Random Thoughts Blogging. . .

Once again, we're in for an installment of my random thoughts blogging, wherein I discuss issues briefly, rather than write a full post on each one.

The Bachelor: Once again, I was roped into watching "The Bachelor" - and not just the two hour finale, but the extra hour "after the rose." Ugh.  As usual, I found actual finale rather dull - as I said before, Brad Womack is not an especially interesting person on television - but I will say that my prediction as to who Brad would pick was spot-on (here's a hint - Brad's family liked Chantal, but his Mom literally CRIED TEARS OF JOY at the thought of Brad settling down with Emily, it was OVAH), and I predicted Ashley as the next Bachelorette (the makeover in the last episode was a dead giveaway).  The accuracy of these predictions came much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, and I did manage to get a great deal of dishes done.

What was more interesting was the "after the rose" deal after the ritual humiliation of Chantal when Emily and Brad were being interviewed.  And here's what's interesting to me - Emily was P-I-S-S-E-D at Brad and they broke up just about every Monday evening/Tuesday morning because Emily was watching her "man" romance other women.  And that lead me to an interesting train of thought - what if, utter failure of the Bachelor to produce married couples (3 relationships out of 15 seasons) comes as a result of "Bachelor" couples watching the show?  Even more interesting, does the fact that more Bachelorette couples stay together after the show ends indicate a difference between the sexes with regard to jealousy?  Certainly, the format of the Bachelorette, where men compete for a woman's affection, fits more within traditional social norms.  Can we get Malcolm Gladwell to look into this?

Devastation in Japan: When I first saw the news, my reaction was, as with everyone, "Holy Fucking Shit!" From my experience as a Californian, an 8.9 earthquake is ENORMOUS.  The Easter earthquake that did a lot of damage to the Imperial Valley, and was the first earthquake that actually scared me, was a 6.9-7.0 quake.  Given that the Richter scale is exponential, an 8.9 quake is around TWENTY TIMES stronger than the Easter quake.  Yikes.  But, if there was ever a country who could withstand such a quake, I thought that Japan would be that country.  And from what I can tell, it wasn't the quake so much as the tsunami that caused the damage.  Anyway, my heart goes out to them, and I sincerely hope I don't get any radiation sickness from the reactor meltdowns.

Buyer's Remorse in the Midwest: The newly elected governors of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan are all engaging in various degrees of union-busting, and find themselves with lower and lower approval ratings.  And ultimately, that's the rub that we face in America.  On one hand, we have the Democrats who generally have beliefs that are popular - like gun control, abortion choice, social safety nets, regulation to keep products safe, etc. - but are either incapable of expressing those beliefs, or incapable of enacting legislation to bolster those beliefs, and on the other hand, we have Republicans, who favor policies that are not popular - union busting, dismantling the social safety net, etc. - but are very capable at governing.  The whole thing is maddening, and until one party (*cough*Democrats*cough*) figures out how to govern, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.

Libya, Bahrain and the Middle East: Like a lot of people, I am both heartened and dismayed by the democracy movements in the Arab World.  In countries like Egypt, this movement may well bring real progress.  But in Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, I am genuinely concerned that the governments will put down these movements in a horrifically violent way.  Given that our military is already stretched (thanks, Dubya), another military intervention, or two, is unlikely. 

Random Thoughts Blogging. . .

Okay, random is never the right word - rather, these are thoughts that I had that I don't want to have their own post.

1) Failures of the Democratic Party

When I look at what has gone wrong over the past four years of Democratic control of Congress, and the past two years of controlling all of government, I am struck by how ill-prepared the Democratic Party was to rule. And here's what I mean - whereas the GOP has a governing philosophy, the Democrats define themselves by not being the GOP. Sure, there is a laundry list of things to do, but Democrats can't agree on their own political philosophy, while Republicans do their best to comport to "conservativism," consequences be damned.

So, when the Democrats took power, their only goal was to dismantle everything Bush did, and then they got caught up in the storm of economic crises, wars, etc. But there was and is no clear economic vision. To this day, I don't know what Obama's vision for America is, and that's largely because he's been trying to keep the economy afloat.

This failure of leadership and vision is probably what's killing us now. The economy is stable, businesses have the cash to invest and move forward, but no one knows what the future will hold, so these companies are holding back. Had Obama set forth his vision, a vision in line with a Democratic Party philosophy of economics, we would be in a different spot then we're in now.

2) Padres Trading Away Adrian Gonzalez

As a Padres fan, this trade was painful. I knew it was bound to happen, but this trade lays bare all the problems in baseball. Here, the Padres traded away their best player, a team leader, a local boy done good (he credits his power to carne asada burritos), and an all around good guy, for prospects because they couldn't afford to resign him in a year. This may be a broken record, but when a mid-market team like the Padres can't afford to pay its best player, then there are serious problems in baseball.

3) The Yankees are Douchebags

There are two reasons why the Yankees didn't sign Cliff Lee: 1) their fans spit on and heckled Cliff Lee's wife during the playoffs; and 2) the organization went out of its way to embarrass Derek Jeter. Now sure, Jeter is overrated as a baseball player, but Jeter is Mr. Yankee - a guy who willingly took up the Ruth/Gerhig/DiMaggio mantle and wore it proudly. There are maybe 5 guys in baseball who could do the same. . .no fuck that, there's only Derek Jeter. So, if I was not a Yankee, but offered money to be one, I would have to think long and hard. If the Yankees are willing to throw Jeter under the bus, they'd throw anyone under the bus. There was no way in hell Lee was joining the Yankees after that spectacle.

4) I'm having a hard time getting excited for football this season

Maybe its a reaction to how up and down the Chargers are this year, maybe its because my dog reacts whenever I yell at the TV (he thinks I'm barking at a squirrel or something and goes nuts), but I'm just not into football this season. Sure, I'm enjoying it, but I'm not as into football as I have been in the past.

On the tax cut deal. . .

So, with great sadness, all Democrats have finally realized that Obama isn't a progressive, but rather a pragmatist more interested in getting small things done than providing the reform the country needs. This tax cut deal is a disaster on so many fronts - it encourages the Republicans to become more intransigent on other issues, such as Social Security, it demoralizes the Democratic base, and most importantly, its just bad policy. Yes, it could be worse (and that was Obama's point), but not by much.

Q: So, what should good progressives do about this?

A: We need to ratfuck our President.

Simply put, the Democrats on Capitol Hill should completely reject the plan. When the President calls to get people on board, they should dodge his calls. This needs to be a complete and utter loss handed to him by his own party, similar to how the GOP killed Bush's immigration reform bill in 2006.

My reasoning here is simple - right now, the President is negotiating with an intransigent GOP, and a more or less flexible Democratic Party. Democrats, by and large, are less interested in means than they are in ends. So, where a Republican will insist on tax cuts no matter the situation, a Democrat will be willing to discuss a variety of policy decisions to meet the sought after ends. As a result, the President and the policies are pushed further to the right - further than the American people want, by measure of the polls.

However, if Democrats ratfuck this deal, then the President will start having to worry about how the Left will react to his negotiations, and will adjust his behavior accordingly. In so doing, we might see real bipartisan compromise, or we might see no action whatsoever. But we will better negotiations.

Short and Obvious - Messaging the 2010 Campaign

Okay, in a nutshell, every Democratic incumbent should have the following message to the voters for 2010:

"The Great Recession is bigger than anything any of us expected.  After thirty years of deregulation, spending on unnecessary foreign wars, and financial bailouts, the economy crashed.  In one fell swoop, trillions of dollars walked out of the economy, creating economic conditions not seen since 1934.  While the Stimulus and Health Care Reform did a lot to stabilize the economy, there is much, much more to do.  That's why, I promise to do whatever it takes to get our economy moving again.  Unlike my opponent, I will not let my Party's politics interfere with your family's well-being."

Naturally, no Democrat outside of Alan Grayson will say any such thing.  Grayson might, but that's because he actually understands the whole point of politics and political messaging.  Ugh.

A quick note for Bogart - not only does the GOP have an easier sell, but really all they have to do is convince voters that they're not completely crazy.  That might be too tall an order for some Republicans (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Dan Maes), but most will probably do okay - unless John Boehner manages to fuck it up.  Seriously, that guy must have gotten his political lessons from Harry Reid. 

Changing Democratic Politics. . .Finally

Peter Beinart, in the Daily Beast, writes about the recent change in Democratic politics since Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate Seat. The article, a good one, is found here. I do think Beinart overuses the phrase "superjumbo" but its otherwise a good article.

Still, I think it misses the mark somewhat. Democrats held power for almost sixty years by being effective coalition builders. Even to this day, the Democratic Party is a jumble of union workers, African Americans, Latinos, and liberals. The problem with this coalition, is that there is no unified political ideals. As a result, Democrats end up looking weak and beholden to the special interests within their own party.

Now, its true that by 1979-1980, people were fed up with liberal politics and wanted to open things up a bit, economically at least. And the DLC certainly played up to that during the 1990's. But what this article doesn't mention, and really should, is that in the interim, the Republican Party changed as well. The grassroots conservatives began taking over the leadership positions and the GOP moved to the right - too far to the right, in my humble opinion.

What drove me nuts was the failure of the DLC and the Democratic Party Establishment during the 2000's to see what was unfolding. Rather than chase the GOP to the right, the Dems should've stayed where they are, if not move a little bit to the left. Instead of coalition building, state a set of principles and stand by them. This is what guys like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh don't understand.

With HCR finally

On Evan Bayh

I spent the last few days thinking about what to write on Valentine's Day, and came this close to posting some screed about my ex-fiancee, which would have been completely unproductive, whiny, and boring. Luckily, my fair reader, one of my favorite Senators (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), announced he wasn't going to run for reelection. So without further ado, let me eulogize Evan Bayh.

In the past 10-15 years, there has never been a bigger waste of anyone's time like Evan Bayh. During his time in the Senate, Evan Bayh was a "leader" of the "Centrist" Democrats, who believed that the way to electoral success was to cave to the Republican Party at every possible moment. Shockingly, this strategy seemed to work for Indiana, but it didn't anywhere else (which isn't such a surprise - when given the choice between one candidate who espouses a coherent political ideology, and another who gives into the same ideology while whining about it, people tend to choose the former and not the later). So, Bayh tended to do what other Centrist Dems do - he went on "Meet the Press," complained about partisanship, and ignored the disasters his appeasement strategy caused.

Worst of all, for a guy who was relatively young, talented, and popular, Evan Bayh failed to lead, ever. For you political junkies out there, I ask you to name one, just one, policy initiative that Evan Bayh lead. Seriously, is there any? I checked out his Wikipedia entry, and found nothing. Now here's a guy who was seriously considered for Obama's VP, and in twelve years, he hasn't lead on anything.

So, I can't say its entirely shocking that Bayh decided, rather than trying to lead the Senate away from the hyperpartisanship he decried, to quit the Senate and whine about it. Naturally, all the blame will be on the dirty hippies like me (who, by the way, have been right about the following issues: Iraq, health care reform, the economic stimulus, Bush's tax cuts, torture, and education reform), rather than blaming Bayh for quitting a job he clearly never wanted.

One of the rumors floating out there is that Bayh is preparing to run against Obama in 2012, and that's why he's quitting the Senate. If that's true, then Bayh isn't just useless, but also insane. Primary challenges only work when the incumbent is viewed as moving too far from the Party line. Of the two, Obama is clearly more popular among Democrats than Bayh because he actually shares their political views. The Centrists that Bayh purports to represent don't vote in party primaries. See Joe Lieberman's 2004 Presidential Campaign.

So, I'm not exactly weeping over the loss of Bayh, per se. On the other hand, his timing pretty much fucked over the Dems, and gave Obama another week of bad press. Naturally, Bayh will be a hero of the DC press (the same people who cheered the invasion of Iraq, torture, and other atrocities), and my big prediction is that Bayh will be a big whiner for the rest of his term. Good times, good times.

See, this post was much better than whining about my ex.

I think I have Obama figured out. . .

As I ride the train back to San Diego from Orange County (a great way to travel, by the way), I have had time to ponder about Obama during the past few weeks. I’ve often wondered: what the hell is this guy thinking? And I’ve filled this blog with discussions about the failures in health care, etc.

But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.

Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.

This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.

Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.

Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.

Why I'm Pissed About the Health Care Bill. . .

Under the recent Senate bill, 30 million uninsured Americans will have access to health insurance, and preexisting conditions will be covered. While all of that is great, here's my problem with the bill: what happens if your insurance company screws you?

Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.

And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.

The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.

For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.

Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.

The Importance of Real Debate

One of the saddest things that have happened over the past several years is the total and utter lack of a real debate over issues in Washington, D.C. There was a time when the leaders of both parties could sit down, have a bourbon (or two) and hash out a solution to a problem Did that solution always work? Hell, no. But both parties were on the same page, and the debate was open and honest. For me, the last time this happened was during the debate on education which lead to the "Leave No Child Behind" bill. Ultimately, the bill was flawed and has been a disaster, but the debate was honest.

In the wake of Ted Kennedy's death, its appropriate to note the lack of a true debate in Washington over health care, torture, or the economic stimulus package. And apparently, the climate change bill is also going to be a rough one. The problem is, essentially as I see it, that the two parties live in two completely alternate universes. So instead of arguing the how - as in how do we fix this problem - the Parties argue whether or not a problem even exists. Health care, for instance, is tremendously overpriced in this country (we spend more per capita than any other country in the world, by far), and that has lead to bankruptcies and poor health. But instead of arguing how health care reform should be structured, Republicans argue that there is no problem, or worse, make up things about health care reform.

Where are the arguments about streamlining the health insurance market? Where are the arguments against burdensome regulation, or tort reform? In short, where is the honest conservative argument about health care? Or torture? Or climate change? The Republican argument seems to be to deny the existence of any problem. And ultimately, these made up facts have become an identity and not a philosophy. And that's a shame because conservatives have good points to make. For instance, the deregulation of the trucking industry was, all in all, a good thing. Welfare reform has been largely successful (I think). In other words, the conservative voice, or the good government voice, has been an important part of the Republic.

What's more, I deeply fear the insanity of identity politics in this country. Every day I see more and more harbingers of political violence in this country. Listen to this:



Now, Glenn Beck is a total nutcase, but he's alleging a coup by election - in other words, Obama has taken over the government by winning an election - something that has been done by both parties since 1801. Beck is practically encouraging the violent overthrow of the United States! We have pastors praying to God for Obama's death, and their parishioners are carrying assault weapons to Obama's events. Only 42% of Republicans are certain that Obama is a citizen of the United States!

True, the Democrats have, in the past, demonized the right. As the years rolled on during Bush's tenure as President, we became more and more strident against him. Though, to be honest, he did a lot to encourage our ire. But that outrage and anger took years to develop, and the anger was over policy - Iraq, torture, climate change, Katrina, etc. And it took even longer for our leadership to even acknowledge the anger we felt - this, by the way, is a continuing theme: Republicans fear their base, and are responsive to them (no matter how crazy the base gets), Democratic Leadership thinks the base voters are a bunch of dirty fucking hippies and ignore them. *bangs head against wall*

Ultimately, the change occurred because the Republicans realized that they could win more debates by being ruthlessly partisan, no matter what the facts were. And politically, that's the right move. What drives me nuts here is that the Democrats having faced this exact problem for the past thirty years have yet to realize that they need to be partisan in return. But despite what the Democrats do, something has to break with the Republicans - they can't keep doing this.