Something is amiss. Or rather, something has happened to the people of this country. It seems that too many voters, inexplicably (or maybe it can be explained but we refuse to believe it because it is too scary), have been swept off of their feet by Donald Trump. The presumptive Republican nominee is a man who knows no shame, decency or respect.
The list is endless -- a long history of sleights, insults, and demagoguery. A trickster who inherited his wealth, but somehow persuaded the public into believing that he was self-made, will be a serious contender for the white house in the general election. Even now, while writing this post, I cannot believe that he is in the lead. His opponents, just recently, are trying to employ the same juvenile tactics that he has used since the beginning of his campaign, i.e. name-calling, innuendo, and conspiracy theories.
An inquiry into how one major political party was hijacked is the subject matter of this post. Serious in tone, markedly different than my more light-hearted blogs, shows how grave I believe our political situation to be. Let us begin.
Beware of what you wish for. Pick any metaphor: Frankenstein, Terminator, or Icarus. Credit for creating Donald Trump the candidate belongs, in part, to the Republican party. For years now, since President Obama was sworn in, the GOP has made it a legislative, political and idealistic goal to oppose everything that the President stands for. It doesn't matter if the party use to adopt a similar policy in the past (see: Cap and Trade, Individual Mandate, Comprehensive Tax Reform). If Obama is for it, they must be against it.
A strategy of obstruction was meant to bear political fruit. Mitch McConnell, senate majority leader, believed that the gridlock would result in voters being frustrated. He knew that Congress would be blamed, but theorized that President Obama would be blamed more. Thus, inaction has become the norm.
In addition, Republicans have stepped up their bluster, hyperbole, and extremism. For purposes of inciting the base, and encouraging higher voter turnout, elected officials have swayed from the mainstream. Instead of "a president whom we disagree with", it has become normal to say that the "president is a traitor, terrorist-funding, dictator, who will do anything to dismantle the constitution." Such language riles the passions, particularly those who hold white nationalist beliefs (a core constituency of Donald Trump).
GOP primary voters are mad. They are angry with their economic station in life. For decades now, income and wealth inequality has benefited those at the top at the expense of everyone else. It is being felt everyday. Trade deficits result in layoffs. Soaring corporate profits culminate in lower wages. Beneficial tax rates for millionaires and billionaires lead to reduced tax receipts and social benefits. Who has advocated for the policies that exacerbate the problems above? Republicans.
Add it all up: an angry, frustrated populist movement exists in the Republican party and Donald Trump knows how to play into their anger. He offers easy solutions. The real estate mogul dumbs it down. Trump makes life a zero-sum game: it has to be the fault of undocumented immigrants (economists actually point out that immigrants increase innovation and GDP), or Muslims, or African-Americans. Complexity is shunned. Quick, streamlined justice according to "The Donald", and "The Donald" alone, is all that is needed for "America to be great again."
Donald Trump will likely be the general election candidate for the Republicans, and a large establishment majority within the party do not like it. They believed, incorrectly, that they could control the extreme elements within. Political death after political death should have been a warning (Dick Lugar, Eric Cantor, John Boehner); it wasn't. The monster movement that the GOP created is uncontrollable and strikes indiscriminately.
Pundits, establishment politicians, and wealthy insiders may be confused about the current state of affairs. Perhaps, they really didn't see a Donald Trump victory on the horizon. But any fan of science fiction knows, you have to be careful with what you create. Ultimately, your own creation can be your own demise.
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Monday, February 29, 2016
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Hey Media: Do Your Jobs
Senator Ted Cruz was right during the CNBC debate in Boulder, Colorado. I, along with most people, do not like the media. But, Mr. Cruz's rationale was wrong. The debate moderators were not being biased or unfair, they were being too timid. Indeed, the whole media has let GOP candidates get away with falsehood after falsehood. When will they begin to do their job?
Watching the debate, without access to independent sources and facts, a viewer could conclude that the questions were prejudiced. Almost every speaker attacked the questioner, the debate, or the network that hosted the debate. The candidates exhibited emotions of denial or outright contempt when pressed. Republican voters ate it up; the pugnaciousness fed into the narrative that there is only one trustworthy network on television nowadays.
The problem: the country we live in does not lack access to the facts. Donald Trump denied having disagreed with Mark Zuckerberg on immigration visas. Anyone could have visited Trump's own website to find out that it was not true. Only a few fact-checker websites ran with the story.
Same for Tea Party favorite Ben Carson, whose mild manner allegedly shows a contrast to Trump despite them sharing similar, bizarre views. When asked why he would affiliate himself with a company that falsely advertised cures for autism and cancer, he responded that it was total propaganda. The gall on him. Mr. Carson was paid to give speeches and praise their products. He did have some "ties" to the company. When will a "journalist" follow-up with him on his false assertions?
Winner of the debate, Senator Marco Rubio, had one of the best applause lines of the debate. He declared that the entire media was a Super PAC for the Democrats. However, he could not defend his own tax proposal without misleading. John Hardwood, one of the moderators, asked why his plan would result in a greater tax reduction for the top 1%, rather than the middle class. Mr. Rubio demurred. First, he said it wasn't true -- even though it was, as scored by a conservative think tank. Then, he said something unrelated to the content of the question. After the debate, the media declared him the winner, although the middle class would be the losers if he were to win. No one seemed to care about that.
Where does one begin with Carly Fiorina, who was somewhat called out for refusing to acknowledge that she lied about a planned parenthood video at the last debate. She recycled a discredited line at the most recent debate -- there was not a disproportionate amount of job losses for women under President Obama. Yet, she still campaigns as if it makes no difference what she says or does not say.
Simply put, the media is horrible. There must have been a time in our polarized society when the media decided that it was better to appear unbiased at the expense of the truth. The bottom-line was to be protected even it meant taking it easy on the politicians who wantonly lie.
A democratic society depends on a vigorous free press. I fear that we have lost ours. The public should not have to search for the truth like Indiana Jones in a dark, insect-infested tomb. Presidential candidates must be scrutinized. The office holds too much power. If a presidential candidate believes, sincerely believes, that he or she can get elected by willfully misleading, then what will he or she do once in office. Hey media, you better do your damn jobs.
Watching the debate, without access to independent sources and facts, a viewer could conclude that the questions were prejudiced. Almost every speaker attacked the questioner, the debate, or the network that hosted the debate. The candidates exhibited emotions of denial or outright contempt when pressed. Republican voters ate it up; the pugnaciousness fed into the narrative that there is only one trustworthy network on television nowadays.
The problem: the country we live in does not lack access to the facts. Donald Trump denied having disagreed with Mark Zuckerberg on immigration visas. Anyone could have visited Trump's own website to find out that it was not true. Only a few fact-checker websites ran with the story.
Same for Tea Party favorite Ben Carson, whose mild manner allegedly shows a contrast to Trump despite them sharing similar, bizarre views. When asked why he would affiliate himself with a company that falsely advertised cures for autism and cancer, he responded that it was total propaganda. The gall on him. Mr. Carson was paid to give speeches and praise their products. He did have some "ties" to the company. When will a "journalist" follow-up with him on his false assertions?
Winner of the debate, Senator Marco Rubio, had one of the best applause lines of the debate. He declared that the entire media was a Super PAC for the Democrats. However, he could not defend his own tax proposal without misleading. John Hardwood, one of the moderators, asked why his plan would result in a greater tax reduction for the top 1%, rather than the middle class. Mr. Rubio demurred. First, he said it wasn't true -- even though it was, as scored by a conservative think tank. Then, he said something unrelated to the content of the question. After the debate, the media declared him the winner, although the middle class would be the losers if he were to win. No one seemed to care about that.
Where does one begin with Carly Fiorina, who was somewhat called out for refusing to acknowledge that she lied about a planned parenthood video at the last debate. She recycled a discredited line at the most recent debate -- there was not a disproportionate amount of job losses for women under President Obama. Yet, she still campaigns as if it makes no difference what she says or does not say.
Simply put, the media is horrible. There must have been a time in our polarized society when the media decided that it was better to appear unbiased at the expense of the truth. The bottom-line was to be protected even it meant taking it easy on the politicians who wantonly lie.
A democratic society depends on a vigorous free press. I fear that we have lost ours. The public should not have to search for the truth like Indiana Jones in a dark, insect-infested tomb. Presidential candidates must be scrutinized. The office holds too much power. If a presidential candidate believes, sincerely believes, that he or she can get elected by willfully misleading, then what will he or she do once in office. Hey media, you better do your damn jobs.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Join in on the Fun, Kanye
Kanye West accepted an award last night at the VMAs. During his off the cuff acceptance speech, "Yeezus" made a surprising announcement. He will be running for President in 2020. A SuperPac has already been formed. As of now, Twitter is still crazy about the "Ready for Kanye" movement.
Good for Kanye. At this point, why should he not run. The political process has already been turned into a quasi-reality television event. The 17 GOP candidates cannot go a day without making an absurd statement -- Governor Scott Walker wants to now build a wall along the Canadian - USA border. The media is loathed to cover anything of substance. He will likely add some excitement to the mix.
Seriously, he has the same political experience as two now-popular GOP candidates. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have never held elected office. The latter was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a disastrous tenure. Carson, a neurosurgeon, has been quick to utilize Nazi and slavery comparisons ("'[our society] is very much like Nazi Germany'... '[Obamacare is] the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery'... '...we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it.'").
It is not like we will be surprised by incendiary rhetoric. Kanye probably won't be as offensive as Governor Huckabee. Remember when Huckabee said that Obama was marching the Israelis to the oven because of the Iran agreement. There is no reason why the rapper shouldn't run as a candidate.
Kanye can brag just like Jeb Bush. If Kanye can sell albums, he will be able to sell the American people on his to-be-announced jobs program. Facts will make no difference. Look at Jeb Bush. He somehow claims that Florida owes its economic success to him, despite the fact that he rode the housing bubble and had luckily left office before it burst.
For those worried about our image abroad, do not worry. Reports already show that our political campaigns have been mocked. One British professor opined that, "[American] politics are even more unproductive, vulgar, captured by special interests than [British politics]." The United States' reputation has been tarnished because of Citizens United and hyper-partisanship. It cannot get much worse.
But Yeezy has no real policies, some will say. That is not a convincing argument as to why he should not run. The GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump, has been successful, in part, because he has no real policies. He provides quick, simple talking points that can be consumed and regurgitated by the masses. Who can do a better job than Trump when it comes to creating easy-to-remember sound bites? Kanye!
Our country has blurred the lines between governance and entertainment. Let's take the logical next step and elect Kanye West in 2020. I can already imagine: "Keeping up with the First Family" on E!. Set your DVRs. It's going to be a wild ride.
Good for Kanye. At this point, why should he not run. The political process has already been turned into a quasi-reality television event. The 17 GOP candidates cannot go a day without making an absurd statement -- Governor Scott Walker wants to now build a wall along the Canadian - USA border. The media is loathed to cover anything of substance. He will likely add some excitement to the mix.
Seriously, he has the same political experience as two now-popular GOP candidates. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have never held elected office. The latter was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a disastrous tenure. Carson, a neurosurgeon, has been quick to utilize Nazi and slavery comparisons ("'[our society] is very much like Nazi Germany'... '[Obamacare is] the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery'... '...we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it.'").
It is not like we will be surprised by incendiary rhetoric. Kanye probably won't be as offensive as Governor Huckabee. Remember when Huckabee said that Obama was marching the Israelis to the oven because of the Iran agreement. There is no reason why the rapper shouldn't run as a candidate.
Kanye can brag just like Jeb Bush. If Kanye can sell albums, he will be able to sell the American people on his to-be-announced jobs program. Facts will make no difference. Look at Jeb Bush. He somehow claims that Florida owes its economic success to him, despite the fact that he rode the housing bubble and had luckily left office before it burst.
For those worried about our image abroad, do not worry. Reports already show that our political campaigns have been mocked. One British professor opined that, "[American] politics are even more unproductive, vulgar, captured by special interests than [British politics]." The United States' reputation has been tarnished because of Citizens United and hyper-partisanship. It cannot get much worse.
But Yeezy has no real policies, some will say. That is not a convincing argument as to why he should not run. The GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump, has been successful, in part, because he has no real policies. He provides quick, simple talking points that can be consumed and regurgitated by the masses. Who can do a better job than Trump when it comes to creating easy-to-remember sound bites? Kanye!
Our country has blurred the lines between governance and entertainment. Let's take the logical next step and elect Kanye West in 2020. I can already imagine: "Keeping up with the First Family" on E!. Set your DVRs. It's going to be a wild ride.
Friday, July 31, 2015
I Like Hillary but will be Voting for Bernie
"What is the difference between a socialist and a democrat?" The Democratic National Committee Chair, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hesitated. She was likely caught off guard. "I'll ask again, what is the difference?" Chris Matthews, a liberal pundit on MSNBC, aggressively questioned. The segment topic involved Bernie Sanders. He did not appear to be a fan. Chris wanted answers.
I like Chris Matthews. In middle school, I read his books. He always seemed fair-minded, even with people that he disagreed with. Chris' love for Pennsylvania, the state where he was born, and preference for political compromise puts him more to the center than some progressives / liberals.
When it comes to the 2016 democratic primary, there is no dispute as to whom he supports. He is strongly behind Hillary Clinton. The tacit endorsement brings me back to my initial thoughts: Bernie Sanders irritates him. He is not alone.
Senator McCaskill, former Representative Barnie Frank, and other democrats have openly questioned the "insurgent" campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. They argue that his campaign only hurts Hillary. The critics also claim that Bernie has no chance of winning; he should let Hillary ease into the general election. I respectfully disagree.
Bernie Sanders is running for the middle class. His policies are extremely popular. Take one issue after the other, and you will see that a large majority of people support his views. Incomes and wages must be increased. Wall Street should be regulated. More must be done to end crony capitalism. Bernie puts the issue of income and wealth inequality front and center like no other candidate.
Make no mistake, the United States is at a pivotal point in its history. There has been no other time in our history when inequalities have been so extreme -- before the Great Depression even, during the Gilded Age.
There must be a candidate who is not afraid to discuss these issues. A candidate cannot be afraid of wealthy, powerful lobbyists-- special interests who will spend billions to keep the status quo. It would not be the first time that a candidate has stood up to the robber barons and won. Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to a certain extent, have all proved that populist policies are smart politics.
I certainly would support Hillary if she were to win the primaries. She is a great candidate. But, given current economic realities, we need a strong progressive. I think of FDR or Teddy, and I know that America could elect a fighter again. That's why I support Bernie Sanders. He has the best policy stances and is not afraid to voice those policies. Against a default Republican candidate, he could easily win.
So, let me answer Chris Matthews' question. A democrat is a socialist. Even some republicans are socialists. If you like Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets, you are a socialist. It is not a bad word. We can support both a democratic society and a capitalist market economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. Sometimes, it takes a self-described democratic socialist to make that happen.
I like Chris Matthews. In middle school, I read his books. He always seemed fair-minded, even with people that he disagreed with. Chris' love for Pennsylvania, the state where he was born, and preference for political compromise puts him more to the center than some progressives / liberals.
When it comes to the 2016 democratic primary, there is no dispute as to whom he supports. He is strongly behind Hillary Clinton. The tacit endorsement brings me back to my initial thoughts: Bernie Sanders irritates him. He is not alone.
Senator McCaskill, former Representative Barnie Frank, and other democrats have openly questioned the "insurgent" campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. They argue that his campaign only hurts Hillary. The critics also claim that Bernie has no chance of winning; he should let Hillary ease into the general election. I respectfully disagree.
Bernie Sanders is running for the middle class. His policies are extremely popular. Take one issue after the other, and you will see that a large majority of people support his views. Incomes and wages must be increased. Wall Street should be regulated. More must be done to end crony capitalism. Bernie puts the issue of income and wealth inequality front and center like no other candidate.
Make no mistake, the United States is at a pivotal point in its history. There has been no other time in our history when inequalities have been so extreme -- before the Great Depression even, during the Gilded Age.
There must be a candidate who is not afraid to discuss these issues. A candidate cannot be afraid of wealthy, powerful lobbyists-- special interests who will spend billions to keep the status quo. It would not be the first time that a candidate has stood up to the robber barons and won. Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to a certain extent, have all proved that populist policies are smart politics.
I certainly would support Hillary if she were to win the primaries. She is a great candidate. But, given current economic realities, we need a strong progressive. I think of FDR or Teddy, and I know that America could elect a fighter again. That's why I support Bernie Sanders. He has the best policy stances and is not afraid to voice those policies. Against a default Republican candidate, he could easily win.
So, let me answer Chris Matthews' question. A democrat is a socialist. Even some republicans are socialists. If you like Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets, you are a socialist. It is not a bad word. We can support both a democratic society and a capitalist market economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. Sometimes, it takes a self-described democratic socialist to make that happen.
Friday, May 29, 2015
The Perpetual Campaign Season
It is 2015, right? Sometimes I have to double check, because the political pundits I watch talk like it's the summer of 2016. I catch myself looking around the apartment for a mail-in ballot, in a fit of moral rage -- my face gets red and my eyes bulge out, until I realize that the presidential election is not until November of next year. Seventeen months away. My pulse slows down after I count to ten.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)