Category Archives: Uncategorized

Bomb, Bomb Iran—another Middle East War

Here we go again. In a desperate bid to alienate the 9 remaining Muslims who don’t already hate the USA, the Republican candidates now seem to differ only on whether to bomb Iran right away or just real soon.

Now of course bombing is the Republican default solution for international problems, just like cutting taxes for the wealthy is their universal remedy for internal woes, so I can’t actually be surprised about these drumbeats. What would surprise me would be some discussion of the risks and benefits of the various geopolitical options.

I think we can agree that, all things being equal, Iran not having nukes is better than Iran having nukes. Religious nutcases with nuclear weapons make everyone nervous (an excellent reason to keep Rick Santorum out of the White House). But all things are rarely equal. So what do we risk by bombing or not bombing Iran?

The risks of bombing include

  • Immediate war—that might not even achieve its stated aims
  • Consolidation of the Iranian theocracy
  • Long-term polarization of the Muslim world against the USA

War: Bombing another country is of course an act of war and the Iranian rulers would be at significant risk if they didn’t respond. Likely retaliations would include missile strikes on Israel, terror attacks on US military and civilian targets around the world, and interference with oil shipments to the West. Israel thinks the missiles would kill “only” hundreds, which they would tolerate. Not sure how many terror bombings and increases in the price of gas the US would tolerate without escalation to strikes on Iranian military targets and even invasion. Furthermore, although it’s likely that bombing would slow the Iranian nuclear program, it’s unlikely that material damage could stop it. Israel’s hope (see NY Times op-ed by a former chief of Israeli military intelligence) is that an attack would deter Iran from further work on a nuclear capability. However, it’s equally arguable that they would consider an attack prima facie evidence that they need nuclear weapons and would double their efforts.

Theocracy: Enemies are a despot’s best friend. There’s nothing like an external threat to unite people behind a regime, however oppressive and incompetent (eg, 9/11 and G W Bush), and an actual war is even better. Who could fail to rally ’round the flag when bombs are falling? Right now, the Iranian theocracy is tottering, as last year’s near-revolution showed. However, an American and/or Israeli attack would confirm the mullahs’ fear mongering and lock them into power for another generation or more.

Polarization: The main problem with nuclear weapons is not other countries having them, it’s other countries using them. On us. The more the USA is viewed as the enemy, the more likely we are to come under attack, conventional or nuclear. One more war with a Muslim country would probably be one war too many for most Muslim nations, and the populist movements we have seen spring up in many places would likely turn anti-American. The biggest existential threat to the USA in the next half-century (aside from a far-right-wing revolution) is a global nuclear exchange against a united Muslim world. Right now, they are too fragmented, but given sufficient motivation, the Muslims might well come together—united to protect themselves against us. Note that the Muslim world is already completely polarized against Israel, so this element is a risk only for the USA.

 The risks of not bombing involve Iran developing nuclear weapons, leading to

  • Nuclear missile attack on Israel or nuclear terror attack on USA
  • Deterrence of Israeli and American interventions in the Middle East
  • More brazen conventional terror attacks on Israel

Nuclear Pearl Harbor: A surprise nuclear strike on Israel or the USA is the specter that is raised in public. Scary? Yes. Gonna happen? No. Not even close. The reason being that Iran would be turned into a glowing wasteland in retaliation. Just because they send a few people to blow themselves up in shopping centers doesn’t mean they’re willing to destroy their whole country. And they’re not going to gamble that a weapon donated to a terror group would not be connected to them. The reality is that Iran would join the same nuclear stand-off that has prevented nuclear war since 1945.

Deterrence of US and Israeli interventions: The USA and Israel would feel less confident about intervening (i.e. invading and bombing) countries tied to Iran—Lebanon and Syria, both of which have made trouble for Israel over the years. Israel wants to maintain a free hand to quash threats from these countries. This is almost certainly the main reason for Israel’s strong push for us not to interfere with (and preferably to help) a military strike on Iran.

Increased terror attacks on Israel: Tied to previous point. Iran might feel emboldened to support an increased level of terror attacks on Israel. However, for this to be true, it would have to be the case that Iran hasn’t gone beyond current levels for fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation. It’s not at all clear that Israel would launch a nuclear strike solely in response to terror attacks.

So, in total, I’d say the benefits to the USA are far outweighed by the risks. For Israel, the balance is more in favor of an attack, and that’s likely what Netanyahu will push for on his visit here next week. So is it American or Israeli interest that will drive American foreign policy this year? Let’s see what President Obama tells AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, self-described on their website, http://aipac.org/, as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”) when he addresses their annual policy conference tomorrow. They’re pushing hard for unqualified US support of whatever Israel wants to do. What do you think will happen?

2012—Year of The Bible

Yes, folks, this is officially the Year of The Bible. That is, at least here in Pennsylvania, courtesy of a State House bill passed on Jan. 24…by a vote of 193-0. As reported in the Phila. Inquirer yesterday, the bill says there is “a national need to study and apply” scripture.

Well, you know how I always like to heed our state Republican overlords, so I dusted off the scripture and selected a couple passages to “study and apply.” Surely this will help me to achieve the proper Republican attitude—since the bill was sponsored by House representative, Republican Rick Saccone, R. Allegheny and given “non-controversial status” by House Speaker, Republican Sam Smith .

Proverbs 22:16, “He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.” Wait, I thought this was a good thing?? Maybe it just means that the poor don’t have enough money to be worth stealing. Yeah, that’s right. And of course they never heard of lobbyists back then—you’ve gotta give a little to get a little.

 Proverbs 31:8-9, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

Deuteronomy 15:11, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”     

What’s with the darn poor people, already? They’re just the takers, not the makers.

Hebrews 13:5, “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.”

Matthew 19:21-22: “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young [Republican] man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” Jesus, WTF, man? Must be a typo or something. That sounds like some kind of socialist-commie welfare state.

 James 5:1-4, “Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.”     Of course those illegals who mow the lawns are crying. We’re sending their sorry butts back home! Ha.

 1 Timothy 6:4-11, “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”      I think this must just be addressed to the Hollywood elites, not the job creators. I mean, you can be godly and rich, right?

 Matthew 19:23-24, “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Uh-oh. Maybe camels were smaller back then. Like, a whole lot smaller.

 Matthew 25:41-45, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'”    Hey, Jesus, wasn’t me, man.

 Ezekiel 16:49, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Newt, Newt, is that you? But you’re a holy man. I’m confused.

Boy, these Bible passages aren’t helping me feel very Republican at all. Isn’t there something in there that’s a little more right wing? Oh, ok, here we go…

 Matthew 25:14-30, “For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”     Yeah man! Now the Bible’s talkin’ ! Cut taxes for the rich, fewer benefits (like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) for everyone else. And throw those foreign workers out into the darkness!

 1 Corinthians 10:24, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” Hoo boy, this is great! We should seek after the other guy’s money! I bet this is on the boardroom wall of Bain Capital. All right! That is what it means, isn’t it?

 Ecclesiastes 10:19, “A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything.” At last! True Wisdom for the Republicans! The Bible clearly sums up the Republican platform in one line! Thanks, Bible.

Oh, and just forget about all those other passages about helping the poor. Those were all written long ago, way before there were such fine social safety nets as we have now. But in any case, just to be safe, maybe next year should be the year of Atlas Shrugged, rather than the Bible.

 What scripture passages do you suggest we study and apply?

No Blood for You

During my years as an ER doc, I had many occasions to take care of Jehovah’s Witness patients. These folks, of course, have a religious belief that getting a blood transfusion is an awful sin, and they would always make sure to tell me this whenever they came in. Most of the time it wasn’t an issue, because they just had the usual non-blood-requiring ER problems like heart attacks, sprained ankles, crabs, etc. But every once in a while, somebody would really need some blood, and they just weren’t going to go for it. They’d rather die, it was such a sin. Well, whatever. I’d explain why they needed a transfusion and what might happen if they didn’t get one, and move on with plan B—that’s plan B as in “give IV saline and cross my fingers” as opposed to Plan B the contraceptive product.

Yeah, contraception. This week the Catholics are all up in arms because apparently the businesses they run (such as hospitals, like St. Agnes, where I had my first ER job) have to make sure that the health insurance they provide employees meets certain basic requirements. Requirements that the government only has because sneaky CEOs would otherwise provide health “plans” with $$ saving limitations like, say, covering only one lung, or only diseases that were acquired from the Amish…within 12 hours of filing your claim…which must be handwritten in triplicate…in Urdu. One of the multitude of such government requirements is that the health plan cover contraception. Holy Water, Batman! Non-Catholic employees must be permitted to disobey Catholic dogma? What will the evil government think of next!?! (we know the Catholic employees would never avail themselves of contraceptive services, so it’s only the non-Catholics that are a concern).

But isn’t this impinging on the Catholic employers’ religious freedom? God, I hope so. But that’s just me—the right wingers and bible thumpers went nuts. They’ve been shouting “Freedom!” like Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart. Got me to thinking, though. What if your CEO was a Jehovah’s Witness? Should he be able to forbid health insurance that covered blood transfusions? What if you worked for a Christian Scientist? They don’t believe in any medical treatment. Your health plan would be real cheap—say two prayers and call me in the morning (if you can).

But Rob, you want to make Catholic businesses provide health care that goes against their beliefs!

Actually, I don’t. Not for a moment. What I want is to get business out of the business of health insurance. It’s absurd that our health coverage (and all too often, lack thereof) depends on where we work and who we work for. Medicare for all.

I kind of see a win-win here, don’t you?

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Charity and Health Care

Well, the Komen Foundation, that darling of the gifting class and people who like pink, let out quite a loud, smelly one this week with their decision to stop donating to Planned Parenthood. The odor wafted quickly through the social media and rightly drew major attention to their leaders’ conservative agenda to keep women away from anyone who might at some time have spoken to someone about abortion.

The resultant shitstorm, and Komen’s turn-about have been amply documented, and I have nothing to add to the immediate story—beyond mentioning that most seem not to have noticed that Komen hasn’t said they will continue funding PP past their current pledge, just that they will let PP “apply” for further grants.

Here’s what nobody’s raised so far: This is what happens when you depend on private charities to provide basic human services! Private groups (eg, Komen, Planned Parenthood) by definition are not accountable to the public. Their aid can shift at the whim of the directors, members and donors of the group (case in point), and often comes with strings—religious ones with groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Salvation Army. And even with the most even-handed, right-minded (not right-winged), ecumenical groups, their ability to keep operating depends completely on their ability to continually attract voluntary donations. Hey—this is how you put on a community arts show or send the high-school band to march at Disney World. But it’s a completely bogus, finger-in-the-dike approach to providing fundamental human needs. Conservatives like to recount the all-too-numerous “success” stories of private charity, how somebody had cancer and lost their job and all their neighbors pitched in and had a bake sale or something to pay for the person’s chemo. Yaay. What happens if the neighbors don’t like you very much, or even know you at all? What if your neighbors are poor? If they’re tapped out from donating money to care for the 3 other people on the block who have cancer? These aren’t success stories, these are failure stories. Failure of our society as a whole to face up to its responsibilities and instead hope that somebody else will take care of the problem. Sick and can’t afford care? You can always beg on the street.

Servant and Master

It’s ever been fashionable for political candidates to refer to themselves as “public servants.” They do this so frequently that it tends to obscure the fact that, for once, they are absolutely, 100% right. They literally are our servants, just like the tuxedoed valets and uniformed maids on Downton Abbey—people we hire to do chores that we don’t have the time, inclination, or often capability to do. But instead of cleaning the fireplace, washing dishes and polishing the silver, public servants put out fires, clean toxic spills, and fix the roads. I grew up on my grandfather’s farm, and he spoke of how in the early 1900s, he and the other nearby farmers paved the dirt road leading to their farms with crushed stone, as they were tired of getting stuck in the mud. And when I say they paved, I mean they got their horses and wagons, loaded them with stone from the local quarry and laid and packed 2 miles of road—by hand. Other than Ron Paul, anybody else against hiring public servants to do this stuff? Didn’t think so.

 So where’s the source of tension between us and government? Particularly among the conservatives (and the 1% who draft their marching orders). After all, the 1% like having servants. Why should they mind a few more, especially ones who don’t live in the house, where they might filch the caviar while people are out? Well, the reason is that public servants are funny kinds of servants. They work for us, but we also grant them power over us. They can tell us what to do and not do. They can take our money, our possessions and sometimes even our lives. Funny kind of servants indeed. Sort of like if Downton Abbey’s butler, Mr. Carson, could decide to have the Earl beaten for taking an extra helping of beef Wellington (would make for effective dieting, though).

Republicans say the answer to the problem of servants-as-masters is smaller government. Now I’m as much in favor of value for money spent as anyone on the Right, but I don’t see how focus on quantity of government is terribly helpful. Complaining that government is “too big” is like rejecting one of Lady Gaga’s hits for having “too many notes.” Anyone think that a small government with a small budget—like, say, the Taliban—can’t be cruel and oppressive? Genghis Khan didn’t slaughter millions across 2 continents because his bureaucracy was out of control. A government could be quite evil with only 2 laws: “Everything belongs to the king,” and “Obey the king or die” (which probably was the sum total of government through much of human history). Quantity of government power is not the problem, it’s what it does with its power. Although the Constitution serves to check government power, its general and sometimes vague requirements must be applied and interpreted by the courts. And this means the only way to ensure quality government comes down to staffing it with quality people.

 That’s why our presidential candidates’ personal qualities need to be unashamedly brought to the fore. In one of the recent Republican “debates,” Newt called questions about his personal conduct “despicable,” and the debate moderator tripped over himself backing down. Why are we reluctant to consider the “character issue?” Perhaps because it’s so much easier for pols to justify, excuse and otherwise spin their character (and their opponents to twist and demonize) that we are wary of trying to judge candidates’ personal qualities. More likely we fear appearing subjective, rather than objectively focused on concrete policy statements like, say, plans to colonize the moon. But no matter how detailed the position papers, no one really knows what problems we’ll face in the future. We can, however, judge the qualities of the people we put in place to deal with them. And one of the key things we should know about someone given power over us is how they treat other people when they’re not constrained by law but only their character. Newt treated his ex-wives poorly—how will he treat strangers like you? How will other candidates for office treat you?

Voting With Dollars

Well, John Huntsman has jumped out of the clown car for the last time, finally announcing he is leaving the GOP race to be not-Obama (see today’s NYT article). I would think the Republican Party should be pretty concerned to have lost the only relatively rational and human-appearing being in the race and to be stuck with the current disturbing mix of phony, greedy, ignorant buffoons (I leave out demonically possessed, as Michelle Bachmann has already given up).

So why did Huntsman leave? Obviously, it had to do with his performance in the polls (face it—coming in behind Stephen Colbert in SC is not a good sign). But let’s think about this. Why should these “polls” matter one whit? After all, elections are the real polls, and we’ve had only 2 of 50 so far (or maybe only 1 ½, as the Iowa caucuses aren’t even real elections)—that’s 4% of the states and, given their relatively low population, likely even less than 4% of Republican voters.

Oh, Rob, you just don’t understand. It’s all about the money (hmmm, where have we heard that before?). Poor performance in polls (and in a few trial-run elections) mean that a candidate isn’t “strong” and thus probably wont win. And thus people with lots of money wont donate any of that money to the candidate. Leaving aside the negative feedback nature of this system (which means that small perturbations of an initial state amplify themselves, usually to destruction) that creates self-fulfilling prophecies, what does this really mean for “democracy?”

Well, it means this: We actually have 2 separate, parallel elections. The first election uses not votes, cast one per customer, but dollars, cast many per customer (but only from customers who have lots). Now of course the dollar election doesn’t occur on just one day, or even 50 separate days. The dollar election is every day, and the dollar tallies are reported religiously by the media. As candidates rise in dollars, they spend them on ads. The ads help them rise in the polls. And the polls help them get more dollar votes. This is now a positive feedback amplification—the winners of the dollar vote become strong, and the losers drop out of the race. Hence Huntsman. Does anyone think Huntsman (or other departed candidates with a national following) would’ve dropped out if each of the candidates had the same sized pool of funds? Of course not. They would’ve stayed in and let the real vote (not the dollar vote) play out and we could all see who the most voters in the whole country wanted.

But that doesn’t happen. Because the dollar vote has had its destructive effects long before most people votes take place, we-the-people are left to choose only between the winners of the dollar vote. Is this so bad (rhetorical question; if I have to explain this to you there’s no hope)? Yes,Columbia, it is. Reason being that it’s not “one person, one vote.” Some people (now including corporate people, thanks be to SCOTUS) are able to cast lots and lots of dollar votes. But a great many people who can cast their single person vote just fine can’t afford to cast any (or very many) dollar votes. This means that the winners of all national and state-level elections have already been pre-elected by the dollar vote. Whomever the people voters choose, of whichever party, has already been elected by dollars, dollars that come from a tiny subset of the electorate. And this subset has its own agenda, which is not shared with the rest.

So why do we want moneyed people and corporations to have this outlandish, outsized, outrageous control of our electoral process? Well, people (and corporations) need to be free to do what they want with their money. After all, that’s democracy.

American Taliban

As the neverending Republican campaign for the presidency slogs along to its distant conclusion, I’d like to step back for a broader look. We focus on details: What regulations should we apply to offshore oil drilling? Should rich people pay 35% or 39% income tax? Is giving “historical” advice to Fannie Mae worth $1.3 million? And of course these and similar questions are very important, sometimes critically so. But, despite the strength of partisan opinions (including mine), it’s clear that many if not most have no objectively “right” answer (well, maybe except for the one about giving historical advice to Fannie Mae). Certainly not right answers in the same way that “How many houses were destroyed in the latest Alabama tornado, and how much will it cost to repair them?” has a right answer.

Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to understand what candidates want to do and their reasons why. But not only do politicians tend to try to dodge providing detailed (and hence debatable) answers, but there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to hear their opinions on everything. Hence the need to take a broader look past the day-to-day antics of who the Republicans want to bomb or jail. So, how do we do that?

Well, if we’re going to give vast power to a person or group of people, it would help to know what kind of people they are. Although I wouldn’t hold that we each can be stereotyped as one, specific kind of person, I think everybody knows from day-to-day life that we all have underlying character traits (or tendencies, if you will) that shape how we typically respond to problems and challenges. So what are the traits we want in people to whom we hand power and authority, people to whom we might turn in times of personal or social need? Maybe more importantly, what traits do we not wish to see? (If it would help redirect you from thoughts of partisan politics, think of bosses you’ve worked for, rather than political candidates)

Well, maybe it’s just me (or maybe not) but let me throw out this starter list of character traits we don’t want in people who are tasked with representing the incredibly varied interests of large numbers of people:

  • Cruelty
  • Rigidity
  • Intolerance
  • Mean-spiritedness

Perhaps you might argue that it depends in part on what problem we’re addressing. For example, if we need to lock up (Al Capone) or kill (Al Qaeda) dangerous people, maybe we need cruel, rigid, intolerant, mean-spirited leaders. On the other hand, since we first need to figure out who to lock up or kill, maybe we don’t. And if there’s a problem to which incarceration or death is not a solution, then what? Typically, leaders with these negative traits deal with such problems by denying their existence (what climate change?), and then suggesting that everybody just deal with it on their own (good luck with that flood thing!).

There are numerous historical examples of individual leaders with those repellant characteristics (eg, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Donald Trump). But what happens when the whole power structure of a country is composed of people like that? Look no further than Afghanistan under the Taliban—jail for kite flying or playing music, no education for women, mandatory observance of the leaders’ religion, a haven for Al Qaeda but not for anyone who’s sick. Great place, don’t you think?

But what’s that got to do with us, here in America? Well, for some, strange reasons (for once, no sarcasm intended) one of our political parties has been possessed by the spirit of the Taliban, right down to the religious fundamentalism (except they are consumed by the tenets of a different religion). Which party? Does even the most right-wing among you think for a minute I’m talking about the Democrats (you of course don’t agree with me, but you knew right away who I meant, didn’t you)? No, the Republican party (though certainly not every Republican) has taken on a Taliban type of cruelty (GW Bush chuckling about what he imagined an executed woman’s last words were: “Please don’t kill me!”), rigidity (refusing to democratically compromise so that everybody gets a little of what they want), intolerance (gays out of the military), and mean-spiritedness (all our opponents hate America).

Now there are certainly many conservative individuals with whom I disagree about, say, the need for troops in Korea or stronger regulation of derivative trading, who are good-hearted people—people who donate money to help the needy, volunteer time to teach, etc. But can you honestly look at the words and actions of the Republican party (particularly its leadership, and especially the presidential candidates) and conclude they represent the positive traits I suggest we would like to see:

  • Fairness
  • Open-mindedness
  • Care for others (and by “others” I mean people of different sex, skin color, religion, ethnic origin, hobbies, fashion sense, etc.)

I didn’t think so. A shame.

Worst Redistricting Ever!

Well, we knew the Republican-dominated PA State govt. was going to stretch the bounds of sense and reason (hey, they’re Republicans, that’s what they do) in the 2010 redistricting, but this gerrymandering of the 7th District (of which Chadds Ford is part) is outrageous even coming from the likes of Dom Pileggi and Co. In a wonderful Christmas present for party-line incumbent Republican Pat Meehan, Democratic areas of the 7th, such as Upper Darby were excised and rural areas of Chester, Lancaster and Berks county were added. Delco Dems chair David Landau says of the new district, “It looks like an oil spill…we now have Amish farmers crammed in with the inner ring suburbs.”

Here’s the old 7th:

 

Here’s the new one, which has been labeled the 5th most gerrymandered district in the country. I’m hard pressed to imagine more outrageous ones, but I bet they’re all to benefit Republicans:

 

Horse Race Journalism

When I was 11, I loved horses, and often watched horse races on TV (beyond everyone’s obligatory viewing of the Kentucky Derby). It was always helpful when the broadcasters would provide commentary like “Sea Biscuit’s in 4th but moving up strong,” which would help make sense of the seething mass of identical brown horses. I suppose that’s what today’s journalists and political pundits think they’re doing when they provide their daily (or hourly) accounting of who’s ahead in the presidential primaries—along with endless theories of why. We’re treated to interminable discussions of candidates’ hairstyles, lapel buttons (flag or no flag? disease ribbon?), verbal missteps, and the fact that were seen shaking hands with someone whose neighbor once said he thought Muslims really weren’t so bad. And the sole context for these discussions is the horse race commentary “Michelle’s in 4th place in Iowa now, will this help her with left-handed voters who hate cats?”  

But the thing is, the sole point of a horse race is to see who wins.  There is no larger meaning of any kind, whereas, in politics, the race exists only as a means to an end—selecting someone to guide the nation. (To be fair, there are certain similarities, to wit that the winners of both types of races get to make more money and mate with larger numbers of desirable females). So how about we spend a little more time thinking about the end than the means?

 What do I mean? Well, I suggest that these on-screen “journalists” spend the months leading up to an election exploring in depth the consequences to the country of a candidate’s statements and positions rather than the consequences to the candidate. Wouldn’t you like someone smarter than you (or at least with more time to research the topic than you) to help figure out this kind of thing? This is such an alien idea, something so outside our everyday experience with TV “journalism”, that I’d better give an example. Here’s a random one: This morning, reading a typical horse race commentary, I noticed a writer mention in passing that Mitt Romney suggested we deport all 11 million “illegal aliens.” Ok, that’s certainly a concrete proposal (i.e., not “let’s keep America Number One,” or “I support our troops”), and is one that has been voiced in various forms by a number of Republican candidates. And immigration is certainly a very important issue. But to the pundits, the only importance to a candidate’s plan to remove 11 million workers from the country seems to be in how it might hurt his chances with Hispanic voters vs. help him with covertly racist voters in border states. What nonsense! I want someone with the time, money, and clout to access data and expert researchers (not partisan mouthpieces) to explore the consequences of this plan and explain them to me! What do I mean? Well, a number of questions come readily to mind:

  • If we deport a large number of people who are employed in low-wage jobs, who will do these jobs?
  • Are there people to take those jobs?
  • If so, will they have to be paid more than the illegals? And presuming they will (since if there were legal residents willing to take the jobs for less money than the illegals, the illegals wouldn’t be working here in the first place) how much more will it cost?
  • Who will pay these costs and how will they affect the economy?
  • Will increased costs drive anyone out of business?  
  • If the illegals aren’t replaced, what work will not get done and how will that affect us all?
  • How much will it cost to identify and deport that many people and where will that money come from?
  • What are alternative proposals to deal with the issue of illegal immigration and what are their consequences?

 It took me a good 3 minutes to think of these questions, and I’m sure in 3 minutes you could easily add more sensible ones. And that’s just on the one topic. One passing remark by a candidate. What if we did that for all the major policy positions of the different candidates and parties? Invade this country? Bomb that one? Raise taxes? Lower taxes? Regulate trading of derivatives? What are derivatives, anyway? Gee, that would be hard! It would take a long time! Well, it would take too long for a 2 minute horse race, but not for a 2 year political race. Why not use the 24/7 “news” cycle for something helpful rather than entertaining? Bring back investigative journalism that focuses on something other than sexual scandals! Maybe we wouldn’t always have to be so surprised by the consequences of our country’s actions if we thought about them a little bit beforehand.

It’s Not the Committee, It’s the Republicans

Yes, I know there are always 2 sides to every question (sometimes more). But the failure of the supercommittee—the supposed grownups in the room—to reach a budget deal is a one-sided failure. The standard public and media response to blame both sides for not working together is flat out wrong. The responsibility for the failure of the supercommittee falls on the same Republican shoulders as the failure of Congress to do anything constructive.

Partisan rhetoric? Well, I’m certainly partisan, but that phrase makes sense only when the conclusion is wrong. And I’m not wrong. Simple proof: absolutely everyone knows what “working together” means, it means “I’ll give you some of what you want, if you let me have some of what I want.” Any disagreement here? Show of hands? I don’t think even Michelle Bachman could deny this particular segment of reality. Give a little to get a little is not only the core of politics in a democracy, but it’s the way we negotiate through our interactions with everyone—family, friends, work, etc. “Ok, we can have Thanksgiving at our house, but you have to pick up mom and bring dessert and drinks.”

So in this supercommitte failure, who was willing to give a little to get a little? If the answer is “neither side” then I’m engaging in partisan Republican-bashing. Well, let’s see. In short, the biggest bone of contention comes down to this: Democrats want to preserve social programs (eg, Medicare, Social Security) and raise taxes on upper income people, and Republicans want to cut social programs and not raise taxes on anyone. Did the Republicans offer to accept some increase in taxes in return for less severe cuts to social programs. No they did not. Did the Democrats offer to accept cuts in their favorite social programs in return for some increase in taxes? Why, yes they did. Not only in the supercommitte but for the past entire year of the budget debate.

So, the evidence is clear that Democrats have continually been trying to practice normal political (and human) interaction and the Republicans have not. This is a unilateral failure on the part of Republicans to participate in the democratic (small d) process. They want to come over for Thanksgiving and have you cook, serve them and clean up while they sit on the couch watching the game and drinking your beer. They scowl if you ask them to move their feet so you can clean up the crumbs they dropped. Blaming both sides is simply a cop-out, a failure to think clearly in the face of an obvious problem. Come to think of it, that’s the Republican failure as well.