18 January 2012
SuperPAC Go!
As amusing as the Colbert SuperPac (sorry, the definitely not coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC) is, and as ridiculous as some of the lax system of enforcement appears to be, I don't think this really points out a problem.
Or rather, what it points out is that we should just get rid of the pretext and let the candidates spend and coordinate money as it comes in (while external forces can always spend their own money). What the difference needs to be is transparency. We know, more or less, who is giving to these PACs. Same deal with campaigns.
As far as the actual issues, I was not as alarmed as it appears most people were with the Citizens United decision that kicked all this fuss off. There are a number of reasons
1) It increased access to speech, not limited it to corporate money. Unions and non-profit corporations can now run advertisements all they want during elections. Corporations could always run advertising and editorials by purchasing media companies. Personally, freedom of speech generally should always trump freedom of press specifically. Limiting speech to powerful media corporations to determine the range of opinions and topics that are free for public consumption was never a good idea.
2) Money is speech. It is required to have funds to purchase airtime, distribute information, and so on. Occupy Wall Street type protest movements may be fun, but they also just ran out of money and hence, their speech is somewhat limited. Should people agree with their basic message, they could continue donating money to fund it. I would have no problem with that even if they used the money to pay for ads or tv slots agitating against the government or against particular members of it (or against particular corporations). That is their right to exercise said speech. I disagree with their proposed solutions in almost all cases, but they're at least on to something with topics like income inequality and corporate-government capture issues.
3) Corporations are legally speaking people, endowed with a particular set of protected rights by governments that observe their creation and destruction. But that wasn't the basis of SCOTUS's ruling in the first place. The basis was that the government isn't supposed to be in the business of restricting speech. Period. As a counter experiment, suppose we were to decide that the 4th amendment did not apply to corporations (as liberals wish the first amendment not to). This would mean that the private property of a corporate building, be it a factory or office building or warehouse, could be searched and seized without warrant or due process. And this could include, since many corporations have set aside storage and so forth for their employees' private property, that property as well. We are already strangely assenting to letting police search school property and confiscate goods belonging to students (usually illicit goods, but sometimes regular medication, etc). Is it next fine to do the same to employees at a private business? Back to the actual topic. Where is it okay then to restrict the speech of a collection of people? It is perhaps true that not all workers and employees will favor the same set of politics as the corporation and its masters direct. But at the moment, there is also no restriction for them to organise into unions and to use the union to publicize those views, or to give privately to opposing political organisations (Greenpeace or the ACLU for example).
4) Citizens United and Super PACs generally are a topic relating to election funding. Certainly most of the general public pays more attention to politics when there is an election ongoing. But. For example, I have encountered numerous people who knew nothing of the SOPA protests or even the bill itself until google went black on its site today, wikipedia went dark, and lots of people started posting links and strange photos on facebook. And this is with a Presidential election coming up later this year. Most people do not in fact pay much attention to politics as it actually happens. They have little desire to do so and spend little effort to do it. The actual machinery of governance that is troubled is not elections. It is legislating. Huge corporate lobbies are behind all manner of legislation. From SOPA to the health care bill to those stupid anti-Shariah law bills all over the country. I am not horribly troubled by this, in so far as they are involved in the process and air their objections or support for bills that come up. I am troubled when the actual bills are designed and written by said lobbies and rubber stamped by legislatures who don't spend much time actually considering the power they will wield with said bills. Most of Congress has little more of an understanding on how SOPA would work than they did with the PATRIOT act. This should be disturbing, far more so than the influence of corporations on what advertisements we see during an election campaign.
So while the Colbert bump against this sort of speech, and the attending ridiculous hoops we go through to make something at least mostly legal, is certainly amusing. And to many people hopefully enlightening in the manner and influence of money on politics, I'm not sure there's a conclusive end point to it either. It doesn't deal with the methods of regulation and sausage making involved in actually governing a country, which is where influence actually matters. Elections are like changing the drapes (and usually not even that. It's more like thinking about changing the drapes). Legislation is like ripping up the foundation and remodeling, by analogy. The useless focus on elections is overdone I should think as a result.
16 January 2012
We get it Rick
And so now Perry has gone on air and record as saying that peeing on dead people that you've presumably killed, videotaping it with some pride, is a harmless teenage prank that should be penalized with something under "removing this person from the service of the military".
Meanwhile. In other news, CNN's arbitrary rules on polling and fundraising which were used in various turns to try to exclude Gary Johnson from its GOP debates (but to include Jon Huntsman, who often polled similarly poorly, along with Santorum at times too)... are now being bypassed to allow Rick Perry to continue to attend said debates.
I have to wonder what the hell goes on at CNN. Being as I don't watch it. At this point, in order to get news and information from anything resembling a cable news organisation, either from its airtime or its webpages, one must generally go to either the BBC or Al Jazeera to find reliable and informative pieces and coverage. Even for stories in America. What possible basis could there be for continuing to cover Rick Perry other than that the man is clearly a deranged lunatic who will say strange things and generate ratings? Why is that news that there are deranged lunatics in politics who say strange things?
Why not just leave that to Jon Stewart or the Onion?
Meanwhile. In other news, CNN's arbitrary rules on polling and fundraising which were used in various turns to try to exclude Gary Johnson from its GOP debates (but to include Jon Huntsman, who often polled similarly poorly, along with Santorum at times too)... are now being bypassed to allow Rick Perry to continue to attend said debates.
I have to wonder what the hell goes on at CNN. Being as I don't watch it. At this point, in order to get news and information from anything resembling a cable news organisation, either from its airtime or its webpages, one must generally go to either the BBC or Al Jazeera to find reliable and informative pieces and coverage. Even for stories in America. What possible basis could there be for continuing to cover Rick Perry other than that the man is clearly a deranged lunatic who will say strange things and generate ratings? Why is that news that there are deranged lunatics in politics who say strange things?
Why not just leave that to Jon Stewart or the Onion?
The world of radicals
Sometimes I am given to wonder whether I have not embraced too many radical views; atheism, libertarianism (or economics more generally), and foreign policy realism.
And then I see pictures and video clips of American troops pissing on the corpses of their fallen enemies in a war that has clearly outlived its usefulness (going in country to capture or kill international criminals and their co-conspirators), rumblings of another useless war in Iran, the continued persecution of non-violent drug offenders, often accompanied with powerful armed home invasions by the authorities, the embrace of some significant portion of Christian conservatives (however briefly) of the views of Rick Santorum on the legality and morality of birth control , to say nothing of his views on homosexuals (or for that matter, the views of Rick Perry), the possible passage of SOPA and the passage of still more legal circumventions of civil rights protections in the form of indefinite detention regimes in the Defense bill.
And I think to myself. What a wonderful world.
And then I see pictures and video clips of American troops pissing on the corpses of their fallen enemies in a war that has clearly outlived its usefulness (going in country to capture or kill international criminals and their co-conspirators), rumblings of another useless war in Iran, the continued persecution of non-violent drug offenders, often accompanied with powerful armed home invasions by the authorities, the embrace of some significant portion of Christian conservatives (however briefly) of the views of Rick Santorum on the legality and morality of birth control , to say nothing of his views on homosexuals (or for that matter, the views of Rick Perry), the possible passage of SOPA and the passage of still more legal circumventions of civil rights protections in the form of indefinite detention regimes in the Defense bill.
And I think to myself. What a wonderful world.
10 January 2012
A bright spot
Maybe a speck. Depending on how it turns out.
But this has been a very interesting Supreme Court session for civil libertarians, among other reasons.
For free speech and TV censorship
Related (though an IP issue), extension of copyright laws into public domain
GPS warrant tracking, the effects of new technology on the 4th amendment
Interpretations of search warrants by field officers conducting the searches, or rather how broad those interpretations should be.
Suing private prison officials for violations of prisoner rights, in federal courts. (this one was already decided, and held that existing torts should have been sufficient claims in lower courts. Kind of a meh solution as the guy was in on federal charges.)
Related to above, strip searching new inmates
The effects of ineffective legal representation on criminal penalties
There's also a cert out on a drug dogsniffing case and establishments of probable cause searches. (Finally).
Something that should never quite be forgotten is how often some rather scummy people (criminals) can help define and even protect or expand the rights and privileges enjoyed by everyone else. We see it working very often in the other direction as the hasty fallout of a criminal actor is often allowed to press politicians and public figures to advocate for more egregious penalties and invasive methods. Every once in a while, it goes the other way.
Thanks criminals.
But this has been a very interesting Supreme Court session for civil libertarians, among other reasons.
For free speech and TV censorship
Related (though an IP issue), extension of copyright laws into public domain
GPS warrant tracking, the effects of new technology on the 4th amendment
Interpretations of search warrants by field officers conducting the searches, or rather how broad those interpretations should be.
Suing private prison officials for violations of prisoner rights, in federal courts. (this one was already decided, and held that existing torts should have been sufficient claims in lower courts. Kind of a meh solution as the guy was in on federal charges.)
Related to above, strip searching new inmates
The effects of ineffective legal representation on criminal penalties
There's also a cert out on a drug dogsniffing case and establishments of probable cause searches. (Finally).
Something that should never quite be forgotten is how often some rather scummy people (criminals) can help define and even protect or expand the rights and privileges enjoyed by everyone else. We see it working very often in the other direction as the hasty fallout of a criminal actor is often allowed to press politicians and public figures to advocate for more egregious penalties and invasive methods. Every once in a while, it goes the other way.
Thanks criminals.
09 January 2012
A political curiosity
I'm not sure what the big deal has been for the last two decades about "the middle class". Here is a short list of things the middle class already gets from the government as assistance:
Financial aid for college tuitions
Access to decent public schools for preparation for colleges
Mortgage interest deductions to subsidize home values (and make that inflated value available for loans)
Retirement accounts with favorable tax treatment (ROTHs, 401ks I'm less sure about).
Social Security and Medicare mostly flow to people with at least the modest means of the middle class, if not the rich or wealthy outright.
And this all results in:
Relative social mobility, both individuals and generationally, relatively steady incomes in stable jobs or easily transferable jobs skills, in all cases much more substantially so than that available to the poor.
What has changed, and what appears to be the reason it keeps coming up, is that there are now far fewer private unionized workers, particularly in manufacturing. But there are plenty of cops, teachers, nurses, skilled tradesmen, computer programmers, salespeople and so on who can fill in that void. Not to mention professional class incomes like lawyers or doctors or modestly successful salesmen/self-employed businessmen (who are not really "middle class" but all like to think of themselves as such). I personally don't see any particular reason why work in a factory should have been an automatic qualifier for middle class lifestyles and incomes in the first place (most of it is unskilled work requiring training, but not certification). But leaving that aside, the problem isn't really the "middle class" going away. The problem is access to middle class lifestyles is more difficult to acquire, particularly if one is poor.
We have as obstacles:
Poor public school systems with minimal to no training for college preparation. Few, if any, underserved neighbourhoods are putting kids in Harvard or Yale level institutions. Affirmative action seems more like a problem relating to poverty than race as a result (which sounds closer to the MLK ideal for it).
Licensing laws and certification for the most absurd protectionist justifications by existing players in a field or industry. Barbers and interior decorators should not need state sanction to operate. Doctors or teachers even have very tenuous arguments in favor of such sanctions (which I do not find persuasive, but many do).
Criminal penalties and enforcement strategies which lock up many poor people for trivial criminal behaviors (use or distribution of narcotics or other vice crimes like prostitution), further limiting access to development resources like education, damaging an existing family structures, and creating criminal records making it harder to acquire modest occupations.
Limited incomes and scarce resources that must be properly allocated according to a middle class set of values for advancement, without the knowledge of how that must be done, and in a situation of scarcity such that pooling and in-group loyalties must often take precedence over prudent sets of values concerning narrow self-advancement.
All of which creates a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape.
In other words. I won't vote for politicians who drone on about the "middle class" or even "middle-income Americans", the bizarre Republican circumlocution version of the same thing. Perhaps there are real and tangible threats existing to the middle class' future as an institutional element of society. Most of those threats could be best alleviated however by properly dealing with the threats posed by poverty. The middle class, while not in possession of substantial resources, has enough available to deal with itself in more or less a sustainable way on its own. It is the poor who do not, and more importantly, do not have even enough to advance. Handing out more and more favors to special middle class interests is certainly a favored election tactic, for both parties, not just the expected Democrats.
But it is not a solution to the problems involved with the future of the middle class. So quit talking about it. Thanks.
Financial aid for college tuitions
Access to decent public schools for preparation for colleges
Mortgage interest deductions to subsidize home values (and make that inflated value available for loans)
Retirement accounts with favorable tax treatment (ROTHs, 401ks I'm less sure about).
Social Security and Medicare mostly flow to people with at least the modest means of the middle class, if not the rich or wealthy outright.
And this all results in:
Relative social mobility, both individuals and generationally, relatively steady incomes in stable jobs or easily transferable jobs skills, in all cases much more substantially so than that available to the poor.
What has changed, and what appears to be the reason it keeps coming up, is that there are now far fewer private unionized workers, particularly in manufacturing. But there are plenty of cops, teachers, nurses, skilled tradesmen, computer programmers, salespeople and so on who can fill in that void. Not to mention professional class incomes like lawyers or doctors or modestly successful salesmen/self-employed businessmen (who are not really "middle class" but all like to think of themselves as such). I personally don't see any particular reason why work in a factory should have been an automatic qualifier for middle class lifestyles and incomes in the first place (most of it is unskilled work requiring training, but not certification). But leaving that aside, the problem isn't really the "middle class" going away. The problem is access to middle class lifestyles is more difficult to acquire, particularly if one is poor.
We have as obstacles:
Poor public school systems with minimal to no training for college preparation. Few, if any, underserved neighbourhoods are putting kids in Harvard or Yale level institutions. Affirmative action seems more like a problem relating to poverty than race as a result (which sounds closer to the MLK ideal for it).
Licensing laws and certification for the most absurd protectionist justifications by existing players in a field or industry. Barbers and interior decorators should not need state sanction to operate. Doctors or teachers even have very tenuous arguments in favor of such sanctions (which I do not find persuasive, but many do).
Criminal penalties and enforcement strategies which lock up many poor people for trivial criminal behaviors (use or distribution of narcotics or other vice crimes like prostitution), further limiting access to development resources like education, damaging an existing family structures, and creating criminal records making it harder to acquire modest occupations.
Limited incomes and scarce resources that must be properly allocated according to a middle class set of values for advancement, without the knowledge of how that must be done, and in a situation of scarcity such that pooling and in-group loyalties must often take precedence over prudent sets of values concerning narrow self-advancement.
All of which creates a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape.
In other words. I won't vote for politicians who drone on about the "middle class" or even "middle-income Americans", the bizarre Republican circumlocution version of the same thing. Perhaps there are real and tangible threats existing to the middle class' future as an institutional element of society. Most of those threats could be best alleviated however by properly dealing with the threats posed by poverty. The middle class, while not in possession of substantial resources, has enough available to deal with itself in more or less a sustainable way on its own. It is the poor who do not, and more importantly, do not have even enough to advance. Handing out more and more favors to special middle class interests is certainly a favored election tactic, for both parties, not just the expected Democrats.
But it is not a solution to the problems involved with the future of the middle class. So quit talking about it. Thanks.
06 January 2012
So there's that awful thing
Facebook timeline.
So far as I can tell (since I haven't yet played with it, but it appears to be moving forward as a new edition)
1) It makes Facebook look like MySpace. Which is not an improvement. MySpace was hideous and lacked any utilitarian aesthetics. Which I enjoy. This makes me wish Google+ was more popular. (And reminds me of the line of "Windows 7 is much more user-friendly than Windows Vista. I don't like that."). I'll assume they will eventually screw with the wall too, but I plan on mostly continuing to use the wall and ignoring the arduous task of perusing personal profiles.
2) It apparently requires several hours of self-censorship and regression through however many years one used it in order to make a profile as presentable as the present version. Which sounds like giving everyone a "job" rather than a sensible way to update the network. I'm not sure, in my opinion, that my most important posts were the ones that everyone commented on or liked. For example. In my case, since a lot of information is concealed or simply not provided at all, I will have somewhat less work than others. The most pertinent information I've made available are quotations or my preferences of culture. Religious or political views are made obvious from what I post. Any actual personal information is pretty limited in who can see it and who will be able to still see it even after this shift goes mandatory. So at best I'll be filtering photos or posts by other people about me, or something.
3) On my screen, the upper bar doesn't fully display. I'll be generous and assume that this is a glitch that would be fixed or a setting I could adjust. This could be related to the image sizing elements of FB more broadly being whacked by timeline however.
4) It appears to be popular enough that most people will just go along with it and/or like it. So either deal with it or move on.
5) Apparently if you want to keep the old school version, use IE7. Except that I haven't used MSIE in over a decade, I don't see a problem with that scenario...
So far as I can tell (since I haven't yet played with it, but it appears to be moving forward as a new edition)
1) It makes Facebook look like MySpace. Which is not an improvement. MySpace was hideous and lacked any utilitarian aesthetics. Which I enjoy. This makes me wish Google+ was more popular. (And reminds me of the line of "Windows 7 is much more user-friendly than Windows Vista. I don't like that."). I'll assume they will eventually screw with the wall too, but I plan on mostly continuing to use the wall and ignoring the arduous task of perusing personal profiles.
2) It apparently requires several hours of self-censorship and regression through however many years one used it in order to make a profile as presentable as the present version. Which sounds like giving everyone a "job" rather than a sensible way to update the network. I'm not sure, in my opinion, that my most important posts were the ones that everyone commented on or liked. For example. In my case, since a lot of information is concealed or simply not provided at all, I will have somewhat less work than others. The most pertinent information I've made available are quotations or my preferences of culture. Religious or political views are made obvious from what I post. Any actual personal information is pretty limited in who can see it and who will be able to still see it even after this shift goes mandatory. So at best I'll be filtering photos or posts by other people about me, or something.
3) On my screen, the upper bar doesn't fully display. I'll be generous and assume that this is a glitch that would be fixed or a setting I could adjust. This could be related to the image sizing elements of FB more broadly being whacked by timeline however.
4) It appears to be popular enough that most people will just go along with it and/or like it. So either deal with it or move on.
5) Apparently if you want to keep the old school version, use IE7. Except that I haven't used MSIE in over a decade, I don't see a problem with that scenario...
04 January 2012
Fallout, two.
It looks like the only thing that was settled by Iowa was the dropping out of two long since meaningless candidacies (Perry and Bachmann) (Update: Perry hasn't, yet, suspended his campaign. This will suffice to complicate Romney's delegate totals but will dig mostly into Gingrich or Santorum's possibilities. I'm not sure what possible service his continued candidacy serves really other than to continue to have someone fun to make fun of involved). While I imagine Santorum will get a bump of sorts from doing as well as he did in Iowa, I have no illusions that he can successfully organise a significant and sustainable resistance movement to the irresistible object that is now a Romney nomination. The man (Santorum) has a more vigorous foreign policy agenda with paranoid assertions about Muslims as his main non-social conservative selling point in an election about the economy and against an incumbent President whose main area of perceived success is foreign policy AND lacks the charismatic and practised and polished delivery of his message that a similar candidate in Mike Huckabee had 4 years ago (albeit with less paranoid foreign policy rhetoric and positions as a candidate. Pundit Huckabee has indulged freely in fact-free paranoia). Which means that his google-recognized status as a world-class asshole is in no danger of being violated. He's also, like Huckabee, no stranger to invoking anti-individualism and especially to use statist power in the economy to favor the politically connected, which while popular with many conservatives, is not especially popular with either Romney-ites and particularly the Paul controlled wings of the party (Romney types like this, but prefer to do it more subtly than the Santorum-laced pro-middle class rants)
I submit that media imagination surrounding Santorum is primarily there to do two things:
1) Ignore the difficult and thought-provoking debate questions posed by a possible Ron Paul candidacy and levels of support that he now enjoys. Media types hate debates and asking questions that invite actual answers.
2) Continue the illusion of a horse race scenario worthy of media attention. I suppose it is possible that Santorum or Gingrich wins South Carolina. Gingrich might even be able to make a play for Florida (Santorum cannot, social conservatives tend to do poorly there and New Hampshire. It's a weird southern state apparently). But that's sounding a lot like the Giuliani strategy, and it depends on his being able to not implode himself into becoming the butt of a series of knock knock jokes. But after that, the only plausible non-Romney scenario is a broken convention where he doesn't get enough delegates. He's going to do reasonably well out West now that there's no McCain out there to muck things up, in Michigan and some of the other rust belt states, probably better than Santorum in Pennsylvania even if it came to that, New England, and basically everywhere but the Deep South and a couple of prairie states. That might be a core enough to meddle in the number of delegates, if, and only if, the anti-Romney vote decides to merge behind a Santorum candidacy. And that would be insane. So I don't expect it to happen. Even the paranoid fantasy of a Gingrich fueled primary was bad enough a delusion. The media really needs to give it up and admit that this race is long since over.
I would note that in the person of Eric Erickson BOTH of these delusions were entertained. Which was uproariously funny.
Firstly, Erickson claimed that the GOP record turnout was false because "Ron Paul voters" were not Republicans. It is true that Paul claimed a substantial portion of the non-GOP/independent/Democratic voters who turned out. Something like 40%. But that portion of the vote was somewhere around 25%, which puts Paul's share of it around 10% of the total vote at best/worst. Which means Erickson must account for roughly 10-12% of the usual conservative/Republican electorate that turned out to support Paul (much as they did in 2008), assuming that all of the "independents" are normally either Libertarians or Democrats (which is a huge assumption). He has no desire to do so, because it would require him to grapple with the idea that national security and civil liberties issues relating to the war on terror, war on drugs, or foreign wars/occupations all desired by his preferred candidacies (Perry I believe was his guy), are not simple troupes where the Democrats are weaklings (Obama certainly hasn't been) and Republicans tough-minded and doing the necessary deeds. When it is clearly not that simple (and the Obama apology tour line or the ACLU running the CIA one have been WAY overplayed). Further complicating Erickson's bizarro world, Paul's voters self-identified as among the "most conservative" and as among the most trusted on "deficits" as a basis for their votes. Are these not core elements of GOP rhetorical support? I guess they are not as important in real terms to conservatives as abortion or tax cuts nor of expressing virulent hatred of Obama/Democrats/liberals or of Muslims/Iran/"anti-anything goes in Israel" types.
But that's hardly news.
It would be noteworthy to observe that large numbers of Paul's voters were in the under 30 range. He dominated that portion of the vote. Those voters may not show up at the general election for the GOP without some portions of the Paul agenda on the ballot, as happened last election Paul supporters vote for Paul-supported candidates or Paul himself but not the mainstream Republican. Which is a problem for the GOP in a close race, especially with more Paul supporters out there. But also, and perhaps more significant, writing them off as though they are "not Republicans" ignores the need for the party to generate a youth movement for future levels of support. Eventually all these seniors and retiring businessmen who are apparently terrified of gays and Muslims and Medicare cuts are going to die. And Republicans will have... what exactly as a core voter at the national level? Abortion as sole issue concerned voters (Isn't that almost what they already have)? While I don't particularly care if their party survives as such, I have few illusions that its demise would mean the arrival of a stronger libertarian movement enough to become a major player. Which would leave us with Democrats running things. Which is, clearly, little better on most issues of importance. Reform is needed, and while Paul isn't really my cup of chicken soup for the soul, maybe it is for some conservatives. Paul also did very well with lower incomes. Suggesting Santorum's economic populism message is rendered effectively irrelevant. Part of this is that Paul did very well with younger voters of course, who are naturally, in lower income brackets by effect of their newer working lives. But it would be well for Republicans to consider adding some poor people and some younger voters and Paul seems able to attract them in greater numbers and enthusiasm than other candidates.
In the related humorous front, Erickson, because presumably his horse is run out of the race and he, like many conservatives, now dislikes the entire field, continues to press the possibility of another late entrant into the primary field. There are serious logistical problems with this delusion (getting one's name on ballots has already shown itself to be difficult for everyone but Romney and Paul) and it presumes that there is a GOP candidate on the bench who could raise substantial funding and support in short order to compete. I don't see that there is one such person. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, even Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio have been floated as names. None of them will run because none of them have expressed interest in running (I can't speak to Jindal's position, but after his strange volcano speech a couple years ago, I doubt it). None of them has a fusionist perspective that resonates with the base of voters. Daniels has a record of it, but not a rhetoric. Christie upsets the libertarians and/or social conservatives. Ryan has legislative baggage in the form of medicare cuts and support for TARP, Bush is a Bush. Rubio is a useless token piece in an election on economics rather than immigration or foreign policy and is basically an empty shell for John McCain fans to be loaded onto as it is, and so on. .
So however amusing it is to speculate, speculations that do not readily conform to reality should be dismissed as ranting and raving by uninformed lunatics, and not proper opinion journalism of the sort Erickson and others are presumably employed to provide.
This is all very amusing to the outside observer. What seems pretty clear from here is that there are at least two factions which control enough of the GOP electorate to dominate a nomination: social conservatives and business conservatives (corporatists). Both of these groups should have long since coalesced around Huntsman, who has an actual record as governor backing both groups on most issues (not all, but most). Apparently a temperament of "reasonable dialogue" in politics is so off-putting that that didn't happen. Which is pretty sad. Huntsman was probably the single most dangerous opponent for an Obama candidacy (if not the most interesting debates, Paul wins that by a mile) and I would have preferred a more competitive election cycle. There's no particular reason I should favor a GOP candidate over Obama (I see both parties as greater evils than throwing my vote away on a third party in most years already), but I also don't see any particular reason that Obama should deserve re-election. Surely in such an environment, it would have been possible to find and fund better candidates than this if one is the GOP?
If they were really that committed to disliking both Obama and Romney, then I'd have to say they're not demonstrating it.
I submit that media imagination surrounding Santorum is primarily there to do two things:
1) Ignore the difficult and thought-provoking debate questions posed by a possible Ron Paul candidacy and levels of support that he now enjoys. Media types hate debates and asking questions that invite actual answers.
2) Continue the illusion of a horse race scenario worthy of media attention. I suppose it is possible that Santorum or Gingrich wins South Carolina. Gingrich might even be able to make a play for Florida (Santorum cannot, social conservatives tend to do poorly there and New Hampshire. It's a weird southern state apparently). But that's sounding a lot like the Giuliani strategy, and it depends on his being able to not implode himself into becoming the butt of a series of knock knock jokes. But after that, the only plausible non-Romney scenario is a broken convention where he doesn't get enough delegates. He's going to do reasonably well out West now that there's no McCain out there to muck things up, in Michigan and some of the other rust belt states, probably better than Santorum in Pennsylvania even if it came to that, New England, and basically everywhere but the Deep South and a couple of prairie states. That might be a core enough to meddle in the number of delegates, if, and only if, the anti-Romney vote decides to merge behind a Santorum candidacy. And that would be insane. So I don't expect it to happen. Even the paranoid fantasy of a Gingrich fueled primary was bad enough a delusion. The media really needs to give it up and admit that this race is long since over.
I would note that in the person of Eric Erickson BOTH of these delusions were entertained. Which was uproariously funny.
Firstly, Erickson claimed that the GOP record turnout was false because "Ron Paul voters" were not Republicans. It is true that Paul claimed a substantial portion of the non-GOP/independent/Democratic voters who turned out. Something like 40%. But that portion of the vote was somewhere around 25%, which puts Paul's share of it around 10% of the total vote at best/worst. Which means Erickson must account for roughly 10-12% of the usual conservative/Republican electorate that turned out to support Paul (much as they did in 2008), assuming that all of the "independents" are normally either Libertarians or Democrats (which is a huge assumption). He has no desire to do so, because it would require him to grapple with the idea that national security and civil liberties issues relating to the war on terror, war on drugs, or foreign wars/occupations all desired by his preferred candidacies (Perry I believe was his guy), are not simple troupes where the Democrats are weaklings (Obama certainly hasn't been) and Republicans tough-minded and doing the necessary deeds. When it is clearly not that simple (and the Obama apology tour line or the ACLU running the CIA one have been WAY overplayed). Further complicating Erickson's bizarro world, Paul's voters self-identified as among the "most conservative" and as among the most trusted on "deficits" as a basis for their votes. Are these not core elements of GOP rhetorical support? I guess they are not as important in real terms to conservatives as abortion or tax cuts nor of expressing virulent hatred of Obama/Democrats/liberals or of Muslims/Iran/"anti-anything goes in Israel" types.
But that's hardly news.
It would be noteworthy to observe that large numbers of Paul's voters were in the under 30 range. He dominated that portion of the vote. Those voters may not show up at the general election for the GOP without some portions of the Paul agenda on the ballot, as happened last election Paul supporters vote for Paul-supported candidates or Paul himself but not the mainstream Republican. Which is a problem for the GOP in a close race, especially with more Paul supporters out there. But also, and perhaps more significant, writing them off as though they are "not Republicans" ignores the need for the party to generate a youth movement for future levels of support. Eventually all these seniors and retiring businessmen who are apparently terrified of gays and Muslims and Medicare cuts are going to die. And Republicans will have... what exactly as a core voter at the national level? Abortion as sole issue concerned voters (Isn't that almost what they already have)? While I don't particularly care if their party survives as such, I have few illusions that its demise would mean the arrival of a stronger libertarian movement enough to become a major player. Which would leave us with Democrats running things. Which is, clearly, little better on most issues of importance. Reform is needed, and while Paul isn't really my cup of chicken soup for the soul, maybe it is for some conservatives. Paul also did very well with lower incomes. Suggesting Santorum's economic populism message is rendered effectively irrelevant. Part of this is that Paul did very well with younger voters of course, who are naturally, in lower income brackets by effect of their newer working lives. But it would be well for Republicans to consider adding some poor people and some younger voters and Paul seems able to attract them in greater numbers and enthusiasm than other candidates.
In the related humorous front, Erickson, because presumably his horse is run out of the race and he, like many conservatives, now dislikes the entire field, continues to press the possibility of another late entrant into the primary field. There are serious logistical problems with this delusion (getting one's name on ballots has already shown itself to be difficult for everyone but Romney and Paul) and it presumes that there is a GOP candidate on the bench who could raise substantial funding and support in short order to compete. I don't see that there is one such person. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, even Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio have been floated as names. None of them will run because none of them have expressed interest in running (I can't speak to Jindal's position, but after his strange volcano speech a couple years ago, I doubt it). None of them has a fusionist perspective that resonates with the base of voters. Daniels has a record of it, but not a rhetoric. Christie upsets the libertarians and/or social conservatives. Ryan has legislative baggage in the form of medicare cuts and support for TARP, Bush is a Bush. Rubio is a useless token piece in an election on economics rather than immigration or foreign policy and is basically an empty shell for John McCain fans to be loaded onto as it is, and so on. .
So however amusing it is to speculate, speculations that do not readily conform to reality should be dismissed as ranting and raving by uninformed lunatics, and not proper opinion journalism of the sort Erickson and others are presumably employed to provide.
This is all very amusing to the outside observer. What seems pretty clear from here is that there are at least two factions which control enough of the GOP electorate to dominate a nomination: social conservatives and business conservatives (corporatists). Both of these groups should have long since coalesced around Huntsman, who has an actual record as governor backing both groups on most issues (not all, but most). Apparently a temperament of "reasonable dialogue" in politics is so off-putting that that didn't happen. Which is pretty sad. Huntsman was probably the single most dangerous opponent for an Obama candidacy (if not the most interesting debates, Paul wins that by a mile) and I would have preferred a more competitive election cycle. There's no particular reason I should favor a GOP candidate over Obama (I see both parties as greater evils than throwing my vote away on a third party in most years already), but I also don't see any particular reason that Obama should deserve re-election. Surely in such an environment, it would have been possible to find and fund better candidates than this if one is the GOP?
If they were really that committed to disliking both Obama and Romney, then I'd have to say they're not demonstrating it.
03 January 2012
The world of 2012
January first week edition.
I don't have much to say on the rise of Santorum in Iowa. As in, like the rise of the others before him, it will amount to nothing. And indeed, in Santorum's case, appears to be much more limited to the cocoon-like isolated commune of Iowan Republican caucus goers, a more socially conservative bunch than most, and no where else. I still say good luck with Mitt Romney to any conservatives I encounter. I'd be impressed if they pick Paul, because it would finally cause some people on both sides of the political aisles to have head exploding thoughts about their team affiliations and could create some interesting Presidential debates for a change, but it won't happen. The sooner Iowa and New Hampshire are over, and the sooner one or more of the zeitgeist bots (Perry-Gingrich-Bachmann) is eliminated by doing poorly in South Carolina, the sooner I can ignore them all. The only things I will say on Santorum in particular is that he's a big government type, and that he has a paranoid and absurd vision of how foreign policy (and history in general) operates. Sadly, that foreign policy vision isn't too much distinct from other conservatives (or for that matter, Obama).
If there is anything cogent to say about his rise in Iowa, it would suggest, as I've long maintained, that Tea Party types on the ground are not libertarians. They are social conservatives in costumes who have no real interest in limited government and zero interest in individualism or protected rights of individual autonomy. No serious libertarian-based movement could have taken a look at Gingrich or Santorum or Bachmann and said, "hey, that's alright". Much less given Gingrich a second look. So they need to back the fuck off with that because that's bullshit that I'm tired of hearing about.
Basic tenet for this election cycle. I don't see any reason to start a war with Iran, but all the rhetoric and bluster is not surprising. From both sides. It's a little scarier coming from our side than when they conduct a naval exercise and blow things up in a public way. Nobody comments when we do this. I suppose also their "don't bring that carrier in here" quip is annoying. But it's not like they could actually prevent it without starting a war. Which they do not want. What they want is the trade restrictions to be eased or removed. Considering there is now some back channel pressure from China and other trade partners, I'd say that we will see some sort of quid pro quo here without a war but with plenty of polluted rhetoric from both sides to say "see, those people are crazy!" I'm not sure that anything else in the political debate circles will actually matter or change substantially based on who wins other than rhetoric on Iran and possible courses of action pursued once in office toward Iran and their (at present) mythical nuclear programme.
This was a fascinating topic. Essentially what we are concerned with therein is whether the "freedom of press" applies to the particular industry of media versus the printed word. I view this as unlikely, newspapers were common in parts of colonial America, but distribution of pamphlet literature was a much more common effort. It would seem that the printed word enjoyed its own legal protections separated from the spoken word (where speeches used to be a form of social gathering sometimes lasting several hours). The particular industry of press media was a novel innovation, which certainly enjoyed much proliferation in colonial America, but I don't see why the Constitution would see fit to provide it alone with a significant protection over and above the writings and publications of other citizens. Control by states over printing presses (and now the Internet as a new "printed word" medium) has a long and ugly history. It was a tool employed by Catholic dominated regions of Germany to try to suppress Luther's Reformation texts (unsuccessfully because Luther's pamphlets sold so well that printers often went to great lengths to acquire the rights to print them). Totalitarian regimes throughout the world have destroyed or suppressed books written by "subversives". It is not enough to provide a justification that the state shall give this freedom to a particular industry (the "press"), but not equate the means of distribution of ideas to others. I would imagine this means that "the press" should enjoy somewhat less privileged status than it does, or conversely, that the public has a greater role in asking and demanding questions of their leaders or public figures. A role that it typically ignores.
I don't have much to say on the rise of Santorum in Iowa. As in, like the rise of the others before him, it will amount to nothing. And indeed, in Santorum's case, appears to be much more limited to the cocoon-like isolated commune of Iowan Republican caucus goers, a more socially conservative bunch than most, and no where else. I still say good luck with Mitt Romney to any conservatives I encounter. I'd be impressed if they pick Paul, because it would finally cause some people on both sides of the political aisles to have head exploding thoughts about their team affiliations and could create some interesting Presidential debates for a change, but it won't happen. The sooner Iowa and New Hampshire are over, and the sooner one or more of the zeitgeist bots (Perry-Gingrich-Bachmann) is eliminated by doing poorly in South Carolina, the sooner I can ignore them all. The only things I will say on Santorum in particular is that he's a big government type, and that he has a paranoid and absurd vision of how foreign policy (and history in general) operates. Sadly, that foreign policy vision isn't too much distinct from other conservatives (or for that matter, Obama).
If there is anything cogent to say about his rise in Iowa, it would suggest, as I've long maintained, that Tea Party types on the ground are not libertarians. They are social conservatives in costumes who have no real interest in limited government and zero interest in individualism or protected rights of individual autonomy. No serious libertarian-based movement could have taken a look at Gingrich or Santorum or Bachmann and said, "hey, that's alright". Much less given Gingrich a second look. So they need to back the fuck off with that because that's bullshit that I'm tired of hearing about.
Basic tenet for this election cycle. I don't see any reason to start a war with Iran, but all the rhetoric and bluster is not surprising. From both sides. It's a little scarier coming from our side than when they conduct a naval exercise and blow things up in a public way. Nobody comments when we do this. I suppose also their "don't bring that carrier in here" quip is annoying. But it's not like they could actually prevent it without starting a war. Which they do not want. What they want is the trade restrictions to be eased or removed. Considering there is now some back channel pressure from China and other trade partners, I'd say that we will see some sort of quid pro quo here without a war but with plenty of polluted rhetoric from both sides to say "see, those people are crazy!" I'm not sure that anything else in the political debate circles will actually matter or change substantially based on who wins other than rhetoric on Iran and possible courses of action pursued once in office toward Iran and their (at present) mythical nuclear programme.
This was a fascinating topic. Essentially what we are concerned with therein is whether the "freedom of press" applies to the particular industry of media versus the printed word. I view this as unlikely, newspapers were common in parts of colonial America, but distribution of pamphlet literature was a much more common effort. It would seem that the printed word enjoyed its own legal protections separated from the spoken word (where speeches used to be a form of social gathering sometimes lasting several hours). The particular industry of press media was a novel innovation, which certainly enjoyed much proliferation in colonial America, but I don't see why the Constitution would see fit to provide it alone with a significant protection over and above the writings and publications of other citizens. Control by states over printing presses (and now the Internet as a new "printed word" medium) has a long and ugly history. It was a tool employed by Catholic dominated regions of Germany to try to suppress Luther's Reformation texts (unsuccessfully because Luther's pamphlets sold so well that printers often went to great lengths to acquire the rights to print them). Totalitarian regimes throughout the world have destroyed or suppressed books written by "subversives". It is not enough to provide a justification that the state shall give this freedom to a particular industry (the "press"), but not equate the means of distribution of ideas to others. I would imagine this means that "the press" should enjoy somewhat less privileged status than it does, or conversely, that the public has a greater role in asking and demanding questions of their leaders or public figures. A role that it typically ignores.
30 December 2011
So trembled the Austrians
"In 2009, the Riksbank -- Sweden’s central bank -- was the first bank to experiment with a negative interest rate. And it had assets on its balance sheet equal to a stunning 25 percent of GDP, a sign of how much cash it was injecting into the economy, compared with just 15 percent for the Federal Reserve. The bold moves worked: Sweden has been growing at a decent clip."
But of course, Sweden is just a bunch of "socialists"*! We certainly shouldn't be doing what they're doing! Much less encouraging a vigorous, but less interventionist, monetary policy choice that actually discourages banks from hording money instead of the policy choices we currently have that encourages big banks and big banks to horde at that.
*Sweden is not just a bunch of "socialists". The existence in Sweden or Norway or Denmark or Finland or the Netherlands of generous welfare states and relatively high tax burdens is balanced by access to better quality school systems, often competitive schools, very high GDP per capita rates on a rough par with the US if not higher, LESS progressive tax systems, and relatively little business regulation. Particularly concerning small businesses. But nevermind that it is easier to start a business or attain middle class human capital ratios, they're Europeans and Europe is run by socialists. Or something. If that's the price of socialism, I might take that over our own rampant use of corporatism any day of the week. I'd rather have Singapore style market capitalism with less social tinkering (something like the Dutch or Australians) personally, but this would still be an improvement over the current structure.
But of course, Sweden is just a bunch of "socialists"*! We certainly shouldn't be doing what they're doing! Much less encouraging a vigorous, but less interventionist, monetary policy choice that actually discourages banks from hording money instead of the policy choices we currently have that encourages big banks and big banks to horde at that.
*Sweden is not just a bunch of "socialists". The existence in Sweden or Norway or Denmark or Finland or the Netherlands of generous welfare states and relatively high tax burdens is balanced by access to better quality school systems, often competitive schools, very high GDP per capita rates on a rough par with the US if not higher, LESS progressive tax systems, and relatively little business regulation. Particularly concerning small businesses. But nevermind that it is easier to start a business or attain middle class human capital ratios, they're Europeans and Europe is run by socialists. Or something. If that's the price of socialism, I might take that over our own rampant use of corporatism any day of the week. I'd rather have Singapore style market capitalism with less social tinkering (something like the Dutch or Australians) personally, but this would still be an improvement over the current structure.
29 December 2011
Rick Perry keeps on giving
I have more or less written him off, so I tend to ignore his statements. But this was hilarious.
“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause.
Yes. Because, since we get so much oil from Canada and Mexico already, clearly they must not be "foreign sources". I look forward to receiving the future Congress members from Ontario and Chihuahua.Wait, we didn't annex Mexico and Canada? Hmm. I think one of us must be confused about the meaning of "foreign" and the sources of American oil generally.
And I'm guessing it's those people cheering. Rick Perry is just their zeitgeist made manifest. Stupidity about common factual elements. Check. Blind assessments of things going on with no idea what is actually going on, check. And so on.
Speaking of which, on the other topics.
A balanced budget amendment. 1) won't pass the Congress and will never happen in our lifetimes. Even with a major GOP takeover of both houses it's still incredibly unlikely to ever occur. 2) won't be useful without some notion of what will be cut/gutted in spending to get us there. If a candidate of any political stripe advocates a balanced budget amendment, I know this is code for "I don't want to pick any item that should or could be cut from the budget and am pretending that you are all morons who assume that there are lots of things that could be cut without affecting your entitlements and government tax handouts". In other words, I view such advocacy as cowardice, not the sort of straight talk bravery that Perry claims that it is. There's a reason it draws cheers. If it draws cheers from the people, it very likely isn't bravery or bravado to say it. It is pandering. Actual political courage might be to say and do things that are necessary but are unpopular. You know, like advocating the substantial cuts and reforms to entitlements and defence spending in order to achieve a balanced budget in the first place.
Immigration. I'm still confused as to what "they" think is possible. I get what they think is necessary (walls and moats and soldiers on patrol). I don't think they understand what will be actually done in their name (checkpoints, illegal detentions, abuse of civil liberties for anyone non-white). Or more importantly, I don't think they care. This anti-immigrant stance, among other features, is a big reason I break with Ron Paul for that matter.
Cutting Congress down to half time. This will mean that a lot of bills don't get passed, and hooray for that. However it also means that Congress cannot reduce the size and influence of the government (or the political lobbying class). It primarily means that it consolidates further power in the executive regulatory arms of the government where many laws are actually created and enacted today. Kudos to Rick Perry for identifying a way he can pander to voters AND establish and consolidate greater kingly powers over the country. Too bad for him a President doesn't actually have much power over whether Congress is in session or how much they are paid. They can call for a session to occur, but cannot mandate what happens in it, nor dismiss a session in progress and certainly cannot establish their pay rates. The Constitution doesn't establish this power for him. Too bad also that many Congressmen are already "part time". They spend much of their time fund-raising instead of legislating. Legislating they leave to lobbyists.
Israel. I am usually unsurprised this gets lots of cheers. I'm disturbed by it. But I'm not surprised.
Essentially what I note is that on the supposed issues of importance to Tea Party Republican types, most Republicans fail miserably to actually DO or say any of it. They make platitudes and panders but no serious moves to trim the size and scope of government ever occur. This is counter-balanced by enthusiastic reactions to social conservative issues like abortion, defiant rejection of the country's generally shifting values on gays and drugs, and an absolutist level of support for Israel (a foreign country by the way), none of which is characterized by a reduced scope of government roles or size. As I've generally observed, the Tea Party isn't about libertarianism. It is about re-branding radical social conservativism. This is fun for social conservatives apparently (complete with costumes and chants!), and fun for media types who like to wail about people who want to radically cut liberal programmes, but it's not very much use to someone like me.
“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause.
Yes. Because, since we get so much oil from Canada and Mexico already, clearly they must not be "foreign sources". I look forward to receiving the future Congress members from Ontario and Chihuahua.Wait, we didn't annex Mexico and Canada? Hmm. I think one of us must be confused about the meaning of "foreign" and the sources of American oil generally.
And I'm guessing it's those people cheering. Rick Perry is just their zeitgeist made manifest. Stupidity about common factual elements. Check. Blind assessments of things going on with no idea what is actually going on, check. And so on.
Speaking of which, on the other topics.
A balanced budget amendment. 1) won't pass the Congress and will never happen in our lifetimes. Even with a major GOP takeover of both houses it's still incredibly unlikely to ever occur. 2) won't be useful without some notion of what will be cut/gutted in spending to get us there. If a candidate of any political stripe advocates a balanced budget amendment, I know this is code for "I don't want to pick any item that should or could be cut from the budget and am pretending that you are all morons who assume that there are lots of things that could be cut without affecting your entitlements and government tax handouts". In other words, I view such advocacy as cowardice, not the sort of straight talk bravery that Perry claims that it is. There's a reason it draws cheers. If it draws cheers from the people, it very likely isn't bravery or bravado to say it. It is pandering. Actual political courage might be to say and do things that are necessary but are unpopular. You know, like advocating the substantial cuts and reforms to entitlements and defence spending in order to achieve a balanced budget in the first place.
Immigration. I'm still confused as to what "they" think is possible. I get what they think is necessary (walls and moats and soldiers on patrol). I don't think they understand what will be actually done in their name (checkpoints, illegal detentions, abuse of civil liberties for anyone non-white). Or more importantly, I don't think they care. This anti-immigrant stance, among other features, is a big reason I break with Ron Paul for that matter.
Cutting Congress down to half time. This will mean that a lot of bills don't get passed, and hooray for that. However it also means that Congress cannot reduce the size and influence of the government (or the political lobbying class). It primarily means that it consolidates further power in the executive regulatory arms of the government where many laws are actually created and enacted today. Kudos to Rick Perry for identifying a way he can pander to voters AND establish and consolidate greater kingly powers over the country. Too bad for him a President doesn't actually have much power over whether Congress is in session or how much they are paid. They can call for a session to occur, but cannot mandate what happens in it, nor dismiss a session in progress and certainly cannot establish their pay rates. The Constitution doesn't establish this power for him. Too bad also that many Congressmen are already "part time". They spend much of their time fund-raising instead of legislating. Legislating they leave to lobbyists.
Israel. I am usually unsurprised this gets lots of cheers. I'm disturbed by it. But I'm not surprised.
Essentially what I note is that on the supposed issues of importance to Tea Party Republican types, most Republicans fail miserably to actually DO or say any of it. They make platitudes and panders but no serious moves to trim the size and scope of government ever occur. This is counter-balanced by enthusiastic reactions to social conservative issues like abortion, defiant rejection of the country's generally shifting values on gays and drugs, and an absolutist level of support for Israel (a foreign country by the way), none of which is characterized by a reduced scope of government roles or size. As I've generally observed, the Tea Party isn't about libertarianism. It is about re-branding radical social conservativism. This is fun for social conservatives apparently (complete with costumes and chants!), and fun for media types who like to wail about people who want to radically cut liberal programmes, but it's not very much use to someone like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
