Prognosticating

Yesterday's Answer; Today's Question

Yesterday, to get a feel for American democracy's worst-case scenario, I read an article on the website VOX that suggested dysfunction in our politics could easily lead to a military coup.

This is simply not at all likely.

My immediate reaction was, "Where's your faith in America?"

After thinking it over, though, I decided that those who foresee a coup are simply viewing a decades-long struggle between Democrats and Republicans as a current crisis that has no such long history.

It may well be that we are experiencing an intensity of venom directed at the opposing party that is unprecedented, but hard feelings have been building for years, and are likely to be resolved in a predictable direction.

The year 2016 will see the nadir and reorganization of the Republican party as it copes with losing yet another presidential election.  The current disfunction in government will gradually resolve itself, however haltingly, as this process plays out.   We may be scraping the proverbial bottom, but I doubt we'll dip any lower.

What's Ahead

Winning D.C.

Signals in the political landscape had all been pointing towards a big win for Republicans in the fall of '14, and sure enough, just that happened: a smaller and older body of voters chose the champions of obstruction.

Though the scenery is quite different from that in 2008, when voters threw out the other party, the pattern of boom and bust is a constant.  And so, the defeated in 2014 look forward with hope to the familar scenery of redemption somewhere down the road. 

What might that familiar scenery look like?  A newly victorious party is energized and emboldened by success.  Actors further out on the fringe are given greater heed and the inevitable correction then occurs at the next election (though let's skip that eight years of Bush-like misunderestimating please!).  So, expect to hear more of Senator Ted Cruz and other wingers, who look to be candidates for over-the-cliff leadership.

In the meantime, Democrats might examine their presentation for '16.  The path ahead seems likely: many low-information voters remember the Clinton years as the 'good old days'.  The Clinton presidency's appeal was broadened by addressing typically Republican concerns (Al Gore's attack on red tape in DC bureaucracies, for example).  And a woman at the top of a national ticket should generate enthusiasm and provide for a convenient narrative.

And it's never too early to engage in what works, politically.  The most effective GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, it should be noted, have been shown to move elections, if done right.  Here's a good backgrounder on what works (short version: canvassers going door-to-door, talking with voters for 10-20 minutes each).

My own input here, as an unpaid door-to-door canvasser in my youth, is that engaging the public by ringing doorbells is hard work, even when paid, say, $20 an hour.  The temptation is to linger on friendlier porches and make a run for it otherwise. 

So, the key is obviously prior training on how to present a candidate.  There are also the work parameters that a party might engineer to reward success. 

Pretend you're part of a 2-person team knocking on doors.  If you've been well trained in how to present a candidate, you're halfway to a successful GOTV effort.  Now imagine that before and after ringing a doorbell you sign in on a mobile device.  Perhaps the device buzzes at the 10 minute mark to keep you moving.  Perhaps it senses heat and can tell when a third body is on the other side of a front door.  Maybe it senses the give-and-take of conversation to encourage questions asked.  Constructing work parameters can reward solid effort, minimize the lackadaisical impulse, and, coupled with effective training, get out the vote effectively.

Can enough money be raised to pay for the best trained and equipped canvassers?  That likely won't be a concern with potentially our first female president asking for votes.

2nd Book Read

2nd In A Series: Citizenville, by Gavin Newsom

Here's another book I ordered--this time new--and have read with some interest.

The author, former mayor of San Francisco and present Lt. Governor of California, identifies a desired transparency in government and the eventual public participation this will engender, as a new way forward for politics.

For example, if a city posts online all the information it gathers, citizens can then make use of the elements that interest them, and like app developers, the most popular compilations and uses rise to the top (a list of the oldest trees in the city, for instance, would be big with me).  All without a top-down approach that does the compilation and distribution on the taxpayer dime.

An approach that should appeal to Republicans (Newsom is a Democrat)!

The book's title is a reference to the online game Farmville that sees players caring for their imaginary rural spreads.  The author reasons that such a popular game suggests citizens would be happy to do something of the same thing in their own neighborhoods if given the chance at stewardship.

Excellent, except that if you've read my take on the eventual hook-up of public and polling, you'll know that rewarding the best new idea to be generated by a given neighborhood doesn't come close to the potential behind the thinking public mind, which is what I propose.

Goofy News Review

What's Up With The Whig -- Part Ummm...?

I don't blame people for misinformed views. There are precious few sources of honest information out there these days. So, what can one expect from the average working stiff?

Today's Herald-Whig has a letter-to-the-editor that suggests Republicans should give in to Democrats regarding the Debt Ceiling debate so as to tie the 'higher taxes' label around President Obama's neck. Interesting and a bit different from the usual Rightist militancy. Let's examine the writer's points:

1. the rich, whose taxes Obama and the Democrats wish to raise, are the job creators.

Except that these 'job creators' were paying the rate Democrat's now suggest during the Clinton years--and even more before that--and yet that decade under Clinton is considered, wistfully, as a 'boom' period.

2. "the massive increase in the national debt during the president's watch...would seem to lend credence to the (view that) ... the problem is spending..."

Except that the deficit under the Bush whitehouse was massaged to look smaller than it was. It was only when Obama began including the costs of our wars that the total went over a trillion a year. The only spending that Obama has added involved Stimulus to get the economy out of recession. The approximate share of responsibility for our annual deficits is 75% / 25%, Bush / Obama. This is because of the wars, the tax cuts (which were supposed to 'goose' the economy, but didn't) and the expansion of Medicare, all under Bush, compared to the Stimulus and automatically triggered recession-related spending (unemployment benefits, etc.) under Obama. In other words, Bush's decisions bore fruit.

3. "the country has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world."

Except that many corporations pay no taxes. How can this be? Because our tax code is riddled with loopholes and credits. So, the rate may be high, but US corporations actually pay much less than many of their counterparts in say, Europe.

4. "the rich already pay most of the income taxes in this country..."

Except that the rich are the only ones who have increased their income recently. Everyone else is just keeping up or has lost earning power. So, no wonder they're paying so much, it's because they're the ones raking in the money. For example, the difference between a corporate executive's salary and that of an employee's has changed dramatically over the past few decades. It used to be something like 10-to-1. It's now something like 80-to-1.

5. "about half the population in the lower income brackets pays little or no income tax..."

Except they pay all kinds of other taxes (sales, state, property, social security, etc.) The total tax burden is actually favorable to the rich. Plus, who wants to tax a retiree's Social Security benefits or a young family with kids and their minimum wage jobs?

6. "...and yet (the lower income brackets) as a group receive massive government entitlements."

Except the rich receive even more. A rich Senior enjoying Medicare coverage or deducting his employer-provided health care coverage is getting the better deal. And if you compare the tax breaks for things like mortgage deductions on second homes, etc., to a family on Food Stamps, for example....

So, I do hope the Republicans in Congress take the writer's advice and give Obama what he wants. The worm will turn and the Republican party can begin finding its way again.

Gentleman's Honor

What Would Buddha Do?

It's a remarkable fact that President Obama rarely seems angry. In fact, the only time I can remember him blaming political opponents was when he was joking--and even then, it wasn't personal. Instead, he merely describes his difficulties as taking office in difficult circumstances, or having to get to work digging ourselves out of a hole. No accusatory tone, no name-calling, no finger-pointing, nothing but a focus on the future.

Given the circumstances he faces, that's amazing. The Republican Senate minority leader, for instance, has said:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

And does that out-rank doing what's good for the country? Apparently so. For the past two years, and presumably for the next two, the minority leader has flouted senatorial procedure to intentionally slow the legislative branch to a crawl, has collaborated in holding up government appointments and in general acted in bad faith.

If President Obama's disciplined calm weren't genuine, though, he'd occasionally crack, as his opponents got under his skin. But no....

Nor do I expect him to tout his reserve. That, too, would go against character.

But surely a pundit or vocal voter will eventually notice, that at least at the White House, the tone in Washington has indeed changed.