish, for all time, those who don't follow the right little rituals (there are reasons I didn't become a priest, not the least of which is that, even for a Jesuit, the "problem of pain," and questions of equity lead me to either extreme heterodoxy, or outright heresy).
If He chose to make us imperfect, and then threatens to punsish us for not truly rising to the levels He sets, after the fact, and we have to apprehend Him through the rituals and interpretations of others, and that obedience is both absolute, and something at which we are all bound to fail (because of our corrupted nature) and only His whim (which is the problem of "grace alone" theology) then I have to agree with Hal... that God is cruel.
I don't believe that, and I don't think you believe it that way either, but that is one way to read what you said.
TK
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-16 04:46 pm (UTC)As for the right relationship with God, we were not made to live and then to die. Our relationship with God, as I understand it, was to be with Him for all eternity, in worship and joy. Because of the fall, our relationship was changed, by Adam and Eve's disobedience, and we became subject to death and sin. When Christ came, He broke the bonds of death, and restored our right relationship with God.
And as far as I know, Hell isn't a lake of fire and brimstone, but rather an eternal separation from God, something that, to me, would be far more painful.
Please forgive me for my words.
Re: Pots and kettles
Date: 2006-11-16 04:54 pm (UTC)As to the rest, if you want to, we can talk about it, but there will never be complete agreement, because at least one of us is a heretic. :), and I am too set in my ways (and have spent too long reconciling my beliefs to my understanding) to change them, o'ermuch, now; and I am no proselytiser, to try and convert you away from your faith.
I don't know that my thoughts on this problem (that of The Fall, the Creation, the Role of Man, and the relationship with God) are going to help you much, because they are bound up in things which are at great odds with yours, and they are, I think, not imcompatible, but irreconcilable.
With apologies for any offenses.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 06:50 pm (UTC)It's one of the gravest blights on the body politic.
Reagan (maker of huge gov't) was perhaps the worst offender (in terms of effect) with his mantra that everything the Gov't does turns to shit, which has caused people to abandon support for what the Gov't was doing well, and so causing it to go to shit.
Self-fulfilling, and bad for everyone.
TK