I was forming this thought a couple of night ago in bed, after I had turned off my computer. Anderson Cooper just reminded me of my thoughts. I’m a political science major and I spend my day engrossed in politics. Despite that, thre’s a lot about politics I don’t know, or I don’t get right – mostly little things like actual percentages and numbers in billions – although I have the general idea down.
So I’m just thinking that most people in a profession experience the same thing; they don’t have all the facts of their chosen topic down. Most have it close; usually we can remember most general ideas most of the time. But I’d bet you that Obama doesn’t know everything all the time. That’s why he has advisers, and they’re constantly studying things and trying desperately to get the facts right too.
I’ll be you scientists don’t always get all their facts right. Or mathematicians. Or businessmen. Or teachers. Or candidates:
“I’m sure most of us get confused about which amendment is which, I certainly do,” Cooper said. “But most of us aren’t running for Senate, and most of us don’t claim to be constitutional experts, as Christine O’Donnell has certainly come close to doing just that.”
I don’t have much to say here except GO TEA PARTY. Um, yeah. I’ll let quotes do most of the rest of the work. From Mother Jones:
[Shai] Pritz also owns UniqueLists, a data management company that sells the contact information harvested through the online ads.
The companies are part of the Internet advertising industry known as affiliate marketing, which, like MLM, has a reputation for relying on unscrupulous practices. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission sued several affiliate marketers for hosting web sites designed to appear like they belonged to official federal entities, which offered “government grants” after last year’s stimulus bill passage. Visitors who signed up to receive grant information for a few dollars allege that they later found their credit cards charged monthly for memberships and services they didn’t ask for. (A federal judge shut down several of the sites, and more charges were added in April. The case is ongoing.) The industry is plagued with allegations that affiliate marketers are infecting consumers’ computers with spyware and adware to surreptitiously boost click revenues.
So what does that have to do with the Tea Party? You’ll have to read more, but I’m not done… For one thing,
There’s no evidence that TPP is selling its contact lists. But the Tea Party Patriots’ own privacy policy indicates that it has the option. It says, “TPP may use Individual Information to advertise, directly or indirectly, to individuals using direct mail marketing or telemarketing using telephones and cell phones and such contact shall be deemed to be with the permission of individuals covered by this Privacy Policy.”
and the most important part,
The parallels between the Tea Party Patriots and a multilevel marketing company don’t surprise FitzPatrick, the pyramid scheme expert, who says that tea party rhetoric is similar to that of MLM companies. MLM operations and pyramid schemes, he says, “aren’t just about money. They are about how you are part of an elite group of people who are enlightened.” He says that in their recruiting, the top leaders of these types of companies often give a false narrative about eminent economic collapse, how Social Security won’t be there to save you in old age, and how the government keeps the average guy from getting ahead. And when the companies draw scrutiny from regulators, they often invoke the same kind of language as the tea party about “jack-booted thugs” and oppressive regulation. The tea party and multilevel marketers, he says, are a perfect fit in many ways: “MLMs claim to represent freedom-lovers. They are an economic match to the Tea Party’s political message.”
Nonetheless, the Tea Party Patriots is “moving to the next level,” as they say at Herbalife. In late September, its top organizers met with a secretive group of far-right movers and shakers to make a fundraising pitch for the group’s multi-million-dollar “40-year-plan” to change the country. The group, the Council for National Policy, is funded heavily by the DeVos family, the owners of Amway, one of the largest MLM companies in the country. According to the TPP fundraising memo, the money would fund more rallies, to recruit more activists, to fund more rallies, to recruit more activists, to fund more rallies.
I write a lot about politics. In my world-view, that’s frequently the topic to write about on this blog over social commentary. Most topics begin with or return to politics, and so it’s not a surprise. I’m not sorry, exactly, that politics is frequently the topic; it is my life, and, as I say, most things begin with or return to politics. I don’t mean to write about politics exclusively, but once again, here I go writing about politics.
I get to talk to a lot of you, my friends. Some of you see me as the political Buddha; I often advocate patience and calmness and reason. And once again, I’m talking about patience and political moderation, although my desire is that things improve much more quickly than what I advocate as reasonable and likely.
In September, 2010, 34.6% of adults were Democrats, and 33.1% were Republicans, according to Rasmussen data. That’s fairly fairly consistent with past yearly averages, and leaves room for 30% who say they belong to neither party (at this point, a solid amount of that 30% are Tea Party folk). My point is this: there’s always a third of America that belongs to neither party, and since Democrat is ‘left’ and Republican is ‘right’, a lot of America is ‘centrist.’ As B. Barber writes in basic summary – or maybe I’m just tired:
[There’s a] broad spectrum of attitudes we have about government, from total individualist enmity to any and all government to total collectivist affinity for the most corporatist forms of government. The spectrum reads, from pure liberty to pure statism as follows: anarchism, libertarianism, constitutional republicanism, liberal democracy, welfare state democracy, social democracy, socialism, communism (Marxism) and corporatism.
…America has been defined by this centrist debate about how to reconcile individual liberty and democratic egalitarianism, both being seen as valuable. Socialism has never been an American option and certainly is not one today. If anything, the center of the debate has moved slighted to the right.
And he writes of the cries of ‘socialist!’ and ‘Communist!’ and everything else being leveled against our government,
President Obama is a market-leaning liberal democrat. Nancy Pelosi is a vigorous advocate of the welfare state and of the social safety net, and she wants to regulate the runaway banks. But that’s not communism, folks, that’s liberal democracy, and reflects a less egalitarian agenda than the ones pushed by LBJ or FDR.
I’m given the feeling that I’m preaching to the choir here. Or you’ll read this and say ‘BDOLE, Obama’s a socialist, how can you not see it?’ We (all of us, I would hazard a guess) tend to have some capability to see more than one point of view at the same time, even if our certainty in our own view creates tunnel-vision certainty, which means that we are all progressive, conservative, and centrist at the same time. Centrist being in the middle of the other views, even if political views are circular and not linear, many of us can see a centrist view, which, Barber is trying to point out, is the usual outcome of politics.
As one final thought, I’d like to add that I’m not suggesting that the Tea Party is by nature centrist. It is, however, neither Democrat nor Republican.
Let’s return to the topic of campaign politics. You might have noticed some of it; it’s October 19th, and early voting for the November 2nd election in several states. Here’s a thought, from the esteemed Howard Fineman:
At this point in any election cycle, it is mandatory to wonder aloud whether even the American voter — as habituated to TV as he or she is — hasn’t reached the saturation point, making the ads somehow counterproductive. “It’s overkill, absolutely,” says Rep. Bob Brady, a savvy but proudly old-school politician who runs the Democrats’ still-formidable Democratic machine in Philadelphia. “A lot of the money being spent is wasted, totally wasted.”
But every cycle it is just as traditional for consultants to offer the same answer: they need to spend more than ever, especially as Election Day nears, to reach the small number of undecided voters — who must be living in caves with no cable — and to shore up turnout among the already committed. It’s like watering a flower pot with a fire hose, but consultants and the television industry love it, and the donors, secret and public (ands who don’t know a precinct list from a pinot noir) have been convinced that this kind of spending is a best practice.
I’m given the impression – I’ve talked to quite a few people – that people are sick of the political ads. I’ve heard a lot of people say they are tired of the ads; I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say they want more. Frankly, I think it pushes away, and turns off, voters. I make calls all day long to encourage people to vote, and I think that’s a somewhat more effective, and less intrusive, method to encourage political participation. I would also guess that phone calls to some ‘undecided’ (?) voters would push them away from one party, toward another. I understand and appreciate the idea that a representative needs to be seen on television – good – but I think there’s a point of too much, of inundation, where we are soaking flower pots with fire hoses.
Do you get anything more than anger out of the TV ads?
What’s wrong with America? The media is constantly informing us that there are major problems in American politics. Congressional approval is dismal. Presidential approval mirrors that of Reagan, which is cool, but I wouldn’t take it as a compliment. Everyone is yelling about problem this and problem that, and all the people yelling think that politicians should fix their problems – some think that politicians should fix problems, and others think that in order to fix problems there should be no politician – and all sorts of elected officials get pulled in every direction by more and more screaming people.
And everyone yells, “let’s be originalists!” and thinks we must go by the word of the Founding Fathers, but the white guys that did the founding disagreed with each other in everything they wrote. PROBLEM!
You don’t have to be a history major – but you probably did have to pay attention in high school history – to have learned that our government was to not function. Yes, that’s right, our government was designed so that it would be non-functioning, stagnant, and problematic. There’s this annoying thing called checks and balances, and it has nothing to do with your online bank account. The Founding Fathers wanted it to be a system of compromise and slow progress.
Maybe the problem is that we have no patience? Instance gratification required!
I gave one hint, somewhat obscure, in a blog post with an even more obscure name as to how I am employed. I work for The Committee to Elect Kevin Van De Wege, a Democrat running for for reelection to the state legislature in Washington’s 24th legislative district. I can hardly be fair in referring to myself in non-partisan, and indeed, like most people who have an opinion, I have a partisan one (and those people who claim they belong to no party, I would argue that that too is a partisan position). But I have as much right to make an argument, to have an opinion, as the next person who wishes to write, and while you may say I’m partisan, I hope to be fair.
Working for Kevin’s campaign, I’ve had the chance to knock on about 1500 doors (I challenge you to do the same for a candidate someday). And I get to hear all the complaints, all the problems, all the rage (RAGE), that people are expressing. Complaints and problems, challenges with ordinances and taxes, are ordinary problems. Rage is not an inherent part of our political system. People are refusing to vote for any Democrat because Obama is a Democrat, therefore all Democrats are Obama. And even people that voted for Obama won’t vote for anything Obama-ish because he’s been either too fast, too slow, too hot, or too cold. So there’s a little bit of RAGE because things aren’t just right. (Apparently, when reading stories to their children – do people do that anymore? – parents must now add the clarification that Goldie Locks doesn’t always win.)
I don’t know if you’ve noticed – you might have had your head in the sand for a couple years – but people are pissed, and the economy sucks. If you are one of those people who has had your head in the sand, I congratulate you, and encourage you to put your head back in the earth shortly. But before you do that, I’d like to quote a Frank Rich article in the NYT:
We don’t know what will happen on Election Day, but one fairly safe bet is this: Paladino will not be the next governor of New York. However tardily, he’s been disowned not only by the state’s extant, if endangered, cadre of mainstream Republicans but even by some of the hard right. No one apparently told him that while bigotry isn’t always a disqualifier for public office, appearing on YouTube vowing to “take out” a reporter from Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post can be. As a rule, it’s career suicide to threaten to murder your own political base.
But if New Yorkers may take comfort from the pratfall of this particular barbarian at their gate, the national forecast is not so sunny. Paladino is no anomaly in American politics in 2010. He’s just the most clownish illustration of where things have been heading for two years and are still heading. Like the farcical Christine O’Donnell in another blue Northeastern state, he’s a political loss-leader, if you will, whose near-certain defeat on Nov. 2 allows us to indulge in a bit of denial about the level of rage still coursing, sometimes violently, through our national bloodstream.
The Most Exciting Carl Paladino is, of course running for office in New York, and is a bit of an embarrassment to the human race who views himself, perhaps, as the non-anti-Christ, but I’ll leave my criticisms at the door…. Anyway, he is the embodiment of the American that is all RAGE and no solution. As I say, he’s the embodiment of this idea, and he’s not alone. Lots of people are very excited about all the RAGE, and want you to vote for them so they can continue to RAGE. I could be wrong – a degree in Political Science does not ensure that I understand politics – but I would guess that RAGE alone will not solve our Problems.
A mass-email from Obama:
I come into this election with clear eyes.
I am proud of all we have achieved together, but I am mindful of all that remains to be done.
I know some out there are frustrated by the pace of our progress. I want you to know I’m frustrated, too.
But with so much riding on the outcome of this election, I need everyone to get in this game.
Neither one of us is here because we thought it would be easy. Making change is hard. It’s what we’ve said from the beginning. And we’ve got the lumps to show for it.
The fight this fall is as critical as any this movement has taken on together. And if we are serious about change, we need to fight as hard as we ever have.
The very special interests who have stood in the way of change at every turn want to put their conservative allies in control of Congress. And they’re doing it with the help of billionaires and corporate special interests underwriting shadowy campaign ads.
If they succeed, they will not stop at making our work more difficult — they will do their best to undo what you and I fought so hard to achieve.
…
I know that sometimes it feels like we’ve come a long way from the hope and excitement of the inauguration, with its “Hope” posters and historic crowds on the National Mall.
I will never forget it. But it was never why we picked up this fight.
I didn’t run for president because I wanted to do what would make me popular. And you didn’t help elect me so I could read the polls and calculate how to keep myself in office.
You and I are in this because we believe in a simple idea — that each and every one of us, working together, has the power to move this country forward. We believed that this was the moment to solve the challenges that the country had ignored for far too long.
That change happens only from the bottom up. That change happens only because of you.
So I need you to fight for it over the next 26 days. I need your time. I need your commitment. And I need your help to get your friends and neighbors involved.
…
If we meet this test — if you, like me, believe that change is not a spectator sport — we will not just win this election. In the years that come, we can realize the change we are seeking — and reclaim the American dream for this generation.
Thank you for being a part of it,
President Barack Obama
I’ve cited him before, and I’ll cite him again I’m sure. Andrew Sullivan is a self-proclaimed conservative. He voted for Bush at least once and for conservative candidates for decades before that. And then he voted for Obama. And if you ask him, he’ll be voting anti-Tea Party, and anti-Party of No. So he’s quite an interesting political commentator, which is what he has become. For instance, his bets on the future (and keep in mind what I’ve just said about him being, for decades, a conservative):
The question for me is whether the FNC/RNC frenzy, combined with mere usual Democratic turnout, could tip the Senate too. And since that frenzy is based on rabid fantasies about what is actually happening in the world, the next question is whether that will then pierce the current far right bubble, or enable it to grow some more.
My bet, if I had to make one, is that the FNC/RNC will do extremely well, get even more wacky, overplay their hand, nominate Palin for president and then usher in a real and more solid Democratic majority with Obama empowered in ways he hasn’t been so far. Which is worse for conservatism – and the country – in the long run than constructive engagement with the president now.
But that’s a scenario far too far ahead to predict for sure. The economy is the wild card. If we really are entering an endless jobless recession, all bets are off. But the wilder the right gets, and as long as Obama doesn’t take the bait, his calm and reason will win the day in the end, especially if the economy recovers and the wars end.
It’s a guessing game to say how the economy will look in the future (why do you think the stock market is such a win-lose gambling game?), but I’d hazard a guess that Andrew hit the nail on the head about various possible political futures based on factors such as the next election and the economy.
I have one other thought; it is still my view that Obama is waiting until after the midterm elections of his second term to do everything radical or progressive. He will have nothing left to lose. No more elections, no more elections of majorities or minorities in the House and Senate. But it’s a risky game. He can’t do it if he doesn’t have large majorities.
I had the pleasure of attending the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner, hosted by Clallam County Democrats, last night. Why Democrats would want to have a dinner named after the Roosevelts I will live to your guesses. It was, I should describe, a wonderful affair with about 175 attendees, including Senator Maria Cantwell, State Senator Jim Hargrove, State Representative Kevin Van De Wege, retiring State Representative Lynn Kessler (the dinner was in her honor), and County Commissioner – and candidate for state representative – Steve Tharinger. But I’m not writing to describe to you that people attended an event. Say, it would be strange if I should write about an event that nobody attended! No, I write because the dinner had a purpose, and a story to be shared.
As so often happens, when I attend a gathering where there are many people, I become lost in thought, and those thoughts are deep and metaphysical. I heard some words while I was thinking hard, and they were spoken by the aforementioned Lynn Kessler and others. “We should have disagreement without being disagreeable;” those words, spoken by a politician whose job is to resolve disagreement, should be words we do not forget. It was mentioned last night, it has been mentioned in the past, and it will be mentioned again, that political discourse has strayed from the pleasant disagreements to the raucous disagreement for the sake of argument. Let us remind ourselves that it was not always that way and that that view is not held by both parties. Nor indeed am I arguing that only Democrats seek progress. There is a mixture within both parties of wanting pleasant, resolvable, debate, and some within both parties that would like to play partisan politics. Whatever problems we have, though, whatever disagreements must be resolved, must be resolved by both parties, not by one. I see no clear way to do that except disagreement without being disagreeable.
Now, as I said, deep thoughts sometimes enter my head, especially when I am in a large crowd, thinking. Well, I was listening to these politicians speak of politics, and have mentioned that discourse is growing louder and more raucous (sort of – I shall return to this thought). It appears to me that our national thought process of our international relations closely mirror our domestic discourse. There’s a lot of noise. And when we start yelling about losing our country in an internal manner (there are people yelling that), there are simultaneously, and often the same people, yelling about losing our country to foreigners – both in terms of immigration and broad international policy. Fear the Koreans! Fear the Iranians! Fear the pirates! And while you’re at it, give me back my country! Just a thought.
Well, some people are growing louder and more raucous. Then again, that’s what the media likes to cover. The media doesn’t have any interest in telling you that granny sat at home today and watched some news. Unless it’s their news channel. So there is, frankly, and last night is not the first time I have noticed, a silent majority. People don’t yell and scream and attend marches for fewer firefighters – after all, that’s what happens when there are fewer taxes – but rather people who go about their day and even if they’re unemployed and their life sucks you won’t hear about them. They’re not yelling and screaming. They’re a silent majority doing their thing. I know a lot of these people. So do you. (And sometimes I get frustrated that they’re not yelling and screaming and making lots of noise about the improvements they want just as much as the people who yell).
Hey, did you notice we have a newish president? He’s been in office most of two years now. He’s supposed to have fixed the last thirty years of policies in a jiffy. We want action and we want action now! The problem is, there’s this thing called time, and we’re going to have to have an input of time to either fix of screw up (depends on your political views) the situation we’re in now. So give him some time, Democrats.
A note: the title of this post is also from the dinner; Maria Cantwell talked about the Democrats being a big tent party, welcoming all views and all peoples.
My thanks to Margaret and Helen, two wonderful ladies that I was previously unfamiliar with, and have not had the pleasure of communicating with. I’m not thanking them for the blog hits — though those are very nice — but for the unparalleled ability to make light of the American political situation; I’m thanking them for existing and for their friendship to one another and belief in the rest of us to laugh it off or to be with stupid. So, wonderful ladies who have been friends for more than half a century, please continue your friendship, to yourselves and to all of us.
The Dole Blog 