Prognosticating the Politics of 2012

After living through a volatile 2011 (the Arab Spring, the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear meltdown, Libya, the Occupy Movement, economic uncertainty, etc.) the world might see a 2012 that's just as chaotic and harrowing.  Yet there's much to be thankful for as we begin another year, with the potential for more outbursts of democratic revolution.

via Los Angeles Times

Syria Moving Toward Peace?  
The political will of the people is becoming centralized of late, deciding to go it alone by not allowing a foreign military intervention (ala Libya).  It's exciting to not only see this unity of opposing factions but also the clarity of their purpose, unwilling to be compromised by external forces in pursuing the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.  Who knows if the military will continue their sniper attacks, continuing their assault on the citizens of Syria that's raged since last March or if the Arab League will be able to diplomatically influence what's happening on the ground.  In time, the only ways I see a peaceful resolution to this bloody turmoil is either an overthrow of the Assad regime or long-term economic isolation to the point of Assad conceding.  Neither outcome looks to be on the immediate horizon.

The latest news in Syria, reported just this morning, is that the government has withdrawn their tanks out of the cities and released "3,500 detainees" as a result of "regional initiative" following reports from Arab League observers on the ground who recently withdrew as well.  The evident goal is cease-fire, which has not as of this morning been achieved, yet every positive step in the process is welcome at this point.

   Scary to see how linked our growth is to Europe's...          via American Progress

The Global Economy
In the US, the economy is finally starting to show signs of life with increased growth and lower unemployment of late.  The problem now?  The shoe is on the other foot with economic foreign powers slumping (China, Europe) while we're just starting to get back on our feet.  If the EU debt crisis continues to damage the European markets and/or China's growth continues to slow, it could spell a longer economic recession for everybody and cast further uncertainty on who leads America going forward.  In 2012, I see an increase in American output, a slower yet steady continuance of Chinese growth and a mediocre or even no recovery for the Euro-zone, potentially similar to the slow 2011 recovery here in the US.  ABC News put something out this morning on their projections for the US economy.

via theaustralian.com.au

China and North Korea 
Will they become further destabilized or instead continue their partnership of citizen oppression, censorship and famine?  If North Korea or China are ever going to trend toward the Democratic changes we've seen in the past year in the Arab states, it'll happen in the next five years.  Though what's been most evident during Kim Jung Un's transition to power is just how strong their Stalinist system is, with those in power enjoying the fruits of their work. Historically, the most successful attempts at toppling a regime have been undertaken during times of transition and in North Korea I see no such weakness.  While the people of China are are gathering and protesting more than they have in recent years, there is no doubting the power their leaders have in suppressing the voices of the people via censorship, jailing human rights lawyers, continued suppression of religion and human rights, with no evidence of their leadership crumbling at this point.


The Occupy Movement
While most of the occupy encampments have been forcibly removed and the cold weather may have frozen out the original notion of a constant physical presence (though there are exceptions), there continues to be a plethora of activity in many of the originally occupying cities.  The most exciting recent actions have included the West Coast port shutdown, the Minnesota house occupations and just this morning, the march that concluded the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena.  I don't see the Occupy Movement abating anytime soon, expecting it to only gather more steam as the weather gets better this Spring.

via CBS News

The Caucuses and Primaries  
Romney will most likely capture a majority of the state-by-state contests, with Paul and Gingrich possibly picking up a couple and Perry potentially snagging one or two himself.  It's pretty tough to project considering the volatility of the electorate, as evidenced by their mad Fall campaigns, the diversity of the states and the huge fluctuations in polling.  I see Romney winning a long battle (reminiscent of the long primary season between Clinton and Obama in '08), ultimately ending with Romney losing by a greater margin in the general election than McCain did to Obama in 2008.  Below is the most recent poll of polls from Real Clear Politics:

People get so wrapped up in polling and the excitement the traditional horse race handicapping of candidates that they often miss the simplicity of how determining a projected winner can be.  Please take a look at Allan Lichtman's Keys to the White House method of prediction.  He's accurately predicted 7 of the last 7 presidential elections based on his thirteen criteria. He had a great debate earlier last year with Nate Silver and this year he's predicting a victory for President Obama.  I see no reason to doubt his method at this point, unless the economy takes a drastic turn for the worse.

For more political and cultural commentary, stop by Auspicious Scuttlebutt, as I'll be covering the coming primaries and caucuses, plus in-depth looks at each of the remaining candidates.

Hope your 2012 is filled with joy and prosperity!

Ron Paul open thread

Here's a good site detailing his congressional voting record through at least 2007, and another with some more voting and issues information.  As can be expected (and as many of us already know), some of it's great, and much of it is lunacy.

But I'm curious: regardless of whether or not he has a chance of winning either the GOP nomination or the presidency, what are your opinions on him, his candidacy, and his overall message?  What do you think a Ron Paul presidency would look like?  More importantly, how do you think the political landscape and national discourse might be affected if the mainstream media -- and America -- were forced to listen?  I know we've all got that Ron Paul supporter or three that we know that make you kind of want to scream sometimes when they keep going on about gold, but you have to admit, the guy is saying things and challenging the establishment in a way that no other candidate in recent history has dared -- or been allowed -- to do.  

You're welcome to comment however you wish, of course, but I am hoping for something a little more substantial than simply "he's a racist," "he's crazy," or "he will never win" -- as well as "he's our only hope," "fiat currency is evil," or "Obama's a Republican."  He's got a history dotted with racism, homophobia, and de facto sexism, but hey, so do the rest of the dipshits in the running for the nomination, so let's chat.

Obligatory disclaimer: I AM NOT ENDORSING HIS PRESIDENCY.

Have at it!

Our Economy and it's Impact on 2012

via The Dish

Aside from a fun post answering 30 questions about myself, my absence amidst the pages of ethecofem has gone on now for just over 4 months.  Ever since this time there's been a great groundswell of opine, led by the impassioned musings of the incomparable Bema, including of all ethecofem's contributors sans me.  So, it's about damn time I wrote something around here...

Much like my recently lethargic attitude towards the written word, much the same can be said to describe our country's current economic situation.  It's really been a drag recently.  In fact, a year ago it forced me to take up a temp job, effectively pushing me harder than ever to seek out a real job that I hope will afford me the often overlooked benefits of paid time off and vacation.  With my attention directed towards the job hunt it has made it all the more difficult to focus on my writing.

The chief motivator for me to write, most often, is when I read or hear something that just totally pisses me off.  Such was the case on Thursday when Mitt Romney belatedly announced his candidacy for the presidency.  What really perturbed me, as it should anyone who's been paying attention the past 2 years, is when some conservative, prep-school reared stuffed shirt from New England (who should technically know better) bows to the radical elements in his party to gain their favor (see John McCain 2008 - the model for going against your own morals to win The Nomination) by making false accusations.

There is a long list of crap this man spewed on Thursday, but there were two that specifically stood out for me.  The first: "When [Obama] took office the economy was in recession. He made it worse."  And the second: "I will cap federal spending at 20% or less of the GDP and finally, finally balance the budget."

Well, when it comes to calling a man out for his lies, the Associated Press was on the ball in debunking Romney's fraudulence right off the bat... the problem is that none of those he's seeking to impress or convince will ever read this analysis, preferring instead to wallow in the spin.  But wait, Fox News actually printed AP's column amidst their own pages.  Should one see this as a "Fair and Balanced" approach or assume that it's pretty clear that Romney still isn't radical enough for their brand of conservatism?  I'll default to the latter every time.  Even though Romney has made multiple appearances on Fox since his announcement, they still prefer, as most the media has, to focus on Palin stealing his thunder in New Hampshire this week - a woman who not only isn't officially running yet, but still on the Fox News payroll.  So it's clear that not only is the conservative right not buying the crap he's trying to shill specifically to the FNC set, no one else is gonna buy it either.

Here's an excerpt of the AP's clear debunking of Romney's first claim and his chief falsehood that the president has made our economy worse:

The gross domestic product, the prime measure of economic strength, shrank by a severe 6.8 percent annual rate before Obama became president. The declines eased after he took office and economic growth, however modest, resumed. The recession officially ended six months into his presidency. Unemployment, however, has worsened under Obama, going from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 9.1 percent last month. It hit 10.1 percent in October 2009.  

A case can be made for and against the idea that Obama's policies made the economy worse than it needed to be and that the recession lasted longer than it might have under another president. Such arguments are at the core of political debate. But Obama did not, as Romney alleged, make the economy worse than it was when he took office. 

In fact, the President came right back this morning and emphasized the progress that has been made in the manufacturing sector, chiefly the auto industry, furthering the notion that government intervention not only works (wherein the taxpayers got their money back), but that in temporary instances governments are able to add a unique perspective that supposedly self-reliant companies can actually benefit from during financial calamities.  Governments can help (see Thing #12) more than the free-marketeers are willing to admit.  Here's what President Obama had to say this morning:

Romney's second assertion that he would cap federal spending at 20% of GDP and finally (finally!) balance the budget is almost more absurd than the previous assertion, making him almost look nescient in comparison to Paul Ryan and his broken budgetary blunder.  Moderate conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan of The Dish sums this assertion up thusly:

I presume Romney intends a balanced budget within his maximum term of office. That is a staggering goal, give the structural forces propelling the debt. It's way more draconian than the Ryan plan, which won't deliver a balanced budget for more than a decade. So what would he cut? Given his pledge to abolish all the cost-controls in the ACA, how does he propose to reform Medicare? How much would he cut from defense? Which taxes would he raise? By not even suggesting a single specific to reach a truly radical goal, the pledge is basically meaningless.

So what does this all mean for those conservatives who've set their gaze upon 2012?  From what I can tell, thus far, it pretty much means that they're all fucked.  I'll explain.  And by the way, it's WAAAAYY too way early to tell what they hell is going on with 2012 polling, but currently it looks like this, via Gallup May 26th 2011:

What this polling tells me is that while it's too early to consider anyone an outright front-runner, it does speak to some potentially crazy permutations.  Let's say that someone more conservative like Herman Cain or more likely Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann (if they ever enter the race as expected) actually wins an early GOP primary in say South Carolina, New Hampshire or Iowa (all very possibly states for them to win).  This should actually help Romney, the slowly ascending Pawlenty or even the already anointed dark horse Jon Huntsman.  The GOP's more moderate candidates would actually stand to benefit from an early uber-conservative win(s) because the historically moderate and monied GOP base will freak out and run into the arms of it's more moderate candidates.  

At the same time, said moderate candidates will overreact, kowtowing to those leaning toward the extreme fringes, thus subverting future attempts to recapture the middle when the primary season has concluded.  My point here is that even if a fringe candidate is nominated, they're screwed because independents will either shift to Obama or a non-factor like Paul.  For a moderate to win, they'll have to subvert their own self-interested moderate disposition to earn it, becoming temporarily radical enough to get the nomination, thus alienating themselves from moderate voters in the general election (again, see John McCain's folly).

In the end, especially amidst today's information seeking populace, even Fox News is exposing liars like Romney and will eventually become critical of even their former employees like Palin and Newt.  While a lot of bullshit can be slung in the interim, our elections focus most, as they should, on "what have you done or what experience do you have to prove your assertions?" Simultaneously, history has proven that incumbent candidates, especially those with both economic and militaristic successes, have a much greater chance at reclaiming the presidency.

Unless our economy takes a huge tumble between now and November 2012, something I don't see happening, the presidency will be nearly impossible for the GOP to capture. Unless they can prove to the American people that they possess actual means by which to improve the state of our country (something that may not even be in question 15 months from now), not more false assertions and broken promises, I see no reason to believe any of the bloviations we'll be subjected to for the next 18 months.  What a long, strange, lying trip it will be...