Breaking News: John Bolton Still Around

Looking over Yahoo headlines and saw Ex-UN Ambassador: Obama Not Qualified as President, and thought "Hmm, I wonder what that's about."

But then I saw the lead paragraph:

DES MOINES, Iowa – Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton says President Barack Obama isn't qualified to lead the country.

And I'm like, "John Bolton doesn't like Obama?  This is news because..."

I mean, seriously.  This is neo-freak John Bolton, for christ's sake.  There's not even a good reason anyone's even listening to this bozo, let alone taking his criticism of Obama seriously.  And in Iowa of all places.  Like, seriously.  John Bolton has some chance at the presidency.  I'd give better odds to a hobo off the street. 

The fact that Republicans are still stuck with creepers like Bolton hanging around is proof of how inept they truly are.  They needed to shuffle that guy off to academia a long time ago and burned all the bridges in between.  And the party is stinking with them.  John Bolton, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, please.  Retire these people.  They are all stones around the neck of anyone associated with them.  It'd be like forming an NFL team entirely based on Hall of Fame players who went broke and need the money.  Yeah, they might have been good in their time, but that time was a long time ago and these people are now an embarrassment.

Of course, the only new Republicans who can gain traction these days are freakshows like Palin and Bachmann; but at least the media knows these people are lightweight entertainers.  They still listen to Gingrich and Cheney as if they know something; despite the fact that they're not only unelectable but can't even be hired by people who are electable. 

And Bolton.  Jesus christ, John Bolton.  Why anyone would want this guy associating with them is beyond me.  It's a new day, yet not only are Republicans going with a Greatest Hits release, they're culling it from some of their biggest disgraces.  But I suppose since the GOP doesn't really have many long-term successes, outside of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, that might be the only option they have.

My Parlimentary Mystery

One of the mysteries I haven't been able to figure out is what the allure of parliamentary-style governments is.  Because we already have coalitions in our government.  Sure, there's the hardline Democrat or Republican thing.  But without a doubt, that's a fairly superficial label. 

Conservative Democrats are always more likely to side with their fellow conservatives, not because they're weak-kneed traitors, but because that's what conservatives do.  The question shouldn't be why they're voting conservative, but rather, why they call themselves Democrats.  And what exactly do we imagine is happening when we get steel workers in Ohio voting for the same president as tree-hugging hippies in San Francisco?  Sounds like a coalition to me.

And so we basically have coalition governments.  That's how FDR did it.  That's how LBJ did it.  That's how Reagan did it.  Getting your party's majority in Congress is important, but it's not enough if you can't get your party to obey.  And so FDR cobbled together farmers, and laborers, and blacks, and intellectuals, and anyone else he could grab in order to pass his New Deal.

Same thing with LBJ.  These men didn't pass liberal legislation because they were so strong, but because they were so good at working their coalition.  And fortunately for them, they had more liberals in their coalition than Obama does.

Elections Forever

And so I'm at Socratic Gadfly, because I wanted to write a follow-up post to my one on Critics I Don't Like.  And I see this post about Canada's silly excuse for politics, talking about how The Canadian Parliament gave a vote of no-confidence to conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, triggering parliamentary elections.  To which Mr. Gadfly says "I love parliamentary governments."

And ok, I confess that I don't know much about parliamentary systems, but I don't know.  I just think this sounds like a dreadful idea.  It'd basically be like an everlasting impeachment election, with Republicans mounting continuous votes of no-confidence, grinding all congressional business to a halt as Democrats are constantly staving off every attack.  All it would take would be a lucky break at the polls, and Obama would be history; long before he had the chance to get anything done. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds absolutely awful.  I don't know how other governments get anything done, but I can't imagine this working out well for us.  Am I missing something here?

The Critics I Don't Like

I don't care what your expectations before 2009 were, any reality-based review of Obama's first two years shows that Obama got a lot of legislation passed in an extremely hostile environment, with the strongest string of liberal-based legislation we've seen since LBJ; and before that, FDR.  That's simply undeniable.

Point: Obama got a lot of fucking shit done, and there isn't one among us who can claim to have done as much as Obama.  Yes, that's because he's the president and we're not; but that's kind of the point.  Sure, he could have done more and I'm sure he has many of the same regrets we do, but it's not easy when you have to get everything right and even one wrong word can destroy everything.

Yet all the same, there are critics who will INSIST that Obama should have done more.  And his track record on domestic surveillance and whatnot leaves much to be desired.  And they'll go so far as to lay blame on Obama for every political indiscretion they believe he's made, finding each to be more inexcusable than the last. 

But all the same, they think Obama's doing relatively well in a tough situation, and as much as they know he can do better, they're willing to accept him as being better than the alternative.  Overall, they consider Obama to be a decent man who not only wants to do the right thing, but has the ability to do it and really needs to take a stronger stand in order to overcome the obstacles he's facing.

Those people are ok with me.  I have no problem with this sort of thing at all.  I disagree with them, of course, and will defend Obama when I think a defense is warranted.  But I think their points are reasonable, and it's only in a matter of degrees on how much we expect Obama to do more.  In the end, we both agree that Obama is trying to do the right thing, but could have done better.

The Other Ones

It's the other Obama critics I have a problem with.  The ones who insist that Obama is a conservative Democrat or a moderate-conservative Republican or an evangelical Christian or a traitor or a fool. 

The ones who take great joy exposing the truth about Obama in everything they write; all in order to educate us fools so that we finally understand what a charlatan Obama truly is.  The ones who insist that we're suckers being fleeced.  Or who state as fact that Obama is the bastard child of Jimmy Carter and George Bush, exposing him to be a weak-kneed, thumb-sucking, Kumbaya-singing moron who enjoys trampling our freedoms and making a mockery of everything we believe in.

These are the people I have a problem with.  Because, come on.  Whatever you may think of Obama's decisions thus far, it's obvious the man's not an idiot.  Whenever he speaks, it's obvious there's a real person inside thinking about what he's saying.  Moreover, he's obviously someone who has embraced liberal ideas, but who is willing to compromise when he feels it's to his advantage. 

Liberal by Default

And that's exactly what Obama has always claimed to be.  He never said he's a liberal ideologue.  He just wants whatever works, and it just so happens that liberalism works.  And that's why it's at the basis of everything he's trying to do, because he wants to give us what works.  He's said that repeatedly.  This isn't a bug in his personality; it's a feature.  He wants to do what works and he doesn't want to have to spend a long time messing with it.

And let's be honest.  Presidenting ain't easy.  It's not like the man has time to sit down and read Talking Points Memo and Crooks & Liars all damn day.  I guarantee you that there is a LOT OF SHIT that each of us know that Obama will never hear about.  He simply doesn't have the time to sit back and read all the news and analyze it.  No matter how much information Obama is fed, it can never be enough.  That's why Nixon started wiretapping people, and even that wasn't enough.

As scary as it is, a President can only take the information that's given to them and pray they're asking the right questions and getting the right answers.  They're doing all this shit on the fly and everything they say or do becomes the news the moment they do  it.  Under the circumstances, Obama's performance is utterly amazing.

Attacking the Wrong Side

Fortunately, the vast majority of Democrats approve of Obama, which is why his approval ratings have remained as high as they have.  Even the mildly disgruntled Obama critics aren't likely to tell a pollster that they disagree with Obama.  Or if they do, that it's like to stay that way by Election Day.  They might not like what Obama's doing, but they certainly prefer him over the alternative.

But for some reason, Obama's hardcore critics decided it somehow made more sense to bash Obama for not doing more, rather than making Obama's job easier by bashing the Republicans who were stopping him.  Rather than focus their energies on Republican lies and trickery, as they had for the previous eight years, they decided to turn their same muckraking skills on Obama.  Every failure, real and imagined, was due to entirely to Obama's failings, and anyone who doesn't agree is a brainwashed fool who is too dumb to see the truth.

These are the ones I have a problem with.  And the dividing line is this: If you think that Obama is better than the alternative, then you're ok.  But if you think that Obama is as bad as or worse than the alternative, then you're part of the problem. 

The Dividing Line

Because, whoopdidoo!  You exposed Obama again for not having passed something he talked about on the campaign trail.  Yea you!  Meanwhile, Republicans are destroying unions throughout the country and crippling already under-funded schools.  People are literally dying because of Republican policies.  That's the alternative.  Not Pie-in-the-Sky Universal Healthcare and ponies in every garage.  But real villains doing really bad things. Obama may be flawed, but he's the best sheriff we've got.

So to pretend as if Obama's policies somehow equate with conservativism, or that he's the same as Republicans; I'm sorry, but that's insane.  Seriously.  Anyone who can look at Obama's healthcare bill and honestly say that it's no different than if we had a Republican president, that person is a total nut who shouldn't be taken seriously. Differences of opinion are fine, but we're talking difference of reality, here.  And as usual, that's where we have to draw the line.

In short: It's perfectly ok to criticize Obama.  Just don't make an ass of yourself about it.

A World Without Borders

I read an interesting interview in Fortune titled Where in the World is Cheap Labor?, which was an interview with Auret van Heerden, the CEO of the Fair Labor Association, an anti-slave labor group. Basically, it confirms everything Doctor Biobrain has been saying about the exploitation of cheap labor.  And as I've always said, the more Big Business relies upon these places, the sooner they'll develop a middle class and improved labor conditions.

Exploiters don't create inequality.  They exploit the inequality that already exists.  And by doing so, they slowly begin to depend upon a more productive and sophisticated labor force.  As it turns out, smart workers are better workers.  And of course, the more people you employ, the more managers, middlemen, and accountants you'll need to keep track of it all.  And you have to pay those people real wages.

And so Big Business will continue to flow into these places, up to the point that the expense of being there is in balance with the productivity they'll get from the workers.  And once the workers become too expensive, then Big Business will move to the next Second World Country and start anew.

It's like they're reverse-locusts.  They swarm in to suck the countries dry, but end up leaving them more prosperous than they arrived.

Note: This is only in reference to the exploitation of cheap labor, not the exploitation of natural resources; which goes by a completely different set of rules.

Second Note: The processes I'm talking about occur over decades, not years.   But in the grand scheme of things, a few decades is nothing.  Important change never happens overnight.


Economic Tide

And as the Fortune article asks, what happens when globetrotting Big Business finally finishes their sweep of the globe, and each major area has already seen wages rise to an economic balance; and then what?  What can they do when there is no relative inequality between the various nations?

What else?  Raise wages for everyone.  And where's the money going to come from?  Consumers, and hopefully, profits.  But it was all inevitable, eventually.  As much as it pains them to realize it, we're worth more to them as workers than slaves, and there really is no such thing as a free lunch. 

At this point, I'm just going to quote the first two Q&A's, as van Heerden does a better job than me at explaining it.  Enjoy!

Is China still an option for global manufacturers seeking lower costs of production?

It's an incredibly fast-moving situation. Labor markets which we previously thought were inexhaustible, like China and India, have actually tightened up quite dramatically. Employers can't get workers. Wages have gone up. Add to that the energy cost increases, and the factories, the contract manufacturers, are now suddenly squeezed. So they're turning around to their buyers -- to the retailers or the brands -- and they're saying, "Hey, my prices need to go up." And the brands are saying, "Whoa! We don't think we can pass those prices on to the consumer." There's something of a train smash looming.

Won't they just look for cheaper alternatives elsewhere?

They're wondering if they could push more stuff to Bangladesh or Vietnam or Indonesia and so on, but the options are limited. The last country added to the supply chain was Cambodia in 2000, and there are only one or two places left. People are looking at Africa again to see if there isn't something that they've overlooked there. Finding another cheap platform, another cheap country, was the default until now, but frankly that's no longer an option. There's nowhere else to go.

It's always a mistake to extrapolate the future from how things are exactly right now.  In the grand scheme of things, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Politicking Ain't Easy

I saw this post at TPM about the New Hampshire Republican who said that "defective people, the drug addicts, mentally ill, the retarded -- all of them" should be left to die. And well, that is what it is.  I suppose I can understand the sentiment in a theoretical sense, but, well.  No. 

But the part of that post I found more interesting was a letter that guy wrote to a newspaper, which I'll reprint in its entirety, as it's a bit of honesty that really should be better understood:

I'm a New Hampshire Republican representative. Got slid in during the Republican landslide last fall. So far I really don't know what I'm doing. The whole process is so alien to anything else. A new Rep really needs a coach along with him at first but there is no room for anyone to sit with him, and no way they could holler at him in a committee meeting.

Am learning the hard way. Little by little. I think that a few of the other first time reps must be in the same boat with me. We're all sort of bluffing it out. The few votes I've made so far I really didn't know what I was voting for or against. Just looked at the people around me and went along with them.

There is so much pomp and circumstance connected with the legislature. You have to separate the real doings from all the fluff. People who obviously are making very generous salaries come and go as witnesses before the various committees with tidbits of usually self-serving information. You wonder where the money is coming from to pay these people.

Yes, slowly if I keep my health, I'll master this trade and hopefully be of some use to the state. I like to write about things and applied for this job mostly to have the opportunity to write about politics from the inside. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but you've still got to get your scribbling read by the people.

And that's the truth, I'm sure.  I believe it.  I just wish more politicians would say this sort of thing.

Because all new jobs are tricky to become accustomed to, and I can easily understand how difficult being a legislator would be.  Yet, we expect them to do it all.  They're supposed to know how to raise funds, fight opponents, manipulate the media, run a staff, respond to constituents, save the day, and never make a mistake.  And, if they're lucky enough to have time left over, they'll read the legislation they're voting on; even if it was changed a few hours before the vote.

Because it really is too much for most people to handle.  You get into office by running on charm, sham, and luck; and then you hold on for your dear life for a few years until you can start to understand how it all works.  That's how it is for regular jobs, and in politics, it's like that times a million.  And so you really are dependent upon the party apparatus to tell you how to vote and what to think. 

And of course, even those people are just making it up as they go along and nobody ever really has any firm answers about anything.  Just as soon as you think you understand the rules of the game, everything shifts and you're out of a job.  Any politician who can stay in office past two terms has a real knack for it and should be commended for his/her performance.



And that's why, whenever I hear people whine about how Obama sold us out or is a conservative, I just want to punch them in the fucking face.  Seriously.  Oh, wah!  So you gave a few bucks to Obama.  You put a sign in your yard and a bumpersticker on your car.  And now you think he owes you the world, because you're his base and you have all the answers.  Well why the hell won't you get off your ass and run for office, if you think it's so easy?  Huh?

Because seriously, I'm not trying to make excuses for him.  This is an acknowledgment that this shit is hard, and as smart as I am, I don't want his fucking job.  And if the only thing Obama ever did was to prevent John McCain and Sarah Palin from owning the Whitehouse, that was more than you've ever done in your life.  So you should be down on your knees praising his black ass that he did what you couldn't have ever done, and what many of his critics said couldn't be done.

And if he gave us a respectable healthcare plan, job stimuli, credit card and Wall Street reform, and a repeal of DADT; well, that's just the icing on the cake.  Because the man's doing an impossible job and needs all the help he can get.  And thanks to Republican over-reach, he really shouldn't need that much help, as we're all getting a clear idea of how much better Obama is than the alternative. 

History as Science

People have a tendency towards accepting things that fit what they were looking for, while rejecting anything that doesn't fit what they were looking for.  It's like our brains light up like a pinball machine when we see what we were hoping to see.  But because we're such fallible creatures (as are all creatures), that tendency must be rejected.

If anything, the moment you see an extraordinary claim that fits what you want, you must dig deeper to make sure you're not lying to yourself.  That's because your natural defenses of cynicism and disbelief are down, and you can end up believing all kinds of crazy stuff with no bearing on reality.

And so it is with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Exxon) and his theory that deficit spending will bring another Holocaust.

As he says:

We can do better than that, but we'd better hurry, because two, three, four more years of what the president proposed, 1.65 trillion in deficit spending? There's not gonna be a country. I don't care how much smarter we think we are in this country. How much more intellectual some of the liberals may be here, you can't outrun history.

There are lessons that are established and if you commit this act, then in the laws of nature and history, you're gonna get this result. You spend too much money you don't have for long enough, you're gonna lose your country. It's happened over and over. Doesn't matter how smart you are, it doesn't matter how many letters you have after your name, it doesn't matter — if you commit certain acts, you're gonna get certain results. Just as sure as it's a scientific experiment that's been proved over and over. Well it has. You spend too much, you're gonna lose the country.

His basis for this?  He read a book.  A history book.  Ahh, one of those.  Say no more, Congressman Gohmert.  We thought you were crazy, but if you have a history book to support your crazy claims, then I guess your theory is solid.

Because, yes, when they say that history repeats itself, they mean it exactly repeats itself, even when circumstances building up to events are completely different.  As long as you can find a few circumstantial parallels, it means you're heading towards the same place.  Based upon this, I've deduced that the leader who will bring about this new holocaust will be named Schmadolph Schmitler, or possibly Shodolph Shotler; depending upon whether or not they repeal Obamacare.

Seriously, Gohmert really needs to consider not only reading another history book, but getting some analysis of what it means.  But then again, if he thinks he already knows more than the intellectuals with "lots of letters after their names," it's fairly obvious that the guy will ignore anyone who doesn't already agree with him.  The man might not know much about history, but he knows what he likes.

Politics are Real

So Walker and his Republican buddies did it.  They pulled the plug on government unions in Wisconsin; thus poking the union machine in the eye.  What a bunch of morons.  I mean, it was a dumb enough scheme to begin with, but they knew they had to do it with a quick knock-out blow.  Once that was denied them, they needed to re-group and play it cool for a few years; at least until things simmered down some.

But no.  They believed the hype about the future going to the bold and they went bold.  And now, they're screwed.  Royally.  Whoever out there that's telling people that politics isn't real doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.  Life isn't a slippery slope; it's a pendulum.  The more you push in one direction, the more the other side will push back.  Make a win on abortion rights in the 70's and you've enraged anti-abortion crowds for decades to come. 

That's the reality of it.  Actions cause reactions and there are no knock-out blows.  And if your plan requires your opponent to lie down and die after you blast them your hardest, then your victory will most assuredly be short-lived.  The only easy victories are the ones your opponent can't rally support around. 

Cause and Effects

And like the whole collective bargaining thing, that wasn't a cheap gimmick or some easily won toss-off from a simpler age.  People fought for that, almost as hard as the people who fought against it.  And finally, the people who were against it realized it wasn't worth the fight.  Because you know what the alternative is?  Strikes.  If you don't give unions the right to negotiate contracts legitimately, then they'll take the power illegitimately.  That's life.  That's how it works.

And then, of course, there's the impending recall elections which will most assuredly take down at least a few of the eight eligible Republicans.  Their Senate leader doesn't think recall laws are "legit" because you shouldn't be able to recall a politician for how he votes.  But why the hell not? 

It'd be one thing if the Wisconsin GOPers had run on the platform of crippling unions, but they didn't.  Now Wisconsinites want another bite at the apple, now that they know what they're getting.  That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  As I've said before, democracy is not a term-limited dictatorship.  Nor is it a free pass to do whatever the hell you want, just as long as you can trick your way into office. 

These recalls are what democracy and accountability are all about.  If you don't like facing the will of the people, then you shouldn't get into politics.



And that's why Obama couldn't just give us single-payer universal healthcare.  Well, the main reason was because Democrats in Congress wouldn't have let him.  But even if he somehow pulled out all the cards and forced it on them, that would be the least of his worries.  Because people don't like it when you move too far, too fast.  People get scared with radical change.  And if everyone were to be told they'd be losing their health insurance soon, and instead be taken care of by Big Daddy Government; a lot of people would have been unhappy about that; to say the least.

And so it's about giving people what they can accept.  That's what democracy is all about.  Because democracy isn't some nice-guy, feel-good gesture designed to make us all feel happy inside.  And it's certainly not about giving us the best leaders, as we obviously could do better than what we've been getting.  It's about giving people control over their own lives, so they feel like the system can work for them.  And if you deny them that power and insist that elections are meaningless and you hide your real plans until after you're elected, then you're going to get bad results.

Democracy isn't for the benefit of the people.  It's for the benefit of the government.  People who have input into their daily lives are a lot happier and saner than people who do not.  That's simply undeniable.  That's not to say you can please all the people all the time, as you obviously can't.  But you at least need them to think that they have a legitimate means to control their lives. 

And that means we must ensure that elections have meaning.  And in Wisconsin's case, that means they're just going to have to have another one, as the last one was obviously a lie.  Politics are real.

Obama Defies Caricaturization

Carpetbagger has a post highlighting how rightwing freak Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown) attacks Obama for running a "gangster government," while also attacking him for being too weak.  As he notes, it can't be both.

But of course, we saw this whole "Obama is too tough and too weak" thing  back in 2008, when Hillary Clinton's people were making the same argument: Insisting that Obama wasn't tough enough to fight Republicans, while also insisting that his attacks on Hillary were too harsh. And the real problem is that Obama is smarter than his opponents and continues to make political moves they can't comprehend.

Does he always win every battle? No. Does every maneuver he makes work? No.  But, he doesn't fall into political traps or adopt positions he can't easily defend. And as frustrating as that can be for those on the left who want to see him take bolder positions, it's far more frustrating for his opponents, as he gives them so little to work with.

Had Obama adopted many of the bolder liberal positions he's often attacked from on the left for not adopting, freaks like Bachmann would have something real to complain about and their attacks could gain traction. But as it is, they keep attacking a strawman as Obama defies all their best efforts at caricaturing him.

And that's why he's still more popular than his opponents will ever be, and why he looks to be a shoo-in for re-election.  Yes, it helps that the Republican field is so paltry, but that's mainly because Obama has set the bar so damn high.

Huckabee's Kenyan Problem

Mike Huckabee is screwed.  He thinks he's playing some clever game with his "I believe Obama's a citizen, but his Kenyan background scares me" routine, but he's really jumped down a bottomless rabbithole with no easy way back up. 

And his problem is one that far too many conservatives find themselves victim to: You can't say anything to a targeted audience anymore.  Now that lots of people have videocameras in their pockets, can easily save video and audio recordings, and can distribute anything to the world within minutes; you really can't say anything without risk of having it blow up in your face.  Heck, even innocuous-seeming phone calls with wealthy backers can be fraught with disaster.

And that sure does make things difficult for anyone trying to incite hate against another person or group without the whole world hearing about it in your own words.  It used to be that you had to be careful around any microphone, in case it was live.  Now, the whole world's a potential microphone.

Revisionist Media History

Yet all the same, I see comments like this, suggesting that it's now easier to be offensive than it used to be:

This story would have mattered fifteen or twenty years ago. This story would have had a huge impact back then. That was before the new media landscape. You couldn't get away with such blatant lies and pathetic attempts to explain away stupid behavior.

Those days are gone. Right now, with the willing aid of Fox news and the complacency of the sanitized mainstream corporate press, not only can these right wingers make the most absurd claims, but they know the media will not fight them on corrections.

Really?  When exactly was this mytical time when the media held popular politicians accountable for anything beyond the most obvious racial slurs and offenses?  Fifteen years ago would be 1996.  We're to imagine that the media was vigilant against hateful lies four years into Clinton's presidency?  I don't think so.  Not only were those lies not exposed, they were often enhanced by the media.  After all, it was irresponsible not to speculate about Clinton rumors.

The reality is that media vigilance is the exception, not the norm.  There has simply never been a time in America's history in which the media had a sustained demand for the truth.  That's simply not in human nature, and like it or not, journalists are human.  Like most people, they'll spend more time worrying about what their bosses and peers think than in uncovering truth.  Even big stories like Watergate will only become big if the kewl kidz decide it's a big story.

And of course, the reality is that this quickly became a media firestorm which required Huckabee to immediately go into damage control mode, having to pile lies upon lies to defend himself; all of which are being used to bury him.  Had this sort of coverage existed fifteen years ago, Clinton might not ever have been impeached.  The fact that Huck has to go on Fox News to spin his lies only shows how damaging this sort of thing obviously is.

Side Effect or Drug Trip?

And really, Huck's schtick is simply ridiculous.  There is absolutely no way in a million years that he can possibly ride the "Obama's an unAmerican Kenya-lover" into the Whitehouse.  Even if it could somehow get him the nomination, which is extremely doubtful, he would be buried in the General Election.  The only possible way any Republican can win in 2012 is if they can make Obama the villain to a majority of the population, without looking like they're making Obama a villain.  And if that were possible, someone would have figured out how to do it a long time ago. 

Even worse for Huckabee is that he's definitely jumping the shark on this one, as his claims are so provably false that they only serve to embarrass anyone who associates with him. The more he pimps this stuff, the more radioactive he'll become.  Especially as his claims are so provably false and embarrassing that it can only mean that he believes them to be true.  And that means the only people who will want to support him are people who are, themselves, too dumb to be of any use.

Sure, at some level he knows he's playing a game.  But at a guess, I'm thinking he conflated Indonesia with Kenya, and since he had heard something he wanted to repeat regarding Obama's paternal influence upon his mind; assumed these to be the same thing.  That's the only way his Mau Mau Revolution comments make any sense.

And this is a problem that is slowly destroying the Republican Party, as the hucksters are also the suckers, and they can't remember the underlying truth that was somehow supporting the lies they're spinning.  And at this point, I'm thinking Huckabee's leading the pack of the sucker hucksters.  You can't be a good liar if you don't remember what the lie is, and the Republican Party has been lying for so long that there is simply no basis to any of it anymore. 

And that's why they'll be the most surprised when Obama once again beats the turds out of them in a presidential election.  Their only hope is for the Tea Partiers to permit a handsome and polite moderate to win their nomination, and there's absolutely no chance of that happening.  At this point, Obama knows he just needs to hold on to what he can while the GOP destroys itself further every day.

Crackpots and the Berlin Wall

I still haven't heard the prank call a fake Koch brother had with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, but from what I've read of it, I think this might be the saddest part:

Walker compared his stand to that taken by President Ronald Reagan when he fired the nation's air-traffic controllers during a labor dispute in 1981.

"That was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and led to the fall of the Soviets," Walker said on the recording.

Because I'm sure in his silly fanboy mind, he believes this crap. He honestly thinks that firing controllers somehow led to the fall of the Soviet Union.  As if unions and communism really are united somehow, and if you hurt unions in America, you're striking a blow against totalitarianism somewhere else.

Besides, the only other thing Reagan directly did to defeat the Soviets was to read someone else's speech that was mostly ignored at the time.  So it's understandable why they'd want to latch on to something a little more tangible.

Jesus christ, whatever happened to the Republicans who knew they were playing a con?  I'm sure Nixon is staring up at them from Hades, weeping.


Only slightly less upsetting is his insistence that his anti-union moves are "all about getting our freedoms back."  Yes, because public employees shouldn't have the freedom to group together and negotiate on an equal footing with their employer, the government. 

And when you think about it, isn't that a weird situation, too?  That anti-government Republicans want to make it so governments have more power over the individuals who work for them?  But of course, I seriously doubt they've thought this through that far.  All they know is that this is bad for Democrats, and that's good enough for them. 

People Aren't Cows

One of the key beliefs of those on both ends of the political spectrum is that politics aren't real.  You don't really need to worry about what other people think about your policies, and the rewards only go to those bold enough to take them.  Somehow, it never occurs to them that most long-time politicians seem to be of the wishy-washy middle-of-the-road types they deplore, while the few hardcore ideologues who last beyond two terms can only succeed in like-minded pockets and never in the Senate.

Because, as it turns out, politics are real.  It really does matter what voters think about you, and you can be punished for being bold, whether or not you're right.  And this isn't just the case in government, but throughout life.  No matter where you go or what you do or who you hang with, it's always a good idea to consider the feelings of others and try not to get on their bad side.  Do that, and you'll succeed.

And the thing is, yes, it's good to be bold.  It's good to have vision.  It's good to take a stand for what you believe in, but...you still need to be able to sell your bold visionary beliefs, and if people aren't buying, you have to accept the consequences.  And the only way to sell your boldness is by embracing politics and learning how it works. 

Because in the long run, it's not about a good marketing campaign or strong propaganda channels.  It's about understanding human nature and getting people to understand why they should support what you're doing.  Democracy isn't a term-limited dictatorship.  It's a system where we all agree to play by the rules and understand that everyone else has as much of a right to their vision as we do. 

And one of the dumbest things a politican can do is to ignore the wishes of the people and imagine that they have the power to cram down their beliefs on to others.  For as much as ideologues insist that boldness is rewarded, the reality is that bold leaders who ignore the will of the people will find they've lost ground in the long run, and the surest way to push the country in one direction is to force them to the other direction for a short time.

Down with Unions

And I'm thinking the dumbo governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, is beginning to realize that.  Not that he knows why he's facing so much opposition, as he probably believes his own spin that it's outside agitators causing the problem.  But it's obvious that he knew enough about politics to understand that he needed to ignore them and cram his vision down Wisconsin's throat as quickly as possible, because it wouldn't work if people were able to form an opposition.

But, well, duh.  Guess what, genius.  You just pissed off some of the most educated people in the state and they do know how to organize.  I mean, come on.  Teachers.  Like teachers don't know how to organize unruly groups of people with military precision.  I've been around enough kindergarten classrooms to know that these people are like magicians.  Seriously.  I've been put in charge of a few classrooms on a very temporary basis and saw how quickly it devolved into lord of the flies without a proper teacher in the room.

And taking on the rest of the union people is equally stupid.  Cut welfare benefits and you'll get a bunch of poorly organized poor people shouting, which only encourages the Republican base.  Crackdown on immigration and you'll see a bunch of poor Hispanics shouting, which only encourages the Republican base.  Crackdown on unions and you get a bunch of middle-class white people shouting.  And that doesn't help Republicans at all.  And no, this isn't fair.  But that's how it is.  You can hurt a lot of people, just as long as they're not non-poor white people.

Equal and Opposite Reactions

And Walker made the same mistake they all make.  Because yeah, sure, you can cram your vision down.  And according to the extremist belief system, that's always the thin end of the wedge which only makes future victories easier. 

But the truth is exactly the opposite: Every victory you get makes future victories more difficult.  Every mark you get on your side is another strike against you by the opposition, and you're just adding fuel to your enemy's fire.  As much as Republicans were always going to hate Obama, they hate him so much more because of what he accomplished; which is what motivates them so much.

And really, the ideologues who insist upon boldness aren't citing some well-known strategy for winning political battles.  They've got their goal in mind and they don't want anything to get in their way.  So they push the "bold strategy," not because it's a proven winner, but because they don't know what else to do.  In fact, they don't even understand how politics works otherwise and they end up like Donald Rumsfeld and his "coercive diplomacy," in which the word "diplomacy" has no meaning and they just mean coercion.

And in the end, it's all about the vote.  If you don't have the votes, you're not going to win.  And that's how it's supposed to work.  And yeah, that's understanding that corporate interests can buy the ads that woo the votes, but that's the whole point.  You can convince people to support you, even if it's against their best interests.  But conversely, you can get people against you, even if you're cramming the best of policies down their throats. 

That's just human nature and I like that about people.  We shouldn't treat people like cows.  They might all moo if the right commercial tells them to do so, but they have to want to do so.  And if your plans don't involve getting people to want what you've got to sell, then I don't want a part of your plans.  One man's utopia is everyone else's hell.

When Liberalism Isn't Enough

As I keep saying, the people who attack Obama on the left aren't upset because he's an ideological traitor, as they claim, but because he doesn't attack Republicans enough.  Yet another case in point, when asked about the Republican governor of Wisconsin's plan to remove collective bargaining for public employees, Obama said:

On the other other hand, some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin -- where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain, generally -- seems like more of an assault on unions.

And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers, and they're firefighters, and they're social workers, and they're police officers. You know, they make a lot of sacrifices, and make a big contribution, and I think it's important not to vilify them, or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.

So, I think everybody's gotta make some adjustments, but I think it's also important to recognize that public employees make enormous contributions to the well being of our states and our cities.

And that's a good, liberal response.  Without a doubt, he offered firm support for unions as well as government employees, and clearly thinks it's wrong to hurt them in the name of fixing deficits. 

Attacks for Attack's Sake

But to those on the left who hate Obama, that wasn't enough.  Why?  Because he used the words "seems" and didn't attack Republicans. Here are some examples from the story I saw on this:

"Seems? Thanks, Captain Understatement."

"'seems like'? can we please have some more milque toast language Mr. President? Obama will never put these thugs in their proper place, too bad, such a missed opportunity in a long line of them."

"Thanks Mr. President for your support. Obama never misses an opportunity to ride the fence "

"Thanks for the smallest thing you could do President DINO Obama.  Why not call them out for what it is? Oh right, you want bipartisanship. You want to get along. How about getting some glasses and seeing what's really going on?"

But...what exactly would Obama achieve if he called out the governor and put him in his proper place?  Seriously, are we to imagine there's a large group of moronic but powerful Democrats who would do something to fix this, if only they had heard Obama insult the governor?  Really??  Obama's not even a Democrat because he used the word "seems"?

Because if Obama had put the governor and Wisconsin Republicans in their place, it would have made the story about Obama.  No longer would the story be Evil GOP v. Government Employees.  It would be Wisconsin Governor v. Obama, catapulting this jerk onto the national stage.  And for as much as Tea Partiers will already support the union busting, it would suddenly become their number one priority and would be cast as "Obama's takeover of state's rights," and how he's butting into issues he shouldn't be involved in.

Not that we should be basing political decisions upon what these bozos think, but the point is that it wouldn't help the unions for Obama to put Republicans in their place, and would only make the story about him.  So there's absolutely no reason for Obama to do that.  He gave a firm liberal response that supported the unions and called out what Republicans are trying to do, but without being controversial and stepping into the story.

But for some on the left, that's just not good enough.  They don't want a liberal president who speaks diplomatically and avoids political battles that have no upside. They want blood, and if Obama won't get it for them, it's his they want.

Theater of the Insane

Symbolism can be a powerful thing and it's naive to believe that things only have literal meanings.  Thus said, it's much too easy to take this sort of thing too far, and when we get to the point at which events primarily have symbolic meaning, we delve into the realm of insanity.  No longer is anything as it seems,  Rather, it's all part of a vast morality play that mere mortals can never comprehend.

And so it is with conservatives.  Nothing is as it seems and everything has some deeper meaning to what is intended.  And that's the only possible way they can view Obama as an anti-American socialist, as they have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.  But they "know" that he's a socialist out to destroy America, so it's safe to interpret every move and utterance he makes as having a deeper significance than it appears.

They've now gotten to the point where Senator Boehner is a RINO who's sold out the party merely for suggesting that Obama is a US citizen.  I can find quotes for that, if you like, but feel too lazy to do so.

Anti-Racism Racism

And so it is with Andrew Breitbart, who is now being sued by the woman he ruined with an edited video that showed the opposite of what Breitbart claimed it showed.  And hell, I'm willing to see him as a victim in that episode.  He was fed a video that he "knew" was accurate because it finally confirmed his suspicions that black people hate whites as much as he hates black people.  And he believed this so much that he failed to request the full video before using it to smear someone he knew nothing about.  I can believe that.  The man's a self-deluded moron so this could make sense.  I'm not sure how that works in his favor, but I can see him as a victim here.

But the funniest part is his explanation of the whole thing.  As he explained at the time, he wasn't trying to destroy Shirley Sherrod by casting her as an anti-white bigot.  Far from it.  He wasn't even thinking about her as a person and what it might mean to her life for him to show this video.  He was just trying to disgrace the NAACP.  Why?  Because they had pretended to be outraged by false claims of racist Tea Partiers as a way of getting them to shut up, and so he released the video as a way of showing that they were the real racists.  Oddly, that he was using her as a meaningless pawn in his war against the NAACP was his defense.  And again, I can believe that.

And now that Sherrod is suing him, this isn't about her being injured by his actions.  No, she's suing him as part of a grand conspiracy because he was about to expose something regarding the Pigford settlement; which Sherrod was a part of.  Once again, blacks bad people are trying to stifle Breitbart by pretending he had done something wrong; when they're the ones who were wrong all along.  Is it any wonder he hates blacks so much?

The Dude's Not Alright

And sure, it's possible he's just playing a game with this, but if it's a game, it's a really really dumb one.  Because arguing that this lawsuit is part of a black conspiracy involving the Pigford settlement isn't going to help Breitbart in court.  If anything, it'll make him look like a kook, and possibly get the judge to hate him.  So if this is a ruse, it can only backfire.

More likely, Breitbart is just insane.  Seriously.  Because he really did see a conspiracy of the NAACP trying to stifle Tea Partiers by invoking racism that didn't exist.  And he really does think they were just sitting on this lawsuit, waiting until he did something, and now blam!, they throw it at him just in time for Pigford.  Nothing is as it seems and everything is part of some giant plan that he's in the middle of.  And that is, of course, utterly crazy.

And that's who we're dealing with on the right.  These people aren't sane.  Seriously, that's not an insult.  They're crazy.  They see hidden meanings that don't exist and imagine conspiracies that don't make any sense.  After all, if they wanted Sherrod to sue as a way of stifling Breitbart, they'd have done it immediately; to tie him up before he could dig deeper into whatever he imagines he's uncovered regarding Pigford.

And you're not going to like this, but these guys are to be pitied.  They're crazy.  They can't help it.  We can have some fun at their expense, but at the end of the day, it's no different than mocking the homeless guy on the street or your crazy uncle who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt.  They live boring pointless lives that weren't at all what they were told to expect, and now they've placed themselves on the cusp of a giant movement on the precipice of history. 

And so, yeah, sure, there certainly are racists within the Tea Party movement.  And what Breitbart did by posting that edited video which he misled people about really could be libel.  But that's not what's happening at all.  This is all part of the cuspy precipice that's swelling around him and he couldn't be any happier about it.  Some people have to save lives to be someone important.  Breitbart just has to be crazy.

Why Prosecuting Bush Was a Bad Idea

I had a comment from a new reader regarding my previous post suggesting that it was the right decision for Obama to not prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Co. after they left office. And basically, the commenter was speculating that had we prosecuted them, Republicans would have had a shitfit and behaved exactly as they have for the past two years, regular people would have behaved as they did while understanding that America prosecutes crimes against important people, and Obama still could have done what Obama did because we can do more than one thing at a time.

And first off, I’m going to dispute the “more than one thing at a time” argument, as I think the Obama Admin did a terrible job at selling their healthcare ideas while writing the bill; which technically is only one thing at one time. Yet they kind of bungled it. Admittedly, it was a very hard thing they were trying to do at one time, but that’s the whole point. In fact, they did a lousy job at selling any of their agenda at the same time as passing that agenda; and again, that counts as not being able to do one thing at one time.

But of course, that’s a lie, as Obama wasn't doing just one thing at that time. Because he’s got a fricking executive branch to run, which is a hugely complicated thing that should be more than enough for anyone to handle. So him writing legislation is just icing on the cake, while selling the legislation is the work-out you have to do after having eaten cake. And all this is fucking tough.

Yet all the same, Obama did an awesome job in the grand scheme of things, and got us lots of good legislation that made America better.  Could he have done more?  Maybe.  But the standard isn't perfection, but rather, what we would have gotten without him.  And comparing Obama's first two years with eight years of Bush, or even eight years of Clinton; Obama looks like a total badass.

Some Serious Shit

Now imagine, if you will, Bush and Cheney being arrested. Yes, a fun scene, to be sure. But honestly, we’re talking pandemonium. Seriously. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condie and all the rest of those jerk-offs being taken away by the FBI and put in jail. This would be some serious shit.

To suggest that the media would be covering this 25 hours a day, eight days a week is an understatement. It’s all the media would be talking about for months and months. And if the Bushies got out on bail, they’d be on the news constantly talking about how this is a miscarriage of justice and how Obama had shat on the Constitution and how this was all a political farce and whatever. And the media would eat every fucking word of this. Every fucking word.

And as I said before, the Washington Post and NY Times editors would be shaking their heads in disgust at the horrible injustice of it all, and how Obama had betrayed his post-partisan rhetoric by doing this; and exposed him as being the next Pol Pot. And as much as these lightweights can mean anything, they’d mean it. They’d think they had some real point to make, when in fact, they themselves helped aid and abet these criminals in their actions. 

And the liberal blogosphere would be in ectasty as we pointed out how the media is wrong, while attacking conservatives for lying about it all.  And every discussion would be about whether Bush and Cheney deserved the Gitmo treatment; with progressives insisting upon an eye for an eye, while moderate-liberals like myself would say that Gitmo was too much and everyone deserves fairness.  And every news story and pseudo-news story that came out would be used to add more fuel to this fire and we'd all be having a great time discussing it.

Sucking the Oxygen from Washington

And in all this, where’s healthcare reform? Where’s the stimulus? Where are the jobs bills and Wall Street reform and all this? The media had a hard enough time covering these issues when Bush and Cheney weren't in shackles and jumpsuits. All the air and energy in Washington would have been solely focused on these trials, and nothing else would seem important by comparison. Sure, we could have gotten things done, but the focus would remain on the Bush trials.

How do I know?  I remember the Clinton impeachment.  For a whole fucking year, the only thing that mattered were the stains on Monica's dress and whether BJ's were sex.  And the same thing happened during the Watergate hearings.  Most people would much rather discuss rumors and political wars than they do policy issues, and that includes myself.  Policy is boring.  Everyone loves politics.

And then we'd have the rest of the country.  They don't know that Bush and Cheney broke the law.  They're not going to see this as the rule of law. They're going to see this as "What the fuck?  Can you believe this is happening?"  And they're just not going to do the research required for them to understand that Obama was doing the right thing.  They'd hear Obama's side and they'd hear Republicans and the media shouting about it, and they'd be like "What the fuck?  Where's my fucking job?"

Reeeevenge!!!

And the thing is, what difference would it make?  I don't believe in punishment for punishment's sake.  If a murderer is never going to murder again, and we can somehow know that he'll never murder again, I might be cool with that murderer getting off.  For me, justice is about rehabilitation and prevention; not vengeance, and the only thing vengeance makes better are the feelings of the person who's giving it.  But it doesn't fix anything.

And without a doubt, Bush and Cheney will never do these things again.  Not ever.  When they're lucky, they can get invited on to TV or have someone buy them lunch.  But besides that, they're toast.  Nothing important will ever come out of either of these incompetents, because they've burned their bridges with their horrible behavior.  So this isn't about preventing future crimes.  If you want to see Cheney do a perp walk, it's only for your personal enjoyment; not the rule of law. 

And maybe I'm wrong and none of this would have happened. and we could have gotten Bush in prison while also passing healthcare reform.  But why take the risk?  Why roll the dice when it's easy to conceive of lots of lousy outcomes, with very little pay-off?  And that's a cornerstone of Obama's success is that he doesn't take unnecessary risks or wage battles he doesn't already believe he can win.  And that's a super-smart policy.  Because every battle isn't an isolated event, and losing one battle can lead to many more losses in the future.

And of course, the biggest point: It's over.  It's done with.  We won the election, Bush and his cronies are utterly powerless, and Obama let them off the hook.  It's time to move on.  And if anyone's still angry at Obama because he didn't disgrace Bush even more than he already disgraced himself, then it's strong evidence that the person cares much more about hurting Republicans than they do about getting shit done. And that's someone we probably shouldn't be listening to; assuming we actually care about getting shit done.

While it can be important to look back and see what we did wrong, it shouldn't be at the expense of looking forward and seeing what we need to do right.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is probably not doing things right.  The past is only as good as it helps us in the future.

Pitfalls Everywhere

I’m honestly not sure which type of liberal scares me more: The ones who see traps in everything we do, or the ones who get angry because we don’t fall into the traps sitting right in front of our faces.

Exhibit A comes from a post at Bad Astronomy, which highlighted an utterly moronic YouTube video of Bill O’Reilly, in which Falafel defends his claim that ocean tides are proof of God’s existence by pointing out that things exist.  And well, yeah Bill.  Genius.  How did we get here?  Because nobody's ever asked that question before. 

And if that's a valid question, then a better one is "Where did God come from?"  And while we've got some good answers to Bill's question, nobody's got a good one for the god question.  It doesn't even make sense.  He's insisting that everything needs a creator, except for the creator.  But if God didn't need a creator, then maybe the universe didn't either.  This isn't rocket science.

And unless I'm mistaken, Bill seemed to even suggest that Mars doesn't have a moon, when it, in fact, has two.  And without a doubt, O'Reilly is so entirely clueless about science that he doesn't even understand the most basic questions we've already answered.  And if you want your brain to be put into a mind-blown stupor, I recommend clicking through and watching the video.  You'll certainly be dumber for it.

Bill Knows All the Arguments

But to some liberals, this video is proof of how dangerously brilliant O'Reilly is.  Seriously.  I found this in the comments there:

The secondary clip makes it even more obvious that “Tide goes in, Tide goes out” was a trap for Silverman. Bill knows all the arguments. He wants to trap someone in a battle over the intricacies of how the universe works, all of which take longer to explain and result in less snappy soundbytes than the religious view. His viewers want to see the guy that claims to be religious defeating waffling scientists with snappy soundbytes.

See?  Bill O'Reilly isn't a pinhead twit.  He's a super-genius who knows all the arguments and how to make smart people look stupid.

And for as much as that can be a trick, it only works if you're making arguments that aren't so easily proven false.  Because this is stuff they teach to elementary school children, and so it only makes O'Reilly look like a moron to say it.  Making a claim that taxcuts increase tax revenues is wrong, but difficult to explain in a short period.  The moon?  Not so much.

And of course, I fail to see how anyone watching the clip could possibly imagine that Bill didn't really believe he had solved the Does God Exist question.  He's not some super-crafty master-debater.  He's a bully blowhard who gets high off his own supply.

Reeeevenge!!!!

And then on the other end of the spectrum, we have the people who get angry when Democrats don't walk into political minefields, under this delusional idea that politics aren't real and you can grab everything you want, if only you're bold enough to do so.  And for as much as you can point out all the blunders Republicans repeatedly committed by believing in this theory, some liberals continually point to the Bushies with admiration and insist that Bush's boldness somehow paid off for him.

And I was thinking about this because I saw that there are still liberals who are extremely angry that Obama didn't prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the rest of those scumbags for their crimes.  And it's as if it was some slamdunk that we'd be able to prove that crimes were committed and the country would rejoice that we brought them to justice; entirely unaware of the political firestorm Obama would have been walking into had he chosen this dangerous path.

And while I can understand how people could be angry at the time, it's quite apparent that anger still hasn't gone away.  I'm now too tired to finish this post, so I'm just going to go ahead and reprint what I wrote somewhere else to someone who had said that we needed to prosecute them because appearances matter:

But you've got the appearances entirely backwards. The appearance would have been that we are a banana republic that prosecutes political enemies for partisan reasons. That wouldn't have been the reality, but that's what Republicans were already saying at the time and the media would have done their best to repeat it. And we'd have gotten years worth of hand-wringing by WaPo and NY Times editors insisting that Obama's political witchhunt was bad for America and exposed him as not being the post-partisan president he promised he'd be.

THAT would be the appearance. And the only folks who would know otherwise would be us liberals, who already know what crooks these guys are. Everyone else wouldn't have cared or would side with the crooks; just as they did already. They'd be looking at rising unemployment and wondering why we're sifting through Dick Cheney's emails instead of fixing the economy. And frankly, I think I'd have to agree with that, as I'm quite convinced that a Cheney trial would have sucked all the air out of the Obama Admin.

And how exactly does it discourage repeat behavior when the offenders are hailed as heroes, and given talk shows, book deals, and cush jobs for life? No, it's much better for these jerks to slink off into obsurity rather than give them the Ollie North, Gordon Liddy treatment. Prosecuting them would have made them made men in Republican circles. The only way a Republican can be hurt is if they betray the party. Republicans don't eat their own.


As a post-script, I just went back and read a few of the comments replying to my comment, and see that I got totally slammed for what I wrote.  These people don't care about appearances or getting things done, or even justice.  They wanted blood.

One person patiently lectured me that this wouldn't be a banana republic, because we were prosecuting crimes, as if that's the way everyone would see it.  Another commenter actually implied as if everyone already knew Bush/Cheney was guilty, and it therefore undermined our confidence to not see them prosecuted.  And this is the reality too many liberals live in: Where the truth would be understood by everyone, if only someone had the balls to say it on TV; as if no one's ever tried that one before.  And they'd know better if they ever got their heads out of their asses and actually listened to what people say. 

Like it or not, most people don't even follow the news, let alone liberal blogs.  They don't know what we know and going on TV and saying truth won't change a god damn thing.  And as I said, if we had spent our time prosecuting Cheney for waterboarding terrorists, even if we got a conviction, the average person would be wondering why we were wasting all our time doing that when we had an economy to fix. 

After all, that's what people say even when we weren't spending all our time reading Cheney's email.  But of course, these people really don't care much about fixing problems and improving lives.  They want to see Republicans eat shit and they'll yell at anyone who doesn't give it to them.

America Needs Infrastructure and Plenty of it

One of the things people get wrong is the idea that American companies can somehow outsource their labor to cheaper countires and maintain the same standard of goods/services that they'd get here.  While that can happen on the micro-scale, it can't in the big picture and if Chinese workers could be as productive as American workers, they'll soon be paid American wages and the whole reason for outsourcing becomes negated.

And so I'm happy to read stories like this, which explain how America is still the top manufacturing country.

What's changed is that U.S. manufacturers have abandoned products with thin profit margins, like consumer electronics, toys and shoes. They've ceded that sector to China, Indonesia and other emerging nations with low labor costs.

Instead, American factories have seized upon complex and expensive goods requiring specialized labor: industrial lathes, computer chips, fighter jets, health care products.

And as I said, if China and these other countries could produce what we produce, then they'd get paid what we get paid.  And not that it should matter, but in case you find authority figures appealing, I should mention that I stole this idea from Krugman (not that I'm saying he invented it, just that that's where I first heard it).

Power, Roads, and Training

And here's the part that puts the lie to conservatives who insist that Big Government sucks and we could run our country on third-world tax revenues while maintaining a first world country:

Hook says the United States offers advantages over poorer, low-wage countries: reliable supplies of electricity and water, decent roads. And some localities support businesses by providing infrastructure and vocational training for potential hires.
[...,]
"We need a highly skilled work force," Hook says. "So it's very advantageous to be in a country like the United States where people are educated and ready to be hired."

And that is undoubtedly the case.  It's not a coincidence that first world countries have first world laws and infrastructure and education; while second and third world countries do not.  We don't have these things because we can afford them; we can only afford them because we have them.  And if we did things like a third world country, we'd soon become one.

And the people who benefit most by a good education system isn't the Average Joe who might make $1.5 million his entire life, but the Rich Joe who makes $1.5 million every year.  The rich benefit the most from our first world infrastructure, so it just makes sense that they should pay the most for it, too.  After all, we wouldn't have fancy tax accountants to shelter their absurd incomes if we didn't have the government training those fancy accountants with loans, grants, and subsidies.

America needs an educated workforce.  America needs good roads and good water and good regulations.  These aren't luxuries we can cut back on when times are tough.  These are necessities that America requires in order to prevent times from getting tougher, and every penny we pinch on infrastructure now is a dollar we lose in the future.  America's fighting men need infrastructure.  The best infrastructure.  Plenty of it.


BTW, due to the obscure nature of my reference and because I like it so much, here's a link to America's Fighting Men Need Meat.

And here's the version you can dance to:
America's Fighting Men Need Meat

The Big Picture of Progress

One of my longtime and favoritist readers responded to my post on people who see compromise as a problem, lamenting the fact that we can't all get along and how we're heading for turbulent times; not least of which is Global Warming.  And I felt my response was important enough to not hide in a comment, so here it is.

Here's an excerpt of her comment:

I am not an "end of the world" lover, but I think we are going to be a failed species sooner than most failed species. Desmond Morris called us "The Naked Ape", and we still can't seem to get past our primate past. I believe our ancient planet will be going through one of it's many, many upheavals, when most of what we know and value will be destroyed.

And I definitely understand the point, but think she's reading too much into the intimacy of modern life to see the bigger picture of where we're heading as a species.  After all, on the grand scale of our species, it was quite recent that a large portion of our country was so convinced that it was their god-given right to enslave and destroy humans that they were willing to die fighting for it.  And even more recently, Europeans used their best minds to create a mass killing machine to destroy humans and conquer the continent to have it reflect their racial ideals. 

In fact, history is far more full of fighting, hatred, and death than was the opposite. By contrast, we're all BFF's.  Sure, Glenn Beck inciting hatred against an elderly sociologist for what she wrote over forty years ago is deplorable, but relatively recently, she might have been burned as a witch merely for owning cats or expressing opinions or for no reason at all. 

While modern Christians gripe endlessly about not being able to display the Ten Commandments everywhere, for much of history, such differences were a death sentence. 

Getting Better All the Time

And so we've seen thousands upon thousands of years where violence was the norm around the globe.  These days, we've got maybe 10% in our country wanting to fight, where "fighting" means insults and death threats.  And every once in awhile, some total loon goes bonkers and actually does something about it, and you can only find a handful of people willing to defend that; and even fewer willing to join them.  What was once the norm for thousands of years is now a freak event that 99.9% of people abhor.

And the point is that as bad as things seem, we're definitely heading in the right direction.  Sure, there are some people outraged at having a black president and threaten violence at what he's doing. But sixty years ago, Obama could have been a shoe shiner hung from a tree for talking to a white girl or jailed for sitting in the wrong seat. And two hundred years ago, he would have been a possession to be purchased on the free-market. This is real progress.

And really, we need these people. We need dissent. It's not good to go too far, too fast. As a species it's best to have variety, and the herd instinct can be even more dangerous than the war instinct. And at the bottom, we're all just dumb animals trying our best to make the best of what we've got, and we're struggling against millions of years of impulses that we don't understand.

But all the same, we're moving in the right direction. And the secret is to stay positive and keep our eyes on the big picture. 

Not the End of the World

Even with Global Warming, the Powers-That-Be will eventually have to work with us, as they'll see how they have more at risk than we do.  Because there is no nefarious force who wants the world destroyed.  Rather, all their actions can be explained by their short-term focus on quarterly profits; which not only causes them to oppose necessary policies, but also to hurt their own long-term profits.  Like it or not, shallow people find it easier to become Masters of the Universe than us nice people, and our system allows them to have far more power than their abilities can handle.

But eventually, even they'll be on-board with this, and the only people who will continue to oppose it will be mouth-breathing bozos who always have to be on the wrong side of everything.  But again, this is good.  It's good to have dissent.  It's necessary to have contrarians who say the opposite of everyone else, and they don't even understand the function they play for us.  If they knew they were contrarians who served as ballast for the human race, they wouldn't be effective. 

And the only issue is whether or not the bozo contrarians can wield the power necessary to hold us back from doing what we must.  They can't.  Exxon can buy senators and Glenn Beck can pimp unintelligent conspiracies to the masses; but that's just for the cash.  They don't really mean it.  And at some point, they'll let us do the right thing and move on.  And I'm tremendously impressed with our ability to get shit done and don't fear for the future.

We need to stay vigilant, but not distress.  After all, not only does worrying not solve anything, but it's counter-productive, as it acts as a substitute for action in our silly monkey brains.  And right now, we've got less to worry about than any generation ever.  It might not seem that way, but that's just because you weren't paying attention before.  I'll take someone denouncing our black president over someone owning him.

When Compromise is the Problem

One of the problems I noted in my last post was in regards to people on both ends of the spectrum (and I'm referring to those on the very ends, and not the vast majority in the middle), who refuse to compromise, as they somehow imagine that it constitutes a complete sell-out. 

So it's not enough for Democrats to get liberal policies if it means Republicans got something they wanted.  Sure, there was nothing inherently anti-liberal about the tax deal Obama cut last month, as taxing the rich isn't inherently a liberal position; but only one of necessity.  And if we didn't need their money, it'd be fine if they kept it. 

But that's not enough for some on the far left.  For them, the very fact that Obama gave Republicans anything is the problem.  And they'll denounce him as being anti-liberal, even though he did it to support liberal policies and the compromise he made wasn't anti-liberal. 

And as I keep stressing, for as much as these people imagine they're choosing policy above politics, it's the exact opposite.  They're partisans who insist that compromise is for the weak and it'd be better politics to hold out until we win; even if it hurt people.

Not Much of a Concession

And we certainly see this on the right, which is so entirely out of whack that they actually have their leaders say this crap.  And so we have Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in this exchange:

MCCONNELL: If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no and –

ALLEN: But that’s not much of a concession. That’s not bargaining, to just give you what you want.

MCCONNELL: Um, I like to think I’m a pretty good negotiator.

And well, no.  That really wasn't much of a concession.  And no, negotiating does not mean you just get what you want.

Working Together Isn't a Sin

And look, this country wasn't meant to work with steamroller politics.  If half the country wants one thing, and the other half wants something else, and both sides refuse to budge; nothing will happen.  That's how it was designed.  That's the idea.  This isn't winner take all.  We're supposed to work together for a common solution, and if enough people disagree with you, then you don't get anything.  That's not a bug in the system.  That's by design.

And if you're fine with nothing getting done, as Republicans are, then this works perfectly.  But...if you think there are problems to solve, like social and economic inequality, then you can't sit back and hold your breath until everyone fulfills your demands.  And since Republicans still have enough power to put the kibosh on our agenda, it means we have to work with the few reasonable ones we have in order to get anything.  And the more we try to use strong-arm tactics and insults to get them to agree with us, then less likely they will.

And again, that's by design.  This is the system we were meant to have and I support it completely.  I don't want a president that can force his will on the country without the agreement of Congress.  I'd rather have social and economic inequality if the alternative was being forced upon us without our consent.  Because such a system wouldn't work. 

Our government rules with the consent of the governed, and that includes the 35% or so crazy ones who don't know what they're talking about.  And so we're stuck working with people we might not like and being polite, even when we hate their guts; as it was meant to be.  Politeness isn't a vice in modern life; it's a necessity.

Extremist Kabuki Theater (Or: What to Do in America When You're Bored)

It's a well-known meme among those on the far left that there is no real difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, and the whole feud between them is some made up event used as an excuse for why both parties support the elite and never get anything real done.

And their evidence of this is that most Democratic politicians don't do more to attack Republicans, but rather, compromise with them in order to get tepid liberal policies. And they're confident that we could get strong liberal policies, if only we attacked Republicans more, refused to compromise on anything, and stopped accepting "minor" liberal policies, like helping the unemployed, improving healthcare, and repealing egregious practices like DADT. 

And we see something similar on the right. Of course, their conspiracy theory is slightly different, as they support the status quo and don't accuse the two parties of collusion.  Rather, they prefer to see moderate conservatives as "weak," as they're not strong enough to sit around, repeating bold cliches on their computers or barstools.  The way they see things, there's a vast liberal conspiracy perpetrated by a small but powerful liberal cabal that uses the liberal media and bribes to minorities in order to prevent America from regaining the glory days that only exists in their minds.

And oddly, this cabal is both rich and anti-rich, establishment and anti-establishment, led by minorities while wanting to keep them down, and wants to destroy America by weakening it so they can continue their dominance in order to help the Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, and any other dirty critter who hates America and wants to see the liberal cabal lose power.  Or...something like that.

Creating Reality In Our Own Image

Naturally, of these two groups, I've certainly got to side with those on the left. Not only do we share many of the same goals, but there is quite a bit of truth to the idea of powerful corporate interests preventing us from creating the policies we need.  And of course, the rightwing side is so entirely nonsensical that it's utterly impossible for one to wrap one's mind around it.

It basically amounts to them being victims besieged from all sides, which can be the only explanation for why things aren't working out better for them. After all, they had been promised that they would be wealthy crime-fighting astronaut cowboys when they grew up, but instead, they're stuck working for a living and wallowing in troubles like everyone else. Clearly, there can only be one explanation for this: George Soros and the Brown People.

But all the same, even the liberals are overstating the problem, as they cherrypick certain undeniable truths in order to simplify the answer. And that answer can only require one thing: Attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them and holding out until they get what they want. And in that aspect, they're identical to far-righties, who also insist upon attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them and holding out until they get what they want.

And that includes disavowing any halfsteps and compromises, while fighting the good fight until the end.  Both sides insist that it's better to get none of what you want than part of it, and if your opponent is willing to compromise, it can only mean you're getting screwed.

Creating Enemies for Fun & Profit

And in that regard, we start to see the real cabal of like-minded interests who pose a kabuki dance of fake fighting in order to get what they want. It's the folks on the far right and left, who insist on standing so firmly on their principles that nothing can possibly get done and they can wage an eternal struggle of good v. evil.  And while they insist that good policies are at the root of their agenda, in practice, attaining such policies is impossible; as it's intended to be.

If they get any good policies at all, it's a side-effect of this struggle, not the purpose. And they'll insist that any policy is an abomination unless it was done in their desired way. And so they continue with their eternal struggle, because their real struggle is with moderation and compromise.  They know that if they're ever allowed to have a real dogfight with their foe, they'll win.  And so they blame anyone who doesn't allow that to happen.

And until the traitors on their own side stop getting in the way, they'll be forced to fight the good fight against people they consider foolish heretics or enemy spies. And to the far-left's chagrin, they have so many people on their side that it's been "watered down" with moderates, while their counterparts on the far-right wield great power within their party and seem to be having all the fun; but only because the party already shed off all the moderates who were watering it down.

And so ironically, righties bask in the glory of a popular movement that's only extreme because it's so small, while lefties gnash their teeth at the weakness caused by their popularity.  But since the ones on the left prefer seeing themselves as a small band of experts fighting for justice, while those on the right cast themselves as part of a large group of Real Americans fighting for America; this is probably for the best on both sides. And the bigger the left gets and the smaller the right gets only pushes them further into their chosen direction, confident that they're doing what is right and holy.

And the end result is that they have a great war to fight, with goals which are as big and bold as they are impossible to attain. And if any victory is won by their side, it will be immdiately forgotten, as the goalposts move further into their intended direction. For them, it's not about winning the war, but having a war to win in the first place. They all know there's a war to fight. They just have to figure out where it is.

Reality Sux

And of course, the truth is far more mundane: Politicians are human and democracy is a popularity contest too often won by selfish, shallow idiots who know how to impress people with money. And because our Founding Fathers wanted to make it difficult for a minority to make drastic changes to our nation, we end up with halfway policies and compromises which reflect a rough average of America's populace as a whole.

And that's a feature, not a bug.  It's good that people disagree.  It's not healthy for a species if we all think alike and move in the same direction.  Herd logic should always be questioned, and we should always be careful about moving too fast at once.  But that's just not something these people like to acknowledge, as it removes evil from the equation and makes the solution too difficult for them to solve on their own.  So they're forced to invent a secret cabal keeping them down, while ignoring any fact that refutes that theory.

And so all-important goals like ending rescission and repealing DADT disappear from the scorecard the very moment we achieve them. Not because they weren't important, but because they undermine the theory of the evil cabal. And they only started believing in this cabal because modern life is incredibly dull and they'd rather see some Grand Scheme pitting their good against their enemy's evil than admit that there really isn't much reason to wake up in the morning other than to pay their bills and feed their pets.

And that's what outrages them most of all. These people don't need an ideologically perfect America. They just need a hobby.  I hope some day they get one, so the grown-ups can focus on getting shit done.  Sorry, people, but it's not about you.  Believe it or not, fixing problems is more important than your ideological purity.  Deal with it.

Why We Need Conservative Democrats, Part II

On my recent post about why we need conservative Democrats, a commenter wrote:

Actually, conservative Democrats make it more difficult for Democrats to get majorities in Congress. These rightists alienate core Democratic constituencies and lower turnout.

And that's a valid point, as I know there are many core Democrats who are turned-off by conservative Democrats who water-down our policies, undermine our positions, and make things unnecessarily difficult for us.  I mean, I can understand if they don't want to vote for our bills.  But why must they support Republican filibusters which deny us the opportunity to discuss our bills in the Senate?  Or repeat Republican lies which make it more difficult for themselves, due to their affiliation with our party? 

And I share that frustration, as these Democrats are engaging in practices that are too clever by half, and end up hurting everyone in the long run; including themselves.  Because Democrats can win in conservative districts, and they have to be conservative in order to do so.  And as long as they're better than the Republican alternative, I'll reluctantly approve of their victories. 

But supporting filibusters and Republican lies isn't necessary in order to win these seats.  They can vote their conscience, but they don't have to undermine us like this. Because it's not scoring them any points.  The only voters who will be angered if they don't support a filibuster or repeat rightwing lies are the hardcore wingnuts who wouldn't vote for them anyway.  And by doing these things, it makes their party id a bigger liability to them with people who are conservative, but still willing to vote for a Democrat. 

It's like a black man who tells everyone how scary black people are and why you can't trust them.  The racists still won't like him, while anyone who listens will be less likely to trust him.  So it'd be smarter for conservative Democrats if they expressed their conservativism, but without damaging the Democratic Party as a whole.  And if the party is liberal, it only hurts them when they demonize liberalism.

Why We Still Need Them

And so I understand perfectly how frustrating these fools can be.  But all the same, we need these seats.  And if anyone imagines that liberals can routinely win congressional seats in places like Kentucky and Indiana, they're delusional.  It's not going to happen.

Nor should it, as long as the voters in those districts are conservative.  We have a representative democracy for a reason and I fully believe that our politicians should represent their constituents, even if they're wrong.  That's a basic pillar of democracy.  It's not about coming up with the right answers.  It's about having the right system.  And that means supporting our system, even when it comes up with the wrong answers.  We don't have to like the answers it gives, but it's wrong to suggest that they're illegitimate. 

After all, America was founded with a compromise that said slaves were less than human; and we've moved past that into something far better.  Had our Founding Fathers held out for a more perfect solution, we might not be here today.  Supporting our opponents when we lose is the only way we can expect them to support us when we win.  That's what democracy is all about and if we always hold out until we get everything we want, we'll never get anything.

And if that means we need a Democrat in Kentucky who supports gun rights and opposes abortion, so be it.  Because no matter how conservative he is, he's still better than the alternative.  Because the alternative to a conservative Democrat isn't a Republican who supports gun rights and opposes abortion.  It's a Republican who wants to impeach Obama and investigate scientists and Muslims.  Anyone who suggests that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same simply isn't paying attention.

 Who's Zooming Whom

And that's why it's wrong for liberals to diss on Democrats because of the actions of conservative Democrats.  The idea is that if we punish Obama and moderate Democrats for the actions of conservative Democrats, we'll get fewer conservative Democrats.  And that's great, if you want Congress to investigate Muslims and scientists, rather than reforming student loans and repealing DADT.

And the comment I quoted above is really quite circular, as he's arguing that we shouldn't support conservative Democrats because many core Democrats will hurt the party because many core Democrats will hurt the party.  Because the solution, therefore, would be for them to stop hurting the party because of these conservative Democrats.  Then, the problem he mentioned would vanish.  We'd still support liberalism when we could, but would plug our noses and support the conservative Democrats, when we had no other choice.

Yet these people refuse to do that, and create the very problem my commenter was blaming on conservative Democrats.  Because we're going to have conservative Democrats.  It's inevitable.  We'll always have Joe Liebermans and Ben Nelsons that win office.  And if we continue hurting the Democratic Party until all the Liebermans and Nelsons are gone, then we'll always hurt the party. 

I mean, hell, there's no reason for Lieberman to be conservative, as he's not from a conservative state.  But as long as he's in office, we're stuck with him.  And if we purged the party of every politician who stood in the way of our agenda, then we'd never have a majority in Congress and our laws will become more conservative.  Perhaps I'm stupid, but I fail to see how that helps liberalism.

Bigger than Liberalism

And mind you, I fully believe that Americans are liberal, including the most conservative of them.  It's easy to be a conservative, until reality hits us personally.  After that, we all want the government to be our friend and demand a liberal interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to do as much as possible to help us out.

But perceptions are more important than reality when you're dealing with people outside of yourself, so if that means we need to woo voters who desire to hurt their own interests in order to help them, so be it.  I'm a pragmatist.  I'll do whatever it takes to get liberal policies.  Unfortunately, many of the people who consider themselves the purest liberals don't agree.  Sure, they'll demand liberal policies.  They just don't want to have to sacrifice their purity in order to get them. 

But with all the problems we need to fix, I'll take my liberalism any way I can get it.  If that means we have to whore ourselves in order to repeal DADT and help the unemployed, so be it.  Ideological purity isn't going to put food on anyone's table or get them the cancer treatments they need.  It's better to help people with compromises than hurt them with purity.  Anyone who says differently is selling something.