I thought it would be nice to introduce a different perspective to commentary on American Politics and US-China relations. A classmate of mine from Zhejiang, China, Weiai Xu, has agreed to guest author on this very blog. I thank Weiai for contributing. I thought it would be helpful to start with a few questions.
US Politics
Weiai, you've had the chance to view the American political system in action for some time now. What do you think are its greatest strengths and weaknesses? Is this type of democratic system something that you would like to see China adopt or is there another model you find more appropriate?
As you may know, the Anti-government Tea Party movement has been active in American politics for the last two years or so. How do you understand this movement? How do you see this movement differing from movements in China that might challenge the government?
Do you think the American view of freedom is great? Excessive? What do you think are the benefits and drawbacks of our system? How do most Chinese view freedom compared to Americans?
US-China Relations
If there was one thing you wished more Americans knew about China, what would it be? If there was one thing you wished more Chinese knew about Americans, what would it be?
Many Americans view China as a threat, economically and militarily. Why do you think this is? Is it reasonable?
How would you like to see relations between the US and China evolve in the future?
China
If China had a democratic system, what do you think it would look like? How would it contrast to the US system?
The Chinese government takes great efforts to control media in China, how would you compare the average level of knowledge about politics? Are Americans any more/less informed?
Nationalism is increasingly important in China and the US, are the two nationalisms similar or very different?
Thank you, Weiai, you can answer all of the questions or whatever ones you feel like.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Ron Johnson for Senator of Dumbeddownistan (Final Installment)
Issue #10 Energy
Ron will work to safely increase domestic production of oil, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear and alternative energy. Roughly 60 percent of America’s oil is imported from other countries, which creates both security and economic threats to the nation.
Ron opposes the job-killing ‘Cap and Trade’ bill which is a crippling national energy tax. Cap and Trade legislation could cost an average Wisconsin family as much as $1,600 per year and would put Wisconsin businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage, damaging our economy for many years.
As a manufacturer, Ron knows first-hand how rising energy prices, over-regulation and high taxes can negatively impact the ability of a business to remain competitive in the global economy. States like Wisconsin, which rely heavily on coal-generated power, are at an even greater risk with the threat of costly energy taxes and increased government mandates.
Ok Ron, starting to get frustrated at your lack of specifics. Energy policy isn't my forte, but opposing Cap and Trade does not equal a positive energy policy. How exactly are energy industries over regulated? Was BP over-regulated? The Sago Mine?
Issue # 11 Agriculture
As our next Senator, Ron will expand Ag markets by allowing free trade, which fuels Wisconsin’s multi-billion dollar agriculture export market.
He’ll also support legislation to permanently eliminate the estate tax, which threatens the future of family farms.
Ron will oppose animal rights extremists who want to harm the agriculture industry. Our farmers treat their animals well –it’s their business and a Wisconsin tradition.
He’s supportive of Discovery Farms because on-site research and innovation is most effective to enabling farmer profitability.
Ron will work to maintain strong infrastructure important to our agriculture industry. Ensuring sound locks & dams on the Mississippi Riverway will aid tourism, agriculture, and interstate transportation critical to Wisconsin’s rural economies
By free trade does Ron Johnson mean removing subsidies from agriculture that distort the market? Opening markets for developing countries to compete with US farm goods?
The estate tax does not need to be permanently repealed and family farms can be protected if the estate tax doesn't kick in until $3 million or so. The Estate Tax prevents extraordinary wealth from being transferred from generation to generation. It encourages rich kids to get to work and not ride of the benefits of their parents. I thought Ron Johnson was for working hard to better yourself, not mooching off family wealth. I guess if you are rich not working hard is ok, but if you are poor it is not.
The whole animal rights extremist thing is overdone. As much as Johnson wants to stroke farmers, some of them do have inhumane practices (hint: they are not the family farms).
There you have Ron Johnson, won't talk to the media, won't be specific, who know what he's going to do. We can only speculate, and the tea leaves look ugly.
Ron Johnson for Senator of Dumbeddownistan (Part III)
Issue #7 Social Security and Medicare
Preserving Medicare and Social Security and keeping the programs sustainable long-term are important steps in keeping America’s promise to our seniors.
First and foremost, Medicare and Social Security must preserve benefits for current retirees and those approaching retirement.
Upcoming generations of Americans deserve a safety net, too. That’s why Ron is committed to keeping these programs solvent and making reforms necessary to do so after first securing benefits for current retirees and those approaching retirement.
Ron is committed to going to Washington to fix the problems with our broken system and ensuring our seniors are cared for. This is no time to play politics with promises to our seniors, that’s why Ron is serious about making reforms.
ObamaCare’s Broken Promise to Seniors
ObamaCare represents a broken promise to seniors as it makes cuts to Medicare that will impact 100,000 Wisconsin seniors utilizing the Medicare Advantage program. ObamaCare makes $523 billion in Medicare cuts while increasing taxes by $569 billion. Russ Feingold provided the 60th vote for this legislation.
By repealing ObamaCare, which Ron supports, the Medicare cuts would be eliminated and Congress could start fresh on real reforms to bring down the cost of health care and make Medicare solvent in order to fix problems like the “donut hole.”
Social Security Solvency
Preserving Medicare and Social Security and keeping the programs sustainable long-term are important steps in keeping America’s promise to our seniors. First and foremost, Medicare and Social Security must preserve benefits for current retirees and those approaching retirement. Upcoming generations of Americans deserve a safety net, too. That’s why Ron is committed to keeping these programs solvent and making reforms necessary to do so after first securing benefits for current retirees and those approaching retirement. Ron is committed to going to Washington to fix the problems with our broken system and ensuring our seniors are cared for. This is no time to play politics with promises to our seniors, that’s why Ron is serious about making reforms.
Deficit Reduction and Social Security
Our nation has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. Instead of raising taxes during a weakened economy to reduce the deficit, Ron believes we should be taking common sense measures such as placing an overall cap on government spending, applying unspent stimulus and TARP money to deficit reduction, and repealing the massive health care bill which would add a trillion dollars to our deficit. If our country begins to rein in and prioritize spending, not only can we reduce the deficit and keep the promises to seniors, but we can secure the funds designated for the Social Security Trust Fund instead of spending the money for other commitments.
Ron Johnson's talking points on seniors and medicare/social security is by far the most substantive part. He clearly knows who his constituency is and what they are afraid of, that he is going to gut Medicare and Social Security. Again Johnson says some vague things about reforms, but mark my words, he will try to privatize Social Security and reduce Medicare benefits for young people. Of course, he won't do this for those currently on Medicare/Social Security because then he'd lose the senior vote and the youth vote does not matter as much. I guarantee you that when elected Ron Johnson and the Republicans will propose generational theft, making young people pay for seniors' benefits while reducing our future benefits. He will not be able to cut the deficit without hitting entitlement programs, and that means sticking it to our generation.
Issue #8, Defense
As our next Senator, Ron will take to Washington a deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States and for those who support and defend it.
Ron is deeply grateful for the more than 1 million men and women who have died and the millions who have been wounded while supporting and defending the Constitution since ratification.
Ron will ensure that America’s finest sons and daughters are not sent into harm’s way to defend America’s interests until diplomatic, economic and other instruments of national power are first exhausted.
Ron will fight to ensure that if servicemen and women are needed to protect America’s interests, they will be deployed with rules of engagement that allow them to accomplish their mission and allow them their most basic rule of self defense.
Ron will never endanger our men and women in uniform by voting to place artificial withdrawal timelines on our deployed forces.
Ron will fight to protect the rights and benefits of our nation’s Veterans.
Not much here other than nice words about our troops. Can't really argue with that, but there isn't any content either. My only questions, if Ron doesn't support an "artificial timetable," what would a "natural timetable" look like? Are we going to be in Iraq/Afghanistan forever? How does that jibe with Johnson's desire to decrease government spending?
Issue #9 Illegal Immigration
The first step towards controlling illegal immigration is securing our borders. Ron believes the federal government has failed to enforce current immigration laws and tighten our borders to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
Ron opposes blanket amnesty.
Ron also supports REAL ID, requiring employers to verify the Social Security numbers of potential employees. Ron supports providing law enforcement the necessary tools, such as the Patriot Act, to protect our country.
Businesses or employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be penalized and we should take steps to prevent abuse or exploitation of workers due to their immigration status.
Okay, fine. Secure the borders. This won't stop illegal immigration but sure we can try, it certainly won't reduce the deficit though. Real ID, ok maybe that would do something. But, what about the 10+ million illegal immigrants already in this country. They are not going anywhere. What is the plan? The no-plan plan.
Ron Johnson for Senator of Dumbeddownistan (Part II)
Issue #4: The Economy
As our next US Senator, Ron will work to create a jobs friendly environment by reducing and simplifying taxes and regulations on business. He opposed the Wall Street bailout and the $862 billion stimulus bill. Ron does not believe the federal government is capable of picking ‘winners and losers’ and should not remove capital from the private sector to create more government programs and jobs, which are unsustainable.
Government doesn’t create jobs – the private sector creates jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and represent roughly 98 percent of employers. They are being punished with higher taxes and regulation that stifle new growth, development, and productive investments in our communities.
Russ Feingold has little or no experience creating private sector jobs. His vote for the $862 billion failed stimulus bill is a prime example of a career politician, crafting policy that is ultimately detrimental to America’s economic future. Three days before the passage of the stimulus bill, Feingold issued a press release stating 2.4 million jobs would be created in the first year and 9 million jobs would be created over 3 years. Instead of creating new jobs, our nation has lost over 2.5 million jobs and unemployment remains near double digits.
Specifics Ron, Specifics! So you want to simplify taxes and regulation. Okay, how? I know one way we could simplify taxes, a flat tax or a national sales tax! I bet you any money that is what Johnson will propose if he is elected. Both of these forms of taxation are very regressive (they burden the poor far greater). But, your guess as to what Ron Johnson would do if elected is as good as mine. As far as regulations, does Ron mean he will simplify or eliminate regulations? A lot of regulation is meant to mitigate externalities like pollution or systemic risk to the economy, by removing regulation Mr. Johnson is imposing the costs of these externalities on the public as a whole, while the private sector reaps profits. There may be unnecessary regulations, but you have to identify them for anyone to evaluate whether or not they are good.
Johnson opposed the bailouts and the stimulus bill, so he is for economic armageddon and global economic catastrophe (Feingold was wrong on the bailouts as well). The bank bailouts cost us relatively little compared to the damage that massive bank failures would have done to our economy. When the banks are healthy, it will be time to restore protections like the Glass-Stegall Act, but you can't just pull the rug out from underneath the economy when it is already stumbling. The stimulus bill counteracted massive state budget contractions and created lots of jobs (particularly in construction) that made needed infrastructure repairs. The benefits of the stimulus will be long lasting, and much of it was a tax cut, so Johnson would have opposed a program that cut taxes. Ron says small businesses have faced higher taxes but cites no evidence of this. Ron says small businesses have faced too much regulation, but regulation had been unwound dramatically during the Bush year, with much of the new regulation during the Obama Era a necessary response to prevent further systemic risk to the economy.
Ron does not want the government to pick "winners and losers," but something like the auto industry cannot simply recreate itself overnight if it is allowed to fail. Allowing Detroit to fail would have been devastating to the Midwest (Wisconsin included). The bailout saved jobs and the "Big Three" are making a come back with much higher quality cars. GM and Chrysler didn't really get "bailed out" as much as they underwent a government facilitated restructuring plan that shook up the entire corporate apparatus of both GM and Chrysler. No bailing out GM and Chrysler would probably have taken Ford down with it, and all of the small town dealers that sell their products (one of the few economic contributors to small towns). So, how is Ron Johnson for small business again?
Issue #5: Wisconsin Values
As our next US Senator, Ron will work to create a jobs friendly environment by reducing and simplifying taxes and regulations on business. He opposed the Wall Street bailout and the $862 billion stimulus bill. Ron does not believe the federal government is capable of picking ‘winners and losers’ and should not remove capital from the private sector to create more government programs and jobs, which are unsustainable.
Government doesn’t create jobs – the private sector creates jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and represent roughly 98 percent of employers. They are being punished with higher taxes and regulation that stifle new growth, development, and productive investments in our communities.
Russ Feingold has little or no experience creating private sector jobs. His vote for the $862 billion failed stimulus bill is a prime example of a career politician, crafting policy that is ultimately detrimental to America’s economic future. Three days before the passage of the stimulus bill, Feingold issued a press release stating 2.4 million jobs would be created in the first year and 9 million jobs would be created over 3 years. Instead of creating new jobs, our nation has lost over 2.5 million jobs and unemployment remains near double digits.
Specifics Ron, Specifics! So you want to simplify taxes and regulation. Okay, how? I know one way we could simplify taxes, a flat tax or a national sales tax! I bet you any money that is what Johnson will propose if he is elected. Both of these forms of taxation are very regressive (they burden the poor far greater). But, your guess as to what Ron Johnson would do if elected is as good as mine. As far as regulations, does Ron mean he will simplify or eliminate regulations? A lot of regulation is meant to mitigate externalities like pollution or systemic risk to the economy, by removing regulation Mr. Johnson is imposing the costs of these externalities on the public as a whole, while the private sector reaps profits. There may be unnecessary regulations, but you have to identify them for anyone to evaluate whether or not they are good.
Johnson opposed the bailouts and the stimulus bill, so he is for economic armageddon and global economic catastrophe (Feingold was wrong on the bailouts as well). The bank bailouts cost us relatively little compared to the damage that massive bank failures would have done to our economy. When the banks are healthy, it will be time to restore protections like the Glass-Stegall Act, but you can't just pull the rug out from underneath the economy when it is already stumbling. The stimulus bill counteracted massive state budget contractions and created lots of jobs (particularly in construction) that made needed infrastructure repairs. The benefits of the stimulus will be long lasting, and much of it was a tax cut, so Johnson would have opposed a program that cut taxes. Ron says small businesses have faced higher taxes but cites no evidence of this. Ron says small businesses have faced too much regulation, but regulation had been unwound dramatically during the Bush year, with much of the new regulation during the Obama Era a necessary response to prevent further systemic risk to the economy.
Ron does not want the government to pick "winners and losers," but something like the auto industry cannot simply recreate itself overnight if it is allowed to fail. Allowing Detroit to fail would have been devastating to the Midwest (Wisconsin included). The bailout saved jobs and the "Big Three" are making a come back with much higher quality cars. GM and Chrysler didn't really get "bailed out" as much as they underwent a government facilitated restructuring plan that shook up the entire corporate apparatus of both GM and Chrysler. No bailing out GM and Chrysler would probably have taken Ford down with it, and all of the small town dealers that sell their products (one of the few economic contributors to small towns). So, how is Ron Johnson for small business again?
Issue #5: Wisconsin Values
“I’m a pretty traditional guy. I believe in a culture of life, and I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” – Ron Johnson
Ron is pro-life, pro-family, and believes that freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. Ron will take these principles with him to Washington and will stand up to those who would attack these cherished traditional values.
Ron is an avid fisherman and outdoorsman who believes strongly in maintaining a clean and healthy environment. He believes Wisconsin’s sporting traditions and the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment should be protected.
Ron and Jane have been married for 32 years and together they have three children
Most of this is take it or leave it kind of stuff that does not lend itself to non-emotional argument. The big red flag is that Ron believes that freedom of religion doesn't meant freedom from religion. What does he mean by that, must everyone follow a religion? Does Ron mean that religion should not be absent from the public square, like school prayer and whatnot? Well, if that is the case then whose religion should the government endorse in the public square? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? Probably not, I'm pretty sure Ron wants the government to endorse Christianity in clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Issue #6“My work in education has taught me that we are making it difficult for teachers to teach. The education of our children is not something that can be dictated from Washington or Madison. We need to return to local control of education, and bring the dollars we send to Washington back to Wisconsin’s local school districts.” – Ron Johnson
Ron will vote to reduce federal mandates that strip power from states and local school boards, and instead provide for more local control over education.
Ron supports reforming the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to reduce waste in education spending and return more flexibility and decision-making powers to states, local school boards and teachers. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t fit Wisconsin.
Wow! Ron and I agree on something. I think federal mandates for education are not the solution either and local control is important. I want to go with you here Ron, but give me something concrete to hold on to!
Quotes from www.ronjohnsonforsenate.com
Quotes from www.ronjohnsonforsenate.com
Ron Johnson for Senator of Dumbeddownistan (Part I)
One of the things that strikes me the most about Ron Johnson is his lack of substance, especially when compared to Russ Feingold's well thought out positions. Analyzing Ron Johnson is really quite easy to do because there is so little there to work with. His website lists 11 "issues" with paragraph length solutions. Man, if life were only that simple. So, here's a quick analysis of Ron Johnson on the issues:
First Issue: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights
First Issue: The 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights
Ron will be a staunch defender of our right to keep and bear arms.
Ron does not support licensing or registration of firearms, and the people of Wisconsin can trust him not to play politics with our Constitutional rights.
Unlike Russ Feingold, who voted for every anti-gun justice on the Supreme Court today, Ron will only support Supreme Court Justices who correctly interpret the Constitution and protect our right to keep and bear arms.
The Constitution affirms peoples' right to bear arms (whether this is an individual right, or the right of states to maintain militias is another question). No where in the Constitution does it say that guns shall not be licensed or registered. One could make a legitimate argument that the the licensing and registration of guns falls under the interstate commerce clause as well as the 2nd Amendment since guns are usually sold (including across state lines). The state and the public have a legitimate interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and otherwise unstable people. You may have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to unrestricted free speech (like yelling fire in a crowded building), likewise you have a right to bear arms but not an unrestricted right to bear arms. Ron Johnson would be an NRA puppet in the Senate.
As for Russ Feingold voting for "anti-gun" justices. I'd like to know how Ron defines "anti-gun," who are these nefarious anti-gun justices? Has there been any substantial gun control in the last who knows how many years? If anything, the Court is primed to take away the ability of states to regulate guns at all. So, how pray tell is the Court anti-gun? As far as Ron Johnson voting for those who "correctly interpret" the Constitution, how does he interpret it and why is it more correct than the interpretation of someone who studies the Constitution for a profession? Also, Justices are not static and sometimes their interpretation of the Constitution evolves over their lifetime, how will Ron control for this?
Second Issue: Spending
Washington has been on a spending spree and now the nation’s debt is a record $13 trillion. Ron believes we reduce spending by reducing the size of government.
Ok, lets cut the deficit by reducing spending. So what is Ron going to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Fact is, there is not a lot of spending that you can cut that won't have a big impact on the economy or on the social safety net. Fact is, the economy tanked, we're still fighting two wars, and President Bush never paid for his tax cuts with spending cuts, and that is why the deficit is the way it is. When you deal with an economic crisis in the size and scope of the Great Recession, the deficit is bound to increase as counter-cyclical spending is necessary to pull the economy out of a death spiral. When the economy is back on firm footing then you can raise the necessary taxes and withdraw the spending needed to backstop the economy in crisis. Hoover tried to ride out the Great Depression without massive government spending, we see how well that worked. In addition, much of the stimulus money went to keep cash strapped states afloat, to prevent the pro-cyclical effects of fiscal contraction at the state level. So, the stimulus likely prevented much misery and an even worse downturn. If economic logic makes no sense to you, don't worry, you can still run for Senate in Wisconsin. No money? Oops! well then you are out of luck.
Third Issue: Health Care
Ron will vote to repeal the Health Care Bill and replace it with market-based solutions that will include: portability, malpractice reform, mandate reduction, insurance purchase across state lines, lower costs, and a safety net for those with pre-existing conditions.
The Health Care Bill is a $1 trillion experiment that will lead to higher cost, lower quality health care and rationing by government bureaucrats. A free- market approach to health care reform is critical to ensuring doctors and patients stay in control of the decision-making process. The free market is essential for the development of new drugs, treatments and medical procedures that will save lives and keep our country on the forefront of medical innovation.
The Health Care Bill will further bust an already broken budget. Obama Administration estimates are simply not believable. When Medicare was passed in 1965, the government estimated its cost in 1990 would be $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $111 billion…nearly ten times the original estimate. The estimated cost of the Health Care Bill will not be any more accurate.
Sorry, Ron, your half-measures will do very little to improve access and affordability of health care. What is going to be this safety net for covering people with pre-existing conditions? Require insurers to insure people with PECs? This cannot work without an individual mandate. People with PECs will undoubtably sign up for health insurance, and their conditions will be costly, requiring premium increases, these premium increases will push healthy people out of the insurance pool and premiums will go up further. Unless you "assault" Ron Johnson's freedom with an individual mandate spreading costs amongst everyone, people with PECs will not be covered. If this makes no sense to you, don't worry, Ron doesn't get it either.
Can we finally stop saying we have the "greatest healthcare system in the world?" A system that leaves 40+ million people out, costs more, and gets worse outcomes is not that great. The system might be great for wealthy people like Ron, but it prices too many people out. This IS a form of rationing! Apparently Ron can also do a better job accounting than the entire Office of Management of the Budget (OBM), but can't understand basic insurance principles.
This is the first in a series of "Ron Johnson, on the (11) issues....
Quotes are from www.ronjohnsonforsenate.com
Friday, October 29, 2010
Levels of Racism
I attended the Race, Families, and Milwaukee Summit today at the Italian Community Center. This was a really fantastic conference dealing with the issue of race in Milwaukee, and in America in general. One of the things that I think is really important to remember about racism is that we all have racist thoughts or even say and do some things that are racist. The problem is that many people do not realize their own racism and if something is not a problem, then there is no solution. We need to get beyond the caricature of a racist as a redneck southerner who uses the N-word. Those people exist, but unfortunately most of them are difficult to reach. The people that are reachable are those who have good intentions regarding race, but do not recognize the various forms that racism manifests itself. I think there are a few different forms.
Overt Racism: These are the unapologetic racists that see no shame in using the N-word, telling racist jokes, etc. These are the people generally recognized as "racists."
Covert Racism: These people enable the overt racists, they do not speak up when the overt racists use the N-word and they laugh when racist jokes are told (though they don't repeat them). They might tacitly agree with this type of assessment, "Man, if we just took away the government teat then maybe the black people would get to work." Or, "If black men would just stop doing drugs maybe they would go out and get and education." Or, "Slavery has been over for a long time so there is no excuse for X"...Covert racists generalize and stereotype black people, but when in comes the source of the problem they look at the particular. "Personal responsibility" is their mantra, they refuse to acknowledge the social sources of race related problems and their role (or people like them) in perpetuating a system that only exacerbates the problem. Covert racists do not realize that the way they think is permeated with racism and think that something like having a black friend inoculates them from it. Most people are covert racists.
Race-aware Consciousness: These people acknowledge that racism exists at all levels of society. They are willing to chastise someone who tells a racist joke or uses a racial slur. These people actively work to prevent racism's pernicious effects. When there is a problem in the black community, the race conscious person looks at the social causes behind these problem and how these problems came to be. They do not dichotomize the world into black and white but realize that the white and black communities exist in mutually interacting relationship. What happens on the "North Side" affects the "East Side" and cannot be solved only on one side or the other. Race-aware people know that they will always have racist thoughts and impulses, but when they occur they are conscious and introspective about them. They seek to prevent those impulses from translating into words or action or destructive thought processes. Race-aware people know that the environment is such that racism will always be a problem, but they seek to revolutionize their own minds and change others.
How can we get more people to be race-aware? The first, and most difficult step is talking about racism.
Overt Racism: These are the unapologetic racists that see no shame in using the N-word, telling racist jokes, etc. These are the people generally recognized as "racists."
Covert Racism: These people enable the overt racists, they do not speak up when the overt racists use the N-word and they laugh when racist jokes are told (though they don't repeat them). They might tacitly agree with this type of assessment, "Man, if we just took away the government teat then maybe the black people would get to work." Or, "If black men would just stop doing drugs maybe they would go out and get and education." Or, "Slavery has been over for a long time so there is no excuse for X"...Covert racists generalize and stereotype black people, but when in comes the source of the problem they look at the particular. "Personal responsibility" is their mantra, they refuse to acknowledge the social sources of race related problems and their role (or people like them) in perpetuating a system that only exacerbates the problem. Covert racists do not realize that the way they think is permeated with racism and think that something like having a black friend inoculates them from it. Most people are covert racists.
Race-aware Consciousness: These people acknowledge that racism exists at all levels of society. They are willing to chastise someone who tells a racist joke or uses a racial slur. These people actively work to prevent racism's pernicious effects. When there is a problem in the black community, the race conscious person looks at the social causes behind these problem and how these problems came to be. They do not dichotomize the world into black and white but realize that the white and black communities exist in mutually interacting relationship. What happens on the "North Side" affects the "East Side" and cannot be solved only on one side or the other. Race-aware people know that they will always have racist thoughts and impulses, but when they occur they are conscious and introspective about them. They seek to prevent those impulses from translating into words or action or destructive thought processes. Race-aware people know that the environment is such that racism will always be a problem, but they seek to revolutionize their own minds and change others.
How can we get more people to be race-aware? The first, and most difficult step is talking about racism.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Trading Up or Trading Down
Economic globalization, particularly the free movement of goods and capital, has had a profound impact on our society. It is hard to gauge the direction and consequences of open markets on our society, as this new competition permeates nearly everything. From a strictly economic point of view, free trade and the free mobility of capital redounds to the advantage of everyone, the general person. However, it is well known the the "particular" person can be very seriously affected in a ruthlessly negative way by global trade/global capital. To free market fundamentalists, someone who is displaced by market competition should simply retool and re-skill for another job. To me, this is too narrow and economistic. There are some things in society that are worth saving, even at the cost of market efficiency, from a social health perspective. You see, I am of the mind that economic efficiency may produce wealth but it can never produce a good society on its own. This is where government is important. A representative government allows the people, as a collective, to pick and choose the things that economic efficiency can be allowed to destroy (even whole domestic industries) and those that are deemed of too great a social value to be torn apart (like the whole of small town America)
Free market fundamentalists do not see things this way. They view the market as a "spontaneous order" whereby the aggregated individual decisions of people in the marketplace lead to a self-governing philosophy. The right views this as perfect freedom, I view it as tyrannical. It is akin to submitting oneself to golden handcuffs, they may be very valuable, but they still restrain your freedom. For me, freedom is not the absence of government regulation or the submission to an amoral market order. For me, freedom is my ability to participate in the life of my community, to have my voice heard, to vote and have that vote really mean something. Globalization, for better or worse, often takes the decision away from the people and puts it in the hand of the soulless market. There is something that just feels wrong about this state of affairs. People feel powerless, they do not feel like their decision matters. This may be wealth, but it is not freedom. In my view, there is nothing "spontaneous" about a spontaneous order, we still have the power to decide what we can let the market destroy, how we can compensate for this destruction, and what is too important for our communities to be put on the chopping block at all. Nothing is inevitable. However, when faced with the overwhelming power of the global market, many simply say "I give up."
This brings me to my vision of the good society versus what I see as the Right's vision of the good society. I see the Right trying to take more and more decision-making power from us, the people, and putting in the hands of an impersonal market (ostensibly for our own good). This shrinks the range of things that were can actually influence in our society, and jades the individual from the community that he/she relies on for support. I'm alienated from my community when I have no stake in that community, when what I do has no effect on my community. The unregulated market makes community difficult to maintain at all. I'm not saying that as a community of people, we cannot decide to submit ourselves to the market for economic reasons, I'm simply saying that this should be up for negotiation.
I see the Right-wing solution to the global economy as stepping on the gas pedal of impersonal market dominance over our lives. They want to improve our competitiveness by appealing to the lowest-common denominator. If we can't compete with the Chinese because they will work for a pittance, then we too need to work for a pittance. If we can't compete with the Chinese because they don't allow unions, then we too must disallow unions. If we can't compete with the Chinese because they have no economic security, rights at work, and are so desperate that they will do anything for a barely subsistence wage, then we too must take away economic security, all rights at work, and make our people so desperate that they too will work for a wage that barely gets them by. In fact, we really ought to do them one better.
My solution is that we reject the race to the bottom and try to compete for the top, that we educate and provide health care to our people so they have the physical and mental skills to compete not for the crumbs of the global economy, but for the icing on the cake. To do this we need to maintain communities that produce children with a healthy sense of themselves and their relation to others and to their community, only then can we raise the necessary funds (yes, I'm not afraid to say it, taxes!) that can provide the type of existential security that liberates people from the vagaries of their condition. In this type of society, its true that people would have to give up some of the material benefits of the market and one cannot have the benefits of property all to himself, but man does not live on bread alone, and no you cannot eat money.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Why Radical Marxists Should Join the Tea Party
Karl Marx casts an outsized shadow over this year's midterm elections. If you listen to the news media these days, particularly the crazy stuff on AM radio or anything that comes out of the mouth of the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, you'll be led to believe that Marxists are everywhere. They are in the highest levels of government (particularly the White House), but also in the schools, in the media, an especially in academia. Heck, Marxists could be your neighbor, your kids could be Marxists, maybe your priest is a Marxist. Man, your kid goes to college and comes back a Marxist. You know, the Soviets had a 100-year plan to plant Marxists in all levels of American society so they could be anywhere. Well those may be the dumb Marxists that haven't really read Marx, like Barack Obama. If I were a Radical Marxist, I'd join the Tea Party. How is that possible you say? Well, it's really quite simple. Marxists believe that the people can only become really radicalized when all of the illusions of capitalism are stripped away, when capitalism is at its most pure. Who better than to purify capitalism than the Tea Party? After all, they want to take away everything that makes capitalism bearable to masses, like pensions, health care, education funding, infrastructure programs, a minimum wage, unions, and all the barriers to pure market competition. A true radical Marxist would love to join such a program, for the masses of workers will only realize the futility of their condition and rebel when they have nothing left to fall back on. A real radical Marxist would certainly not join the Democratic Party (or even the pre-Tea Republican Party). The Democrats want to just muddle through, trying to maintain the basics of capitalism and the free market while giving the people the crumbs in order to keep them happy. The Tea Party is the best hope for radicalism in America today. The Tea Party is against the bank bailouts, the automaker bailouts, the stimulus, the health care plan. Radical Marxists would also be against all of the above, since they only serve to keep the capitalist system on life support through its recurring crises, Marxism can only be realized in crisis. When the government stops artificially propping up the system, it will come crashing down, and radicalism can then be realized. Radical Marxists do not want half-measures like stimuluses and health care bills that simply provide opium to the masses, they want full-scale revolution. This can only be achieved when capitalism is stripped of its illusions. So Marxists would view the Tea Party as a way to hasten the revolution.
If all this seems absurd to you, it is no more absurd that calling every Tom, Dick, and Harry in American politics a Marxist. Here's a good rule of thumb, if you are going to credibly label someone as a follower of a 19th century philosopher, be sure you have read and understand the works of said philosopher, otherwise you sound like a jack-ass.
If all this seems absurd to you, it is no more absurd that calling every Tom, Dick, and Harry in American politics a Marxist. Here's a good rule of thumb, if you are going to credibly label someone as a follower of a 19th century philosopher, be sure you have read and understand the works of said philosopher, otherwise you sound like a jack-ass.
The Future of America is at Dental Associates on Cesar Chavez Dr. in Milwaukee
Ever since I was a little kid I've been getting my teeth cleaned every six months. So when I moved to Milwaukee I did a Google search for a dentist closest to my apartment near Marquette University. This particular place happened to be on Cesar Chavez Dr. just north of Marquette, in the hispanic part of town. Being from outside of the city I never knew what parts of town are supposed to be the "good" parts or the "bad" parts, but apparently this neighborhood qualifies as a "bad" one. However, I've never had anything but a pleasant experience here. The people in this neighborhood have treated me with a great deal more respect and dignity than most hispanics would get in a white neighborhood, and I don't speak Spanish either. Almost everyone at this Dental Associates is bilingual, and the signs are written in Spanish and English. In the seats are black and brown people, with a smattering of white folks like me who do not reject the idea of going to the dentist on Cesar Chavez drive. MSNBC was on the TV, not Fox. The only staff members that could not easily switch from English to Spanish were the non-hispanic staff. Maybe if more people from Whitefish Bay went to the dentist on Cesar Chavez Drive the country would not have such a warped image of hispanic immigration and the multicultural future of America. The Right has constructed such a terrible image when the reality is that everyone in this country can get along with one another as long as we're open-minded enough.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Why the Rest of the World Doesn't Understand "Our Freedom"
Remember back when George W. Bush used to say that we were being attacked by terrorists because they hate "our freedom." Terrorists may indeed hate the fact that Americans do have essential freedoms that they want to restrict for their societies. In their case, terrorists want absolute tyranny (which, of course, is good for them and terrible for everyone else). However, the rest of the world (Continental Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, even Canada, Australia and the UK) does not hate our freedoms, they greatly respect many of them. But, I think the majority of people outside of the US views freedom very differently than most Americans do. Some of the things that Americans view as sacrosanct (absolute protection of private property and the right to bear arms are good examples) are viewed as promoting tyranny in other countries.
Let's take the absolute right to private property as an example. In the US context, colonists conquered this country of continental size (conquest being a legitimate means of acquiring property at the time) and inhabited it. The vast majority of the country was depopulated due to the death and subjugation of the native people, so land rights were dispensed on a first-come first-serve basis. There was enough and as good for everyone, so if you did not get your piece of the pie, you just were not aggressive enough. We think that the absolute right to private property is sacrosanct because we generally feel that property was acquired justly at the "beginning." Think about that in the context of a different country with a much longer, and different, history of property acquisition than ours. In most of Europe land was seized by force of arms and serfs were forced to work on land they did not own. This is much different than the intrepid free hold farmer in the American West. So property was based on an original theft on the principle of "might makes right." So, how would you feel about supporting inviolable property rights that essentially legally codify an original injustice? This is basically what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. Property that was communal was distributed to individuals through corruption, then American advisors said that a legal system must quickly recognize this as legitimate private property. What works great in the American context is just not necessarily regarded as fair in different places.
The right to bear arms is another example. It is pretty obvious, in the US we have a stable civil society that generally does not resort to political violence. That is not the case in most countries. In most countries the government's monopoly on the use of force is seen as freeing the people from the the whims of thugs, as protecting them, not as a violation of a fundamental right.
In all, many countries around the world have a view of freedom that extends beyond negative rights (the rights that protect you from the government). In impoverished countries, these rights are regarded as quite meaningless, since it only gives you the right to live "freely" in grinding poverty. The government can provide the means to a better life through education and health care, so it is not something to be feared unless it resorts to physical violence against its own people or restricts their right to choose their leaders through democratic elections. In short, the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans are great things, we should celebrate them, but we should not be surprised when people in other countries have their own views of what freedom means to them. I also think that there are legitimate concerns in the United States about balancing the freedom of people with property to enjoy the fruits of that property (without any interference from the government) with the legitimate need for the underprivileged for access to the things that allow them to positively affirm their freedom, such as education and health care. In not every part of the country was property acquired legitimately, and many people in this country are also victims of an original injustice.
Let's take the absolute right to private property as an example. In the US context, colonists conquered this country of continental size (conquest being a legitimate means of acquiring property at the time) and inhabited it. The vast majority of the country was depopulated due to the death and subjugation of the native people, so land rights were dispensed on a first-come first-serve basis. There was enough and as good for everyone, so if you did not get your piece of the pie, you just were not aggressive enough. We think that the absolute right to private property is sacrosanct because we generally feel that property was acquired justly at the "beginning." Think about that in the context of a different country with a much longer, and different, history of property acquisition than ours. In most of Europe land was seized by force of arms and serfs were forced to work on land they did not own. This is much different than the intrepid free hold farmer in the American West. So property was based on an original theft on the principle of "might makes right." So, how would you feel about supporting inviolable property rights that essentially legally codify an original injustice? This is basically what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. Property that was communal was distributed to individuals through corruption, then American advisors said that a legal system must quickly recognize this as legitimate private property. What works great in the American context is just not necessarily regarded as fair in different places.
The right to bear arms is another example. It is pretty obvious, in the US we have a stable civil society that generally does not resort to political violence. That is not the case in most countries. In most countries the government's monopoly on the use of force is seen as freeing the people from the the whims of thugs, as protecting them, not as a violation of a fundamental right.
In all, many countries around the world have a view of freedom that extends beyond negative rights (the rights that protect you from the government). In impoverished countries, these rights are regarded as quite meaningless, since it only gives you the right to live "freely" in grinding poverty. The government can provide the means to a better life through education and health care, so it is not something to be feared unless it resorts to physical violence against its own people or restricts their right to choose their leaders through democratic elections. In short, the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans are great things, we should celebrate them, but we should not be surprised when people in other countries have their own views of what freedom means to them. I also think that there are legitimate concerns in the United States about balancing the freedom of people with property to enjoy the fruits of that property (without any interference from the government) with the legitimate need for the underprivileged for access to the things that allow them to positively affirm their freedom, such as education and health care. In not every part of the country was property acquired legitimately, and many people in this country are also victims of an original injustice.
Deaniacs and Tea Partiers
One of the obvious elements that I think has been neglected in the press (do we still have a press?) is the connection between the 2003-2004 campaign for Howard Dean on the Left and the Tea Party Movement on the Right. Obviously, the two groups are not ideologically similar, but they arose out of dissatisfaction with their own party and its purported lack of ideological commitment. Both movements were catalyzed by major events and by long term political rumblings under the surface of American politics. The Dean Campaign arose out of anger with the Iraq War and the Tea Party ignited with the impending passage of "Obamacare." Similar language was used in both campaigns ("We need to take our country back" and the focus on the "People" versus those in charge). Both campaigns were diffuse and decentralized. One difference is that Howard Dean was the clear leader of his movement while the Tea Party has only some would-be leaders like Sarah Palin. In both cases the two dominant parties eyed both movements warily and some even disparaged them. Former Democrat Zell Miller warned the party not to let this "Vermont pond" have influence on this party. In the same vein, some Republicans now quietly fear the Tea Party. The Dean Campaign ultimately morphed into the Obama Campaign, a less strident movement that attracted many of the same followers and energy of the Dean Campaign with a more likable leader and under different conditions. The Obama coalition was young, and full of energy, as was the Dean Campaign.
The Dean Campaign was a reaction to years of Republican dominance and Democratic capitulation, Deaniacs viewed Clinton as too moderate. The post-9/11 environment led to attacks on certain liberties in the name of security, the Patriot Act was one, as was a political environment that stifled dissent. The Iraq War (and the Democrats weak or non-existent opposition) was seen as the last straw that led to direct action (full disclosure: I was part of the Dean Campaign in 2003/2004).
The Tea Party is a similar reaction on the Right, not necessarily to years of Democratic dominance (A truly Liberal agenda has only really been advanced for a few years, and a tepid one at that). The Tea Party reaction is one of a group that is used to seeing its agenda advanced (or at least parts of it) and now is not seeing its power reflected in public policy. The Right has really owned the discourse in American politics since Reagan (hostility to taxes, big government, welfare spending, aggressive defense is the mainstream and remains so). The Dean Campaign was a reaction to years of Democrats not responding aggressively to the Right, the Tea Party is a reaction against the Left actually doing what the Right has been able to do for years, use its power to make public policy.
Republicans will probably make big gains in the midterm elections, and the Tea Party influence will be felt. It is likely that the Republicans will try to do to the Tea Party what the Obama Campaign did for the Deanics, co-opt them with a policy influenced by their ideas but grounded in more practical and popularly palatable policy prescriptions. However, the extreme ideas of Tea Partiers will slip through in many areas, and the country is going to see a big rightward swing. This will probably lead to another movement on the Left, the pendulum keeps swinging ever more wildly and rapidly in American politics. I think this is fueled in good measure by the weak economy, when growth is strong the underlying tensions in society are suppressed, but when the pie shrinks people look to radical solutions and passions flare.
Comment Policy
DStarr informed me that I had the blog set up so only "Team Members" could make comments. I corrected this oversight and now anyone can make comments. I will moderate comments in that I will not accept spam or comments that are just plain stupid, other than that anything goes. I will not accept purely anonymous comments, I believe people should be willing to stand behind what they say.
Crass Feminism?
So I'm up late at night thinking things, because things keep me up at night. I was reading an article on jezebel.com earlier this evening. I have not really engaged with this website before. I'm interested in feminism and the types of ideas generated by such female-centered webzines, although I have perhaps been too intimidated to take outright classes on feminism in the past (at the time I felt like I would be seen as a bad element or something). My views have changed on this. Sometimes when I do come across feminist webzines like jezebel.com I am kind of disheartened since while I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe men and women are equal, I think that feminism should serve the cause of bringing both women and men to a higher level of self and mutual understanding. Feminism to me does not mean replacing patriarchy with matriarchy.
So I'll get to the point, there was an article in jezebel.com about a Duke University woman who created a "fuck list" http://jezebel.com/5652114/college-girls-power-point-fuck-list-goes-viral-gallery. Now apparently fraternities do this all the time (I wouldn't know), but the gist is that this student had sex with numerous guys throughout the course of her time at Duke and "rated" them on various levels: performance, aggressiveness, penis size etc. Apparently she did not mean for this list to actually "get out" but she sent it to a few friends on Facebook (how anyone can really believe that something like this won't get out when Facebook is involved is beyond me). The thing is that she used the guys' actual names and this has gone viral. Jezebel.com and many commenters on the article seem to think that this is an example of a "liberated" woman....is it? Is behaving on the same level as the ones you criticize really liberating?
I can see one redeeming quality of jezebel.com and "raunch-girl" magazines in general. The fact that many men get angry and indignant when reading about the exploits of someone like the Duke student may get them to re-evaluate their own behavior. This could expose the double-standard that many men have when the tables are turned. In general though, I think it is wrong to elevate the type of behavior that is villainous for men to the level of virtue for women. In the end I don't think this advances the cause of gender equality. At least, it doesn't convince men to want to take classes on feminism.
So I'll get to the point, there was an article in jezebel.com about a Duke University woman who created a "fuck list" http://jezebel.com/5652114/college-girls-power-point-fuck-list-goes-viral-gallery. Now apparently fraternities do this all the time (I wouldn't know), but the gist is that this student had sex with numerous guys throughout the course of her time at Duke and "rated" them on various levels: performance, aggressiveness, penis size etc. Apparently she did not mean for this list to actually "get out" but she sent it to a few friends on Facebook (how anyone can really believe that something like this won't get out when Facebook is involved is beyond me). The thing is that she used the guys' actual names and this has gone viral. Jezebel.com and many commenters on the article seem to think that this is an example of a "liberated" woman....is it? Is behaving on the same level as the ones you criticize really liberating?
I can see one redeeming quality of jezebel.com and "raunch-girl" magazines in general. The fact that many men get angry and indignant when reading about the exploits of someone like the Duke student may get them to re-evaluate their own behavior. This could expose the double-standard that many men have when the tables are turned. In general though, I think it is wrong to elevate the type of behavior that is villainous for men to the level of virtue for women. In the end I don't think this advances the cause of gender equality. At least, it doesn't convince men to want to take classes on feminism.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Big Losers
It hard to escape the reality of this year's mid-term elections. This hits particularly close to home for people in my age cohort and younger whether people want to acknowledge it or not. People aged 40 (maybe even 55) and younger are going to be the biggest losers this year. Why? Well, whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress, we will be paying the bill for years of poor fiscal management. We will be paying either through increased taxes or reduced government services, most likely a combination of the two. Politicians can get away with this because most young people simply do not think that far down the road. Let's see what Democrats and Republicans have to offer those who are not retired or near retirement age:
Republicans: Keep the Bush tax cuts in their entirety and cut government spending.
The GOP has been basically getting a free ride all year on this one, they have been able to maintain the politically popular position that they will cut taxes and government spending without explaining the deeply unpopular cuts that they will have to make to reduce the deficit. Paul Ryan has basically proposed outright generational theft. This is Ryan's plan according to http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/is-paul-ryan-serious-about-the-deficit/ :
* Reduce Social Security benefits for people now younger than 55.
* “Eliminate the income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance.”
* Replace the current Medicare system for people now under 55 with a voucher system providing significantly less generous benefits than are currently planned.
How is this not a MASSIVE tax increase AND benefit cut on those under 55? Basically, Ryan is asking us to subsidize the health care and pensions of our parents and grandparents. Perhaps it did not occur to Ryan that many of our generation will probably be taking student debt into retirement (if we retire at all) and cannot afford to pay for our parents and grandparent's retirements and medical bills as well. Students graduating from college today will already lag their predecessors, since the lower wages that new grads earn when they enter the job market in a recession follows them into the recovery.
On top of stacking multiple burdens on our generation, the health care bill that passed this year will be repealed. This bill has many benefits for young people, the most underinsured portion of the population. Students that enter this bad job market can get their parent's insurance into their late twenties. Since new grads are often the first fired, this also provides insurance during periods of unemployment. In addition, if any of us ever feel confident enough to procreate under this type of economic insecurity, our children may not be able to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The repeal of health reform is going to effect young people the most. Republicans say they plan to replace the bill and keep the popular benefits, but this is not possible to do and keep premiums affordable without the risk-sharing of an individual mandate (which Republicans vehemently oppose). The Republicans also add that they want to protect the Medicare cuts in the bill, protecting the benefits to the current generation of retirees while scheming to torpedo the whole thing for people under 55! How can they get away with this? They can because retirees vote in large numbers and have more economic clout than young people. How many people in their 20's stay up late talking about Medicare solvency, poli sci majors, THAT'S IT!
So, what about the Dems:
Democrats want to keep up spending on education and infrastructure, maintain the health care bill, and still manage to reduce the deficit without killing the economy. This is a tall order. They want to ax the tax cuts on the top 20% of income earners. These tax increases will not be enough to really reduce the deficit. I suggest the country needs to own up to the fact that we will ALL have to pay more taxes now or pay even more taxes later. I would propose that the Bush tax cuts remain in place until GDP growth hits at least 3% and unemployment falls to 6%. At that point, taxes should go back to Clinton-era levels, automatically. Democrats are also reluctant to talk about trimming the defense budget, which needs to happen. Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will go a long way toward deficit reduction, as will asking our allies to shoulder a greater burden of their own security. Let's face it, unipolarity was nice, but it doesn't last. The Dems do not really have much of a plan either, but I have more confidence in their regard for young voters since Obama was elected by them. The future will include painful cuts and tax increases, I think that old and young will have to share the burden. I also predict that the average age of the Republican voter this year will be pretty high.
Republicans: Keep the Bush tax cuts in their entirety and cut government spending.
The GOP has been basically getting a free ride all year on this one, they have been able to maintain the politically popular position that they will cut taxes and government spending without explaining the deeply unpopular cuts that they will have to make to reduce the deficit. Paul Ryan has basically proposed outright generational theft. This is Ryan's plan according to http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/is-paul-ryan-serious-about-the-deficit/ :
* Reduce Social Security benefits for people now younger than 55.
* “Eliminate the income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance.”
* Replace the current Medicare system for people now under 55 with a voucher system providing significantly less generous benefits than are currently planned.
How is this not a MASSIVE tax increase AND benefit cut on those under 55? Basically, Ryan is asking us to subsidize the health care and pensions of our parents and grandparents. Perhaps it did not occur to Ryan that many of our generation will probably be taking student debt into retirement (if we retire at all) and cannot afford to pay for our parents and grandparent's retirements and medical bills as well. Students graduating from college today will already lag their predecessors, since the lower wages that new grads earn when they enter the job market in a recession follows them into the recovery.
On top of stacking multiple burdens on our generation, the health care bill that passed this year will be repealed. This bill has many benefits for young people, the most underinsured portion of the population. Students that enter this bad job market can get their parent's insurance into their late twenties. Since new grads are often the first fired, this also provides insurance during periods of unemployment. In addition, if any of us ever feel confident enough to procreate under this type of economic insecurity, our children may not be able to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The repeal of health reform is going to effect young people the most. Republicans say they plan to replace the bill and keep the popular benefits, but this is not possible to do and keep premiums affordable without the risk-sharing of an individual mandate (which Republicans vehemently oppose). The Republicans also add that they want to protect the Medicare cuts in the bill, protecting the benefits to the current generation of retirees while scheming to torpedo the whole thing for people under 55! How can they get away with this? They can because retirees vote in large numbers and have more economic clout than young people. How many people in their 20's stay up late talking about Medicare solvency, poli sci majors, THAT'S IT!
So, what about the Dems:
Democrats want to keep up spending on education and infrastructure, maintain the health care bill, and still manage to reduce the deficit without killing the economy. This is a tall order. They want to ax the tax cuts on the top 20% of income earners. These tax increases will not be enough to really reduce the deficit. I suggest the country needs to own up to the fact that we will ALL have to pay more taxes now or pay even more taxes later. I would propose that the Bush tax cuts remain in place until GDP growth hits at least 3% and unemployment falls to 6%. At that point, taxes should go back to Clinton-era levels, automatically. Democrats are also reluctant to talk about trimming the defense budget, which needs to happen. Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will go a long way toward deficit reduction, as will asking our allies to shoulder a greater burden of their own security. Let's face it, unipolarity was nice, but it doesn't last. The Dems do not really have much of a plan either, but I have more confidence in their regard for young voters since Obama was elected by them. The future will include painful cuts and tax increases, I think that old and young will have to share the burden. I also predict that the average age of the Republican voter this year will be pretty high.
The Tea Party
I've been meaning to write about the Tea Party for a long time. Few people outside of this movement, and maybe some within in, seem to really understand what this diffuse organization's grievance is and what they really want. Is the Tea Party a revolt against a government that is not close enough to the people? Does the Tea Party represent a collective giving of the finger to intellectual elites? Or, is the Tea Party comprised of ignorant and intolerant individuals angry at the changing face of America, heightened by economic insecurity? In a sense, the organization (if it can be called one) is partly all of these things.
The Tea Party does strike a chord with people who believe that the government is too far from the people. Now, it is crucial to identify who precisely "the people" are. The government has never been that responsive to the needs of the lower classes, urban/rural poor, blacks, Latinos, or wage laborers in general. Of course, many people in the Tea Party movement feel that the government is helping the "consumers" of public goods rather than the "producers" of private wealth. Rand's dichotomy of "productive" vs. "unproductive" people is at work here. Bourgeois whites who make up the majority of the Tea Party movement see themselves, predictably, as the productive ones. Also, they are used to having their voices heard, loud and clear. In fact, they are not used to even having to mobilize to have their voices heard. This adds to their appeal in that they can be seen as "everyday Americans" rising up. Some say that the Tea Party stems from the financial crisis and the bank/automaker bailouts. These things may have been the impetus of the movement, but it would not be what it is without health care reform and the stimulus.
The bank/auto bailouts were initiated by President Bush so it is hard to label them as President Obama's doing (the most socialist and scary president in history without question according to Tea Partiers). The stimulus and health care reform were the real culprits, but especially health care reform. The fact is, health care reform would have never passed if the American people had voted on it directly. Health care in the United States is more politicized than anywhere else, and the status quo is supported by a wide range of powerful interests. The people did not, and do not, understand key concepts in the legislation which makes it susceptible to demagoguery. Moreover, the have-not, voiceless people in our society stand to benefit the most from the legislation, so their point was never heard. The rambunctious town halls in the summer of 2009 seemed to confirm that ordinary Americans were against this legislation. So what argument does the Tea Party make about health care reform beyond the whole "government takeover" thing: that it is going to deny choice, bust the budget, and strip Medicare. Now, if I did not research and understand the insurance business I would probably not question these arguments on empirical grounds. It is common knowledge in US discourse that the private market expands choice and the government restricts it, how can expanding an entitlement program not bust the deficit? How can cutting half a trillion from Medicare not undermine the program? All these arguments make sense at the surface level of discourse in America. How do you explain to someone with health insurance that they "are satisfied with" with the system is so incredibly inefficient that the changes proposed can actually expand coverage without increasing the deficit, that an individual mandate is absolutely necessary to let the cost sharing part of insurance work, that millions of people working low-wage jobs have NO CHOICE AT ALL when it comes to health insurance, that caring for the people without health insurance is already built into the private insurance premiums that you pay. That is really hard to argue against platitudes like "government takeover" or "socialist medicine." The Right has the benefit of parsimony, they describe an American dystopia in one or two words. The fact is, the main feature of health care reform is expanded coverage, but that does not benefit the already covered who have the political microphone. So when the Tea Party says the government is not representing "the people" you have to ask yourself, what kind of people is the government (not)representing?
The notion of the Tea Party sticking it to the intellectual elites is partly true. Here again the Tea Party views the intellectual elites as not representing their views. To say that the Tea Party dislike academia and educators is to put it mildly. It is not just the condescending tone that some, ok many, intellectuals take toward people of Tea Party ilk, its is that they view academia and even grade school as undermining American values by not teaching, or teaching critically, our founding principles. In the Tea Party mind the Constitution and other documents like the Federalist Papers were pretty close to divinely inspired. The Founders were demigods. Academia is infiltrated with socialists and people who "hate America." That is simply to the truth and no rational argument will disabuse a Tea Partier of that notion. It does not help that people from educated backgrounds flee their small towns and cluster in Liberal cities. There is no one left in rural/small town America to defend intellectualism and free inquiry. So, you have two groups of people self-selecting their communities and gazing at the other with bewilderment. They really do live in separate realities, different "nations."
Lastly, the Tea Party clearly has intolerant elements. The discourse on immigration reform, welfare, poverty, etc. that comes out of this group is racially tinged. I'm sure that many people would completely deny racism. They aren't the type of people to use the "N" word (some maybe) but they wouldn't object to a somewhat racist joke and would maybe get a little laugh out of it. The election of the first African-American president is important here. Now, Tea Parties would claim that they have black members and that they would not object to a black president, if he were say, Clarence Thomas. Tea Partiers don't necessarily object to the race, but to the fact that Barack Obama is a race-conscious black man. He does not deny the disadvantages that African-Americans face, and sees it as a social rather than an individual problem. Tea Partiers are not against black people, or Latinos, or low-wage workers, they are against these people advocating for social justice and for economic redistribution. In the same vein, Tea Partiers will support women so long as they are not feminists.
In short, the Tea Party is a movement of righteous indignation on the part of people who are not used to sharing the microphone.
The Tea Party does strike a chord with people who believe that the government is too far from the people. Now, it is crucial to identify who precisely "the people" are. The government has never been that responsive to the needs of the lower classes, urban/rural poor, blacks, Latinos, or wage laborers in general. Of course, many people in the Tea Party movement feel that the government is helping the "consumers" of public goods rather than the "producers" of private wealth. Rand's dichotomy of "productive" vs. "unproductive" people is at work here. Bourgeois whites who make up the majority of the Tea Party movement see themselves, predictably, as the productive ones. Also, they are used to having their voices heard, loud and clear. In fact, they are not used to even having to mobilize to have their voices heard. This adds to their appeal in that they can be seen as "everyday Americans" rising up. Some say that the Tea Party stems from the financial crisis and the bank/automaker bailouts. These things may have been the impetus of the movement, but it would not be what it is without health care reform and the stimulus.
The bank/auto bailouts were initiated by President Bush so it is hard to label them as President Obama's doing (the most socialist and scary president in history without question according to Tea Partiers). The stimulus and health care reform were the real culprits, but especially health care reform. The fact is, health care reform would have never passed if the American people had voted on it directly. Health care in the United States is more politicized than anywhere else, and the status quo is supported by a wide range of powerful interests. The people did not, and do not, understand key concepts in the legislation which makes it susceptible to demagoguery. Moreover, the have-not, voiceless people in our society stand to benefit the most from the legislation, so their point was never heard. The rambunctious town halls in the summer of 2009 seemed to confirm that ordinary Americans were against this legislation. So what argument does the Tea Party make about health care reform beyond the whole "government takeover" thing: that it is going to deny choice, bust the budget, and strip Medicare. Now, if I did not research and understand the insurance business I would probably not question these arguments on empirical grounds. It is common knowledge in US discourse that the private market expands choice and the government restricts it, how can expanding an entitlement program not bust the deficit? How can cutting half a trillion from Medicare not undermine the program? All these arguments make sense at the surface level of discourse in America. How do you explain to someone with health insurance that they "are satisfied with" with the system is so incredibly inefficient that the changes proposed can actually expand coverage without increasing the deficit, that an individual mandate is absolutely necessary to let the cost sharing part of insurance work, that millions of people working low-wage jobs have NO CHOICE AT ALL when it comes to health insurance, that caring for the people without health insurance is already built into the private insurance premiums that you pay. That is really hard to argue against platitudes like "government takeover" or "socialist medicine." The Right has the benefit of parsimony, they describe an American dystopia in one or two words. The fact is, the main feature of health care reform is expanded coverage, but that does not benefit the already covered who have the political microphone. So when the Tea Party says the government is not representing "the people" you have to ask yourself, what kind of people is the government (not)representing?
The notion of the Tea Party sticking it to the intellectual elites is partly true. Here again the Tea Party views the intellectual elites as not representing their views. To say that the Tea Party dislike academia and educators is to put it mildly. It is not just the condescending tone that some, ok many, intellectuals take toward people of Tea Party ilk, its is that they view academia and even grade school as undermining American values by not teaching, or teaching critically, our founding principles. In the Tea Party mind the Constitution and other documents like the Federalist Papers were pretty close to divinely inspired. The Founders were demigods. Academia is infiltrated with socialists and people who "hate America." That is simply to the truth and no rational argument will disabuse a Tea Partier of that notion. It does not help that people from educated backgrounds flee their small towns and cluster in Liberal cities. There is no one left in rural/small town America to defend intellectualism and free inquiry. So, you have two groups of people self-selecting their communities and gazing at the other with bewilderment. They really do live in separate realities, different "nations."
Lastly, the Tea Party clearly has intolerant elements. The discourse on immigration reform, welfare, poverty, etc. that comes out of this group is racially tinged. I'm sure that many people would completely deny racism. They aren't the type of people to use the "N" word (some maybe) but they wouldn't object to a somewhat racist joke and would maybe get a little laugh out of it. The election of the first African-American president is important here. Now, Tea Parties would claim that they have black members and that they would not object to a black president, if he were say, Clarence Thomas. Tea Partiers don't necessarily object to the race, but to the fact that Barack Obama is a race-conscious black man. He does not deny the disadvantages that African-Americans face, and sees it as a social rather than an individual problem. Tea Partiers are not against black people, or Latinos, or low-wage workers, they are against these people advocating for social justice and for economic redistribution. In the same vein, Tea Partiers will support women so long as they are not feminists.
In short, the Tea Party is a movement of righteous indignation on the part of people who are not used to sharing the microphone.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
WisPolitics DC Wrap: Ryan laments that national debt has been 'weaponized politically'
WisPolitics DC Wrap: Ryan laments that national debt has been 'weaponized politically'
I'm glad there are conservatives thinking a bit more deeply about the debt. I don't agree with Ryan on much but he's right to be straight with the American people over the tough choices.
I'm glad there are conservatives thinking a bit more deeply about the debt. I don't agree with Ryan on much but he's right to be straight with the American people over the tough choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)