An Historic Election

This year was an historic election. At least for me. In forty years of voting, this year was the first in which every candidate I voted for was elected. During the first thirty or so years of voting, I rarely went for winners. This was mostly due to my being outside – sometimes way outside – the mainstream of the American electorate. One year I voted for Jesse Jackson, and am proud of it. Another year I voted for Ralph Nader, not so much. As I grow older, though, I’m not sure what difference my vote (or anyone’s vote) really makes. Every two or four years we go through the machinations of democracy, passionately expressing our preferences (severely limited by convoluted prerequisites and primaries (why can’t everyone vote for whoever they want? – wouldn’t that be real democracy?)), pushing the buttons or filling in the bubbles, hoping against hope that what our button pushing or bubble filling is going to make any difference in the way the world is going to go. The truth is is that the world is probably less deterministic and more like a pinball machine. We bounce around from bumper to bumper in a free-form free-fall where we think our occasional flipper play has some real influence for how things will turn out, but that silver ball always ends up dropping in the hole at the bottom of the machine. Politics – life – is reacting. Shit happens, and whoever’s “in charge” (as if anyone ever is) responds in whatever way and whatever happens happens. The Greeks tried to teach us this centuries ago. They called it fate.  (Ask Oedipus.) Ironically, they also gave us democracy, a form of government that provides the illusion that one can counter fate.

Debased Debates

If the U.S. really cared about its democracy it would get rid of presidential debates. Or at the very least, televised debates. And for only two reasons:

1. Televised debates are only about style, not substance. Ever since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960, it has become commonplace to declare the “winner” to be the candidate who comes across better on TV (facial expressions, gestures, body language). But for those who only listen to the debate on radio, it’s usually the other candidate who comes across as the “winner” (control of facts and ideas). The medium is the message.

2. The TV networks – and especially the cable networks – hype the importance of the debates in order to promote their coverage (and advertising dollars), and in so doing skew the campaign to the “game of the week.” This week’s debate is the most important event of the campaign. Until it’s over, and then next week’s debate becomes the most important. Until it’s over . . . and so on. How quickly we forget those “most important” primary debates back in the spring, not to mention the “most important” conventions (now TV shows) in the summer.

Our democracy would be much better served if we went back to pre-television campaigns. Or better yet, further back to when candidates didn’t campaign at all. Maybe we could judge candidates on what they’ve done, written, and said rather than how they perform.

Legitimate Rape

I’m not sure whether Todd Aiken (Rep. Missouri) is ignorant or just not good at using the English language. “From what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV. “If it’s a legitimate rape,” he continued, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” And then he incredibly added, “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” This original utterance would support ignorance, if not full-blown lunacy. Who are these “doctors” who tell Aiken that pregnancies from rape are “really rare”? What the hell does “legitimate rape” mean? And what does “shut that whole thing down” refer to? Conception? That’s what doctors told him? And “there should be some punishment” for the “[legitimate] rapist” but not “the child”? What about the woman, the missing person (sometimes also a child) in Aiken’s scenario? Aiken would punish her by requiring her to bring the product of her rape to term.

The following day, after the political and cultural worlds crashed down upon his head, Aiken said, “In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview [can remarks in an interview be “off-the cuff”?] and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.” It’s good that he does, after all have “deep empathy” for “the thousands of women who are raped” – though not enough to allow them an out from their trauma of having to carry the fetus to term. And what exactly does he mean by that weasel word “misspoke”? Does he mean he wasn’t telling the truth? Or does he mean he shouldn’t have said anything at all? Or does he mean that he was telling the truth but he just didn’t word it very well?

Aiken followed up by opting for the last option, that he isn’t good with the English language: "I said one word in one sentence on one day, and everything changed," he told former pastor, former Arkansas governor, and current talk show host Mike Huckabee. But he didn’t specify what that “one word” or “one sentence” was. There are so many words in his original three-sentence utterance, it’s hard to determine what he’s identified as his sole slip-up. And let’s be clear: It’s not his wording that’s the problem. It’s his ideas. There’s no thesaurus that can save Aiken from the cruel and callous ideas that he espouses. He’s both ignorant and not good at using the English language. And heartless. And he shouldn’t be in any office in the U.S. government. That he already is – and may well be again – does not say anything good about our democracy.

The Price of Gas

Once again, gas prices are rising (every day for the past 18 days) and the predictions are for it only to continue into the summer until unleaded regular is over $4.00 if not $5.00 a gallon here in Iowa. (It’s already that in some places in Florida and California.) And of course the Republican candidates running for president are blaming Obama. The average price is $3.60+ right now, despite that the U.S. is exporting more than it has in years, that refineries are in full-mode production, and that demand is down. If the old supply-and-demand saw were in play, you’d think prices would be falling. But the blame is spread among (besides Obama) the Iranians, the Middle East in general, speculators, our not opening every inch of the country, land and sea, to drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, and for all I know, the Kardashians.

Maybe you have to be old enough (like me) to remember the rising gas prices and lines of cars blocks long waiting for gas that wasn’t there back in the late '70s to understand that this is a problem that’s been around for 40 years and no politician – president, senator, representative, mayor, or justice of the peace – has been able to do anything about it. Like so much else today, the price of oil and gas is complicated. It’s a world, not a national, problem. Every president since Nixon (Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) has made overtures – and even some flaying attempts – to alleviate the problem. But the problem persists. It’s ingrained in the world economy. And it’s ingrained in Americans’ addiction to fossil fuels. Actually, if you’re looking for a silver bullet (which Obama rightly points out doesn’t exist), that would be the place to start: Raise the tax on gas by $4.00 a gallon. Place a tax or surcharge on trucks and SUVs. Provide tax credits to hybrids and electric cars. Etc. But that’s not going to happen because we live in a democracy and in a democracy – especially our current democracy – politicians work only to get re-elected, and they don’t get re-elected by doing what the electorate doesn’t want them to do – never mind that it would be best for the country in the long-run  – and what the electorate wants to do is burn fossil fuels to their hearts’ content. Democracy is fueled by the will of the people, not the knowledge of the people, the self-interest, not the commonwealth. Is this a cynical view? Very well. But it’s one that’s based on watching our country’s “oil problem” fester for the past 40-plus years without any sign of alleviation or resolution. That’s probably a pretty solid basis for cynicism.

Dysfunctional Democracy

Our current stalemate in the debt ceiling / deficit mess (embarrassment) comes down to two systemic problems:

1. For the past 30-40 years our two political parties (why there should be only two parties is an adjacent systemic problem) have moved from each having basically three wings – conservative, moderate, and liberal (albeit to differing degrees) – to the Republicans having only two wings – a large conservative and a meager moderate – and the Democrats having their own two wings – a large moderate and a meager liberal. Where once there was a possibility of cross-party consensus on any given issue, almost every issue now is dominated by a clear and virtually full partisan divide, conservatives (Republicans) versus moderates (Democrats). So when neither party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, nothing but shit can result.

2. The fundamental underpinning of our democracy is deliberation, debate, and compromise. But in the current situation (see #1) there are a significant number of Republicans who follow the commands of Rush Limbaugh and refuse to compromise (let alone deliberate or debate) on the canard of “principle.” (Shouldn’t democratic compromise be a primary principle to hold, even above ideological principle?) More important, the notion of deliberation, debate, and compromise rests on an agreed upon goal. And in the current economic fiasco each side is pursuing a different goal: The Democrats are seeking to raise the debt ceiling; maintain the safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; cut spending; and begin to reform the tax structure and cut the deficit. The Republicans are seeking to shrink the government to nonexistence (“Starve the Beast” as they like to say), radically cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; cut education, health care, and social services; and maintain tax cuts and loopholes for the (especially very) wealthy. Compromise requires first agreement on what the mutual goal of action should be. And right now we just don’t have that agreement.

So that’s where we are. It’s not a pretty sight. And I can’t imagine it getting any better any time soon. The consolation of the cynic and pessimist is that they are most often rewarded by being correct. It’s not much, but it’s something.

Oligarchy

There is no democracy when corporations have the ability, through their monied influence (“speech,” the Supreme Court calls it, because corporations are of course “people”), to forge policy. This is not democracy but rather oligarchy, most recently made explicit once again by the Supreme Court’s decision to block the sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart. What the corporations want, the corporations get. They pay for it. When wealth drives decision, there is no democracy.