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The latest news in Syria, reported just this morning, is that the government has withdrawn their tanks out of the cities and released "3,500 detainees" as a result of "regional initiative" following reports from Arab League observers on the ground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!

Video of the Day - Asmaa Mahfouz

Is there something wrong with me noticing a part of the work and organizing that Asmaa has done seems to include invoking the "real man" clause? I mean really we get past this "if you were a real man...." stuff?

It really ramps up at about 8:06 where she says, "If you are a real man you have to come with me to protect me and to protect our country."

Don't get me wrong I would definitely say that she is fighting for a great cause and her heart is undoubtedly in the right place. I'm just wondering if she is just trying to invoke chivalry for her own ends (and I also wonder if maybe other people aren't noticing this because they think her ends justify the use of such means).

Sound off!

A Former GOP operative's definitive guide to the Republican party's plan to ruin everything

"A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner."

"A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980)."

And also:

"Undermining Americans' belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy. But if this technique falls short of producing Karl Rove's dream of 30 years of unchallengeable one-party rule (as all such techniques always fall short of achieving the angry and embittered true believer's New Jerusalem), there are other even less savory techniques upon which to fall back. Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students."

A very good piece.  I highly recommend reading the rest of it.

Political Position Quiz

Here is where I (unsurprisingly) fall on the political spectrum, as defined by this site (the image is huge, but there doesn't appear to be a way to make it smaller, sorry):

The description given:

You want government out of people's personal lives, but you appear to desire some continued government control over people's economic activities. There is no political party that represents your views. The Green Party does run many candidates with similar views, but the overall Green Party platform is much more socialistic than you are. You would need a mix of Democratic, Green, and Libertarian politicians in office to get the balance of freedom and social justice you desire. The ratio between these depends on how high up your dot is on the chart.

I think it's funny that they note that there is no political party that represents my views.  This is also rather unsurprising.  

Where do you fall on the spectrum?

Video of the Time I Remember to Post a Video

This is probably all you'll hear from me about the debt ceiling bullshit, because it's another one of those things that's just too huge for me to maintain the attention span to write about coherently... and I fully admit to being a little confused.  It all seems so arbitrary to me.  I recommend reading Warren's blog for some thorough and fantastic political analysis on this issue and others, if you aren't already.  He promises more debt ceiling posts soon.  And speaking of Warren, this video is via him.

Discussion Thread: Politicans

NIGEL: Surely, the first fact that we must face is that all three parties are stuffed with aged tub-thumpers and super-annuated windbags. To most intelligent people, politics are synonymous with claptrap. To be a candidate is to submit to a personally humiliating experience, in which the set smile freezes on your face like a grin on a corpse. Dead ideas. Dead thoughts. Dead slogans. All of them sicked up on your doorstep. No wonder people are disgusted by this gruesome charade, this withered apology for the passion and compassion which ought to be slicing through all the apathy, bewilderment and cynicism which even the antediluvian [conservative candidate] here tonight realizes is there.

Vote, Vote, Vote for Nigel Barton 1965 - Dennis Potter, screenwriter and disillusioned Labour party candidate (defeated) rants via his author avatar.

I am David K(ames) or Abstract (these nom de internet suck, I know, but my real name is even more google searchable and boring)

It was my foolhardy suggestion to consider what we look for in our politicians as people - that is concentrate on character, rather than issues (as we are not supposed to do) and how this feeds into what the role of a democratic representative ought to be.

I am currently involved in selecting a candidate for my House of Commons constituency, so I guess I'm thinking about the sort of person who would be a national Senator / Representative in the US system, rather than a President (I'm keen to hear if you guys look for different qualities for the different posts.)

To begin with the basics:
you really want someone:
>who can be trusted not to fill out their expenses form creatively - even when no-one is looking...
>who wont sell their influence or privileges as though they were a taxi cab
>who, even if their phone was hacked, would be found getting up to nothing more embarrassing than most of their constituents (this means that if, for example, they were taking nude pics of bits of their bodies, they only sent it to individuals who had previously consented to receive them.) I don't mean by that to exclude the kinky and the queer from elected office, but hope that people keep things safe, sane and consensual, legal and non-monetary. The problem with these requirements is this - you cant be sure of someone's nature until they've been tested. I'm not sure what you can do to solve it beyond being very angry and unforgiving towards those who do abuse the public trust.

The diversity and equal opportunities question is generally a bit more problematic. Parliaments and Congresses are the great forums of the nation, but have a tendency not to look very much like the nations they represent. This is a special problem under first-past-the-post in single member constituencies; the majority-ethnic men tend to be the ones who put themselves forward, finish first in selection process and win elections, and because there's only one spot to give away, he gets it. Politics tends to lag behind social trends in general, due to the electoral cycle and the need to get 51% of people on side before something stops being an electoral disadvantage - but the continuing limited representation of women is troubling.

I am a member of a/the Labour Party, so I'd also like to put a word in for the representation of the non-professional, the state-school educated, and non university-graduate of whatever race, colour, creed and sexuality. It would be nice if a decent proportion of those who aspire to administer/slash the bureaucratic (my spell check suggested "aristocratic" - do computers make Freudian slips?) systems of the welfare state knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of them or work in organisations where it's painfully obvious that value is being extracted from your labour.

In fact it would be nice if politicians had something *outside* of politics they cared about, instead of being monomaniacs for "public service" and with some experience of working seriously outside the political/activist/lobbying/media bubble. This is why I don't like voting for anyone under 30 - No-one I know who is my age is a really rounded human being, and we're all in the midst of our early life struggles - from which we hopefully emerge happier, sadder, wiser, better people with more insight and imaginative sympathy - but I can't see any of us coping with the electoral process at the same time.

I suppose the thing you really want in a representative is someone who can square the circle willingness to go through the indignities of popular election with willingness to (every once in a while) face down the mob inside and/or outside the chamber and vote for something right, or even something unpleasant but necessary.

I guess what I'm saying (at length) is this: I want President Lyndon Johnson - and I want the Lyndon Johnson of the TV Ad to be REAL thankyou ;-)

OK - over to you - I swear I write much better when I'm commenting, it's probably a dyslexia thing...

Netroots Nation 2011

Cross-posted at Feministe.

When I heard Netroots Nation was going to be in my hometown of Minneapolis this year, I jumped on the chance to register. I totally lucked out, too: I was a student, which took $100 off the registration fee, and had just gotten my tax returns– without which, I probably wouldn’t have been able to justify the cost. As you can imagine, I have been waiting eagerly and impatiently for this weekend for months!

You can see a schedule of the sessions and their descriptions here [PDF]. It was difficult to choose, as so many of them looked interesting and were sure to be helpful, but I was extremely happy with each of the session I attended. Highlights of some of the panels I attended:

Antidote to Apathy

It's only 7 minutes long!  Watch it, you won't be sorry!

What do you think?

OMFG

I don't know what else to say. I apologize on behalf of Minnesota.

Amanda Marcotte also makes fun of him, as do Digby and Eric Kleefeld.

Speaking of the worst Minnesotans, I hear Michele Bachmann said some characteristically stupid things tonight, too. I don't even want to know.

update: What the hell. Here it is. All I want to know is: WTF? I mean, everything she said was exactly what you'd expect from Michele Bachmann, but, camera angle? Audio sync fail? Vanna White PowerPoint hour? Is she addressing us from the moon...?



Eric Pusey's response to Bachmann.

The unreality of politically-motivated crimes in the Millennial Generation

I was born in 1983, making me too young to remember (or have been alive for) any American political assassination or assassination attempts. Hell, I wasn't even around when John Lennon was killed, and only barely remember Selena's murder, and I couldn't be bothered to care about Nirvana until a couple years after Kurt Cobain's suicide, because when grunge really started to become influential, I was still young enough that I was still listening primarily to whatever my mom played in the car, and hadn't yet started to develop my own musical tastes.

So today, when I saw that a US Congressperson had been deliberately shot on my Twitter feed on my phone this morning, while half asleep, I thought, "oh my god, things are really getting out of control. This shit is scary. The Tea Partiers are inciting violence all over the country. I live a couple of blocks away from the very people who are responsible for Michele Bachmann's continued employment, what if I look too 'progressive' in the checkout at Cub? It's finally come down to it; people like me are going to be targeted as 'the enemy'!"

Then I realized that that's just a little melodramatic, and that in real life, even if people voted for Michele Bachmann, they're more likely to be simply misguided rather than malicious, if one were to attach a judgment to their political ideologies, which I'm wont to do. They'll probably still help you push your car out of a snow bank or let you go ahead of them in line when you only have a head of lettuce and they have a months' worth of groceries in their cart. People aren't that bad, usually. But sometimes, they really are.

I posted a link to (one of) the NPR story(ies) about the shooting on my Facebook page, noting, "This is becoming a scary place." But it's not, really. Becoming one, that is. If it's scary, it's been that way, and we've just had a three-decade or so long break from it. And of course, the years since the assassination attempt on Reagan haven't been free from controversy related to (alleged) political assassinations, but for the most part, they've been free from events that shake our collective trust in our fellow citizens. Until today, I did not consider a politician to be terribly in danger when they walk around in public or hold speaking events or town hall meetings; I expect this of presidents and presidential candidates, and people in higher offices, but I didn't think that a member of the House of Representatives would have to worry for their lives about simply being in public. It's a terrible thing for the future of the accessibility of government, too, as others have noted.

And a lot of people are quick to blame violent Tea Party rhetoric for the motivation behind the shootings, and a lot of other people are quick to condemn those who are doing it because they're supposedly politicizing a terrible, tragic event. In my opinion, which I think is pretty well in line with most people's opinion at this point, the shooting was clearly politically motivated, regardless of the mental state of the suspect, and that makes it open to political analysis and debate. And the claims that Tea Party rhetoric is going too far is completely warranted, in my opinion. Even though Keith Olbermann is being the king of double-standards here*, he explains his views on the shooting, and his insistence that Palin & Co. take responsibility for the possibility that their violent rhetoric was a motivator in the shooting.

My generation, having not yet dealt with the collective blow that happens as a result of the assassination (or attempted assassination) of a political figure, can use this opportunity as a reminder that people can get fucking out of control, which is all the more reason to keep fighting (PEACEFULLY! NON-VIOLENTLY!) for civility and tolerance, as well as accountability, transparency, and access to information.

Tragedies like this don't need to happen, and really, we all know that. None of us needs to be reminded of that. But we can help make sure that they don't keep happening, by leading by example and not contributing to discussions that alienate and ostracize groups of people, people of certain religions, genders, biological sexes, skin colors, sexual orientations, or any other superficial difference. We can encourage our friends and family to stop perpetuating these damaging behaviors, too, and we can actively work toward a more peaceful future. Hopefully, those of us with differences can come together on the point that none of us wants bloodshed to be the way we resolve our differences; there must be a better way.

*more on that later.

Nothing is free in this market.

by Chris

The term “free-market economy” is a misnomer. The name is intended to refer to the fact that if someone wishes to do something to make money, that they have the freedom to pursue that opportunity without impediments. However, what is ignored is the fact that there are inherent costs in everything as well as restrictions put in place for the well being of society. There are reasons that paint is no longer sold with lead, companies are no longer able to dump whatever leftover toxic materials from production into the water supply and why cars are required to meet safety guidelines. This term is bandied about way too often by Republicans and Libertarians when describing their ideal economy without understanding the basics ideas behind the theory. And yes it is a theory because it's virtually impossible to prove a macroeconomic concept.

I think these are two biggest and most annoying misconceptions about a free-market economy.

First, if Republicans wanted to express their ideology more correctly, they would say “a freer market economy.” The alteration of the one word makes a huge difference. Understanding that we live in a market economy means accepting that restrictions and regulations on business will need to be put in place. There is nothing wrong with wanting less restrictions when they make sense, but reacting as if America would be put on the path to Socialism (read: Communism) each time any sort of new regulation suggested shows true ignorance. It is the prices of goods and services which are determined by the basics of supply and demand. If more people want something of limited supply, they will invariably pay more to get that something. Conversely if there is too much of something, people will be able to look to many places and bargain one seller against another to get the best price. That is the basis of a market economy. It all sounds so simple, and on the person-to-person level it really is, but in a true macroeconomic sense, it really isn't.

Second, it is often made to sound as if one is against a free-market economy, then you are against freedom, and therefore must hate America. I wish that was an exaggeration, but to cite Dennis Prager:

“The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.”

It is a nice little trick Prager pulls to create two different America's, all while stating that one America is better than the other. Sure, that is one voice, but one that has a syndicated radio program. He also had an issue with Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison about using a Koran during his swearing in ceremony. The irony of course is in the US Constitution there no stated religious text that is required to be used when swearing in a representative of the government. The lesson here is: Freedom in the economy? Great. Freedom of religion? Not so much. Also, only the second choice is actually guaranteed by the US Constitution.

There are many, many, many more points that could be made about the fallacy of a “free-market economy,” but recently a situation arose that is relatable. Congress was nearing the end of it's session and Republicans were threatening to stall every other bill until the “Bush” tax cuts, which were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were extended. Democrats were pushing to let only the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, while the rest were extended. Cries from the right erupted that doing so was an affront to the free market, which again doesn't actually exist, and that it was class warfare against those who worked hard to earn those large incomes. These same people ignored the fact there is decrease in the inheritance tax, which is really only applicable to those with a large amount of wealth to pass on to their heirs who did nothing to earn that wealth except be born into the right family. You would also hear people say that if these tax cuts were allowed to expire, that capital that would be used to create jobs would disappear and cause the unemployment rate to go higher. There are so many things wrong with that statement, it will need to be left for another day to fully examine.

Wondering about my opinion? I think that the congress was right to extend all of the tax cuts temporarily. So, even though I would consider myself a liberal, I am in favor of something that Republicans were willing to essentially shut down congress unless it was passed? Yes. Even though I absolutely believe that tax rates are too low, especially for the highest income brackets and that any sort of trickle-down economic theory is a complete joke, there is something to be said about not reducing the amount of money in all of the people's pockets, and how much they were expecting to be putting in their pockets when it is unknown if the global economy is actually recovering.

There was also a key word in that previous statement. Temporarily. There were Republicans who wished to make these tax cuts permanent, but when they knew they didn't have the votes, they didn't put up much of a fight. That, in itself shows that for many this is mainly a political trumpet to toot and be heard. So, this issue will be revisited in two years. We know what the make-up of this next congress will be, but we don't yet know how it will behave in two years. We don't know how much power, if any, President Obama will be able to exert during an election year, or even if he will still be president the following year, in 2013. If the economy begins to show real progress and unemployment drops, I think a more reasonable debate will be able to be conducted.

Republicans threatened and some might say that Democrats folded, but there are couple of points with which I would like to conclude. After this bill passed, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, the nuclear treaty with Russia was approved, and the bill for 9/11 responders were approved as well. Would these have happened without this compromise? Also, by demanding that the tax cuts for the richest Americans continue, Republicans have ignored all of their rhetoric that was spewed about the national debt and fiscal responsibility and that it needed to be addressed immediately, for the sake of the children. This bill will increase the debt by almost a trillion dollars, and apparently those on the right were A-OK with that. They pleased their constituents (read: large campaign contributors), but many will now have to hope that their vote isn't mentioned the next time they criticize a spending bill only because it is not fully paid for by cutting spending on something else. Republicans will also have to admit to themselves that they helped President Obama end the year with three large political victories.

Can science answer moral questions?

It's about 23 minutes long, but well worth it:

[ted id=801]

I think he's on to something, but that it ends up going in circles, and there's no real answer to the questions he's asking, and he doesn't attempt to answer them.

What do you think?

What I'm Reading

I've been really busy with school, planning this "surprise, we got married and didn't tell you for a year" party, and trying to manage all the "wait, so you got married? When?" and the "Huh?" and the "...Wait, what's your last name?" and the "WHAT THE FUCK?!" and the "wait, what?" questions, that I haven't been paying much attention to the blogosphere lately. I have, however, thought of a million things to blog about later, when I have more time, and I've also read a couple of great articles that I would like to forward onward in the meantime.

Jos at Feministing writes about a new Kotex ad that makes fun of tampon commercials, but still can't manage to say "vagina" once.

Shout out to the now-public husband, who's started a blog where you ask for his advice about anything, and he gives it to you. Like Dear Abby, but modern and better. And it's fun and anonymous.

An author on Feministing Community highlights how she is at odds with the frequency in which feminism is presented as a "members only" club to interested, but new women and men. I especially love this article because, as anyone who's read other blog posts I've written previously would know, I'm especially interested in making sure that we don't place obstacles in front of people who want to learn about feminism.

Corporation running for Congress

Oh my god. I can hardly contain my laughter. This is the best, most well-played response I can think of to the recent Supreme Court ruling.


This just in (why is the internet so full of hilarity today?!); check out A Trailer for Every Academy Award-Winning Movie Ever.

3 Options

http://www.truthout.org/12110911

Reading the very interesting linked article reminded me of a line of thinking I was pursuing with some fellow arm chair philosophers. It adds a degree of poignance that was lacking in my case to the others.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Bush administration is everything my most lefty friends might have characterized them as... imperialist, fascist torturing [insert your favorite disparging noun here] who demolished any semblence of civil rights we enjoyed in the States. I don't want to get tangled up in the validity of that, we're just accepting that as a hypothetical.

That would lead me to belive one of the three must be true about the Obama administration:

1. They are complicit in the numerous acts of villainy. Now in full possession of all knowledge of the former administrations dark deeds, they do nothing. Perhaps even continuing the deplorable acts.

2. They are powerless against the [insert favorite secret society or other shadow government here]. The reason the current administration cannot pursue the crimes of the former administration is that whoever really possesses power is preventing them from doing so.

3.  It is not politically expedient to pursue those issues. There is an economy to fix and that is the first and foremost issue. It wouldn't be possible to succeed so why diminish the chance of a second term? There are plenty of reasons why it may not be politically expedient. But if we're hypothetically talking about fascist, imperialist war criminals doesn't morality demand that action be taken regardless of what's convenient?

Granted this is a substantial over simplification, but that iss exactly what this is... a hypothetical model simplified to get to the core of the idea: How do we characterized the current administration's action relative to its rhetoric?

I'm always the "Socratic Agnostic", so don't look for me for any answers. What do you think?

N

Ha.