Sarah Palin abused her power as governor in troopergate.  You’ll recall Palin pre-emptively cleared herself of any wrongdoing:

Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – On the eve of a report on a legislative panel’s abuse-of-power investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report clearing her of any wrongdoing.

This smashes her credibility with a bridge to nowhere sized hammer.  The sheer arrogance, lack of judgement and disconnection with reality inherent in the McCain campaign’s decision to issue the false report is is endemic to both Republicans.  It echoes John’s decision to declare himself the winner of the debate before his campaign officially declared he’d even take part.  And who could forget McCain’s claim one could “walk freely” in Bagdhad (with “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.“)?

The conflict between Palingate’s reality and McCain-Palin’s claims mirrors the campaign’s approach to the economy where McCain famously declared “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” as recently as September 15th.  The Obama/Biden campaign’s response sums up the problem with John McCain and Sarah Palin (The Trail, emphasis mine):

Sen. Barack Obama seized on McCain’s assessment of the health of the economy, blasting the Republican for being “disturbingly out of touch” with the reality that everyday Americans face.

“I just think he doesn’t know,” Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. “He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works…. Why else would he say, today, of all days — just a few hours ago — that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator — what economy are you talking about?”

Time and again both McCain and Palin have showed a deep rift with reality and a zealous lack of hesistation in driving arrogantly ahead regardless.  America now has a clear picture of how team McCain will govern if they win the White House in November.

Posted under News, Politics

What is the Question?

The question has been raised (obviously elsewhere, but particularly in this forum) about who should should get the vote of undecided voters in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  What I believe to be the Implicit underlying question is whether to vote for a 3rd-party candidate whose policies are more aligned with popular opinion, such as Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.  The question should be somewhat more nuanced – not “Who should undecided voters vote for?”, but “Where should voters cast their ballot for a 3rd-party?”.  (For those who are having difficulty deciding between Obama or McCain, this response will likely not be helpful.)

Fellow contributor Uri Strauss continues to make the pitch to vote for Ralph Nader, based on the popularity of his platform and the agreement on “virtually everything” of the Democrat and Republican presidential platforms.  There is no question for him, and for many others, as to who to vote for – the two major parties offer few, if any, differences in policy, and therefore we should choose a 3rd-party candidate.

There is a critical assertion made in this argument which should be repudiated because, once repudiated, it would lead to more effective strategies for enacting popular policies in the country, and the world (by virtue of U.S. power).  That assertion is that the U.S. government is a constitutional democracy.  This assertion is false, both in theory and in practice, and left unrecognized, popular movements will face little, if any, electoral success.

Not Exactly a Democracy

The United States, institutionally, is a democratic representative government – not a democracy.  The difference is stark: a democracy is one in which the population decides policy.  A representative government is one in which (in theory) the population selects representatives to decide policy.  The historical necessities or difficulties of either form of government can be debated, but that there is a significant difference cannot, as it is a matter of fact.

The United States, in practice, is an undemocratic form of government, with representatives of the population beholden to the business/ownership class of the country on all significant policy issues.  This is almost indisputable to a majority of the population, as reflected in disapproval ratings of 75% for Congress, and a 27% approval rating for the President.  Overall trust in government is tied with the lowest point, measured in 1973, with only 26% of the population answering the question “are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed” in the affirmative.   Yet another Gallup poll has the satisfaction with the current course of the country at 17%. These are not new (as the source graphs will show) and in a true democracy, would not be tolerated, and certainly not for such a long time.

Trust in US government at 26%

Our Elections are Rigged

Additionally and unsurprisingly, elections for representatives are not free and democratic.  The Supreme Court has ruled that not only are wealthier citizens entitled to more “free speech”, but that corporations, the largest concentrations of wealth in the country, are allowed to use that wealth to influence elections.  That wealth is perhaps the most dominant factor in elections has been true for some time, however these decisions codified that truth.  Other non-legal forms of exclusion of potentially popular candidates compound the difficulty of being a valid candidate.   Because democracy depends on the exchange of information, and because the ability to convey information (via mail, radio, television) costs vast sums of money, it is self-evident that only candidates with money are able to viably compete in elections.  These facts are so uncontroversial that this year’s record projected costs of $1.2 billion for the presidential campaigns and $1.16 billion for congressional races merely underscore the point.

Elections for political offices in the U.S. are not about who is the best candidate – it is about avoiding the lesser of two evils.  Large legal and class forces push elections in that direction, as does the actual voting mechanism: 1 vote for 1 candidate.  The latter could easily be addressed with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is in use in parts of the U.S. and around the world, but for obvious reasons faces great difficulty for adoption in higher political office elections.

So the situation that we are in is one in which tremendous legal and institutional forces, in combination with large concentrations of wealth, shape for us an election in which there are only two viable candidates.  The question then arises: are there significant differences between the two?

Are There Significant Differences?

I’ll leave the discussion as to differences in past elections (Gore vs. Bush, Kerry vs. Bush), but for the current election, I certainly agree that Barack Obama and John McCain are almost on par with the destruction they will wreak in foreign policy, environmental policy, criminal justice policy, drug policy, and many more issues in which they truly are in agreement on “virtually everything”.  However, there are at least three issues which they have nearly oppositional policies which are of great significance to many, if not all, people in this country (and elsewhere).  While this is not a comprehensive description of their differences, those differences are:

• Employee Free Choice Act: Obama is a co-sponsor of this legislation, which would make unionization orders of magnitude easier than current labor law.  With the EFCA, up to 57 million working Americans could form unions, which has historically shown to be tremendous engines of democracy in society.  John McCain opposes this legislation, and would almost certainly veto it.
• Supreme Court and federal courts: The federal courthouses of the U.S. have been filled with extraordinarily right-wing judicial appointments by the Bush administration, as have two seats on the Supreme Court.  The next president will likely nominate between one and three Supreme Court Justices with the three most liberal justices being replace.  Obama has stated that he would replace these judges with ones like them, whereas McCain has stated he would nominate judges similar to the most reactionary Justices on the court now (and in recent history).  These are the highest courts in the land, and no one can reasonably argue that an Obama administration’s choices would be more humane and less rabidly ideological than a McCain administration.
• “Roe v. Wade” and other reproductive rights:  Implicit in the decisions each respective candidate would make regarding the Supreme Court is whether Roe v. Wade will stand another challenge.  In addition, the policies of Obama and McCain regarding other reproductive rights are oppositional on virtually every issue – McCain even continues to support the scientifically-proven fallacy of “abstinence-only education”.  A McCain administration presents a clear danger to women’s civil rights and the basic sexual health of every citizen.

If we are to be rational voters with an interest in doing the least harm to the country, then we must recognize the inconvenient truth that who is elected President will at least have this significant impact on the country.  And if we care about that impact, then we have to do what we reasonably can to get the better candidate elected (Obama, in this case).

This does not apply, of course, if there is a viable 3rd-party candidate.  But, for the reasons given above, and several more, there is not.  Even Ralph Nader does not dispute that he will not win this election.  So we have to consider either Obama or McCain.

Therefore, in states where the election is going to be close (and there’s many this election cycle), “progressives” and everyone else should vote for Obama, and encourage others to do so.  However, in states – such as Massachusetts, with a 55-39% Obama lead – where the vote will likely not be close, folks with an interest in supporting 3rd-party candidates getting a little more even playing field (through access to public funds if they receive 5% of the popular vote) should vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket (McKinney/Clemente is not polling anywhere near 5%).

What Really Matters

The real issue at hand is not a single presidential election – it’s what happens in between elections, and far from Washington D.C., that is important.  Real change, rather than silly electoral campaign slogans, come from engaging and changing the hearts and minds of the population.  The U.S. is a fertile ground for grassroots organizing and massive, truly democratic movements.  We should be spending our time and resources (and far less posts debating Obama v. McCain) focusing on coordinating our friends and neighbors to address the issues that face us and the world.  Howard Zinn recently wrote, more eloquently than I, that:

Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

…None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted under Discussion Question, Politics

Aggressive new anti-choice language is going to be reinforced, not challenged, by the media in the lea dup to the election.  Specifically anti-choicers are doing everything they can to paint Obama as a baby killer.  This line of attack relies on a single bill, the purposely misnamed Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

Back to the bill, it was a crafty attempt by the anti-choice movement to mask their intentions (they seem to have a lot of trouble when they are upfront and honest):

The antis want to redefine these fetuses as “born alive” and require that doctors provide “resuscitation.” As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, “This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

The horribly misnamed pro-life movement tried to pull a fast one on reproductive choice, and Barack Obama saw clear through it.  The “Born Alive” act wasn’t about protecting babies.  It was about using lies to force a religious viewpoint on a secular nation.  Obama stood up to it.

Given this, it isn’t surprising that Bill O’Reilly is using that language to defend McCain (and surreptitiously attack Obama)

Read More…

Posted under News, Politics

Last Wednesday was my birthday. My roommate got me a bright yellow t-shirt with “VOTE FOR JESUS” in bright red “VOTE FOR PEDRO”-style lettering.

On Thursday. I wore it with pride. I was confronted by John, a white supremacist friend of mine. He told me he was offended by the shirt, because it mocked the majority Christian culture.

I told him, it’s not mockery. I genuinely support writing in Jesus for President as an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

As people who know me know, I never support Democrats or Republicans for the presidency, though I will often support Democrats for other positions. I am generally a Nader supporter.

This is not some form of anti-pragmatic political purism, as some have accused. Nader is not the candidate whose views I am most aligned with. If my support for a candidate had no pragmatic component, I would support Cynthia McKinney (of the Green Party) or Brian Moore (of the Socialist Party). In Canada, where I actually vote in elections, I vote for the New Democratic Party – the social democratic party that has traditionally been a third party, but is now poised to overtake the Liberal Party as one of the two frontrunning parties (the Liberals having abandoned liberal politics).

My support for Nader is based on the fact that his platform is much more popular than those of Obama, McCain, McKinney or Moore, and is progressive.

Friday night’s debate, which against my usual practice I watched, was a perfect illustration of just how indistinguishable Obama and McCain are, when viewed against a broader background. The candidates agreed on virtually everything.

Both of them thought the surge was a wild success, apparently based on the fact that there has been a lull in the level of violence since it started. As anyone with even limited analytic ability knows, this is poor reasoning. Those who are knowledgeable and thoughtful about the situation, like Juan Cole, are skeptical that the surge caused the lull in violence. Cole suggests in his debate debrief that the reduced levels of violence in Baghdad is the result of the successful cleansing of the cities of its Sunni residents, who have been either massacred or driven out of the city. In other words, it’s not the American surge but the Shia surge that’s responsible for the reduction in violence.

Both McCain and Obama appear to favor increasing the military budget.

Both candidates apparently buy into the lies that the right-wing Zionists concocted, and the Western media has repeated ad nauseam, about Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map. McCain repeated it several times, and Obama never disputed it.

Among the few differences of substance that the candidates emphasized concerned leaving Iraq. They tried to make it look like an big difference: McCain wants to stay in until victory, Obama wants a timetable for withdrawal. But if you look at Obama’s plan as he has consistently articulated it, he’s talking about redeployment rather than withdrawal. He basically favors pulling troops from Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan instead. Neither candidate favors doing what the law requires: ending the occupation of Iraq.

If I had to characterize the foreign policy differences between the two, I would do it this way: McCain prefers to focus on Iraq, while Obama prefers broader aggression including Afghanistan and possibly including Iran and Pakistan. It comes down not to any difference of principle, but to the tactical or strategic question of where the main battle against al-Qaeda is located. (After the debate, I don’t know what “tactics” or “strategy” mean anymore. Strategery, anyone?)

Both apparently support possibly bombing Pakistan, although McCain thinks it’s wrong to talk about it. I guess he thinks it’s better to sing about it.

Both support missile defense. Both support offshore drilling and nuclear power plants.

What are the real differences? Style. As Noam Chomsky says, the people marketing political campaigns are the same guys that market toothpaste. McCain was on the message that Obama isn’t ready to lead. Obama was trying to tie McCain to the Bush catastrophe.

Nader is highly distinguishable from BaJohn McBama/Jorack O’Cain. He favors a lawful foreign policy, including withdrawal from Iraq and refraining from acts of aggression against other countries. He’s against nuclear energy. For an overview on Nader on the issues, and a contrast with the Republicrats, see here: http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Posted under News, Politics

Much has been said in this presidential election cycle about the concept of “experience” – during the Democrat primaries, Clinton had it and Obama supposedly did not.  That stigma has followed Obama into the general election, with McCain (at 72 years old and in Washington for 25 years) and pundits claiming that he has greater “experience”.  Ironically, the Arizona senator has taken up/stolen “Change” as the mantra for his campaign, while contradictorily at the same time emphasizing his long tenure in Washington.

Those contradictions aside, what is really meant by “experience”?  It appears that many believe that wisdom and competence accrues simply by virtue of sticking around the capitol for a long time.  But there are other connotations the term has taken on, particularly with the emergence of Sarah Palin onto the political scene (I’ll leave the quibbling over whether governorship in Alaska rates as being in the political scene).  Democrats, even many leftists, are now decrying Palin’s lack of “experience” as a fatal flaw of her candidacy.  But I think the attribution is disingenuous, and that “experience” is being used in place of “ideology” and “race” (in the case of Obama).

The Contradictions of Sarah Palin

In Palin’s case, critics are actually being unfair in accusing her of inexperience.  Her background is still incomplete, but we know the following: She comes from what appears to be a working class family (her mother a secretary and father a school teacher) and attended public school.  She worked as a reporter while raising a family.  She became involved in politics at a local level, eventually becoming the mayor.  Within 20 years of graduating from college, she won office as the governor of Alaska.

Palin did these things – as a woman – in a remote part of the country.  Although possessing white privilege, as well as privileges based on her religion and sexual orientation, it is remarkable in this country that a woman raising a family ascended through civic ranks in such a fashion.    She was not born into the ownership class of the United States; not born into wealth, nor a prestigious family, and didn’t benefit from powerful connections gained from attending elite schools.  We can (and damn well better) challenge her ideology, but we should not challenge her lack of time spent in Washington as something that makes her less than qualified.

“Experience” Means Nothing

“Experience”, as interpreted literally in the political dialogue, is virtually irrelevant.  Frankly, we shouldn’t care if a candidate has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations or Foreign Affairs when it comes to international policy.   We shouldn’t care if someone has been elected 20 times to their seat in the House.  Winning elections and sitting on committees to not inherenly impart wisdom or even comprehension.  John McCain still doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, and he’s been in the Senate for 21 years.

We shouldn’t reject Palin because she doesn’t have experience.  We should reject her, however, because she is a terribly ignorant candidate, unfamiliar with even the most basic institutions of U.S. government.   We should reject Palin because she is a tokenistic attempt to garner female support based on identity politics.  We should reject Palin because she was chosen because of her radical right-wing ideology and lack of respect for the rights of others.  We should reject Palin because she is a hypocrite who would likely increase the failures of the Bush administration. And the list goes on.

And if we had any other choice, we should reject Obama – not because he lacks experience – but because he is an unprincipled corporate candidate who says what is needed to be elected.  We should reject Obama – if we had a better option – because he is not an anti-war candidate, but in fact a long-time supporter of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations and because he actively pledges to escalate war.  If we weren’t forced to choose between him and a Republican slate that would reverse judicial gains won by generations, we should reject Obama as violating his Constitutional oath by refusing to challenge the illegalities of the Bush administration.  And the list goes on.

Who We Need

We don’t need experience in a president.  We need a sane, rational, compassionate person with a willingness to respect national and international law.  We might be better off choosing a citizen, at random, who isn’t financed by lobbyists, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, and who isn’t surrounded by advisors who come from centers of power and wealth in the country.  In this sense, “experience” has also come to mean, among other definitions, being approved by sectors of the ownership class in the country.  The nominees from both parties are far too corrupt, far too owned, to view the world in a common sense fashion.  Would it really be a worse system to pick 10 citizens at random, put them on the national stage, let them speak their minds, and let the country choose the best of them?

Posted under Politics

When I heard McCain had suspended his campaign to work on the economic crisis, I thought he had made a brilliant move.  McCain is weak on the economy and needs to distinguish himself in a favorable light.  His suspension connected so well with his narrative of “country first” sacrifice, and reinforced his positions on the war and his delay of the convention in the face of hurricane Gustav.  I remember the conversation well.  I lamented Obama’s lack of aggression, and my co-worker agreed with me that the man needed to step things up.

Then he responded (Amanda, Think Progress, emphasis mine):

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) just gave a press conference responding to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) suggestion that they both suspend their campaigns, postpone Friday’s debate in Mississippi, and return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis. Obama said that he would like to the debate to go forward as planned because “it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once”

That powerful and contained a statement deals a sharp blow to McCain’s sacrifice theme.  Sacrifice only works politically if you give up something important out of necessity.  It’ll backfire in a second if it looks like either the importance or the necessity aren’t genuine.

Which is why McCain’s stumble juggling David Letterman and Katie Couric is devastating (Amanda, Think Progress, emphasis mine):

As part of his plan to suspend his campaign activities, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today decided to cancel his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. McCain’s campaign reportedly told Letterman that the senator was “racing back to Washington.” That, however, didn’t happen. In his show to air tonight, Letterman shows footage of McCain sitting down with CBS’s Katie Couric for an interview at the same time he was supposed to be on his show.

You couldn’t find a brighter color to paint McCain’s campaign politically opportunistic.

Obama’s counterpoint and McCain’s dishonesty play directly to McCain’s weakness and Obama’s opposing strength at the same time.  John McCain is increasingly viewed as the precise stripe of unethical politician he once fought against.  He’s a man who goes for political points at any cost.  Barack Obama is definining himself as a politician who tries to approach problems rationally and seriously, putting the demands of the problem at hand above the political cost of doing so.

A politician’s greatest responsibility alongside governance is maintaining a connection to the people he or she represents.  The debates this friday are a central part of that, and thanks to a quick and effective response, heading in its advantage Obama.

Posted under Economy, News, Politics

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.

Its deliciously ironic that subtle variations of that quote can be found throughout the web.  Even when you’ve reached through the superficial and grabbed the spirit of the truth your hands have nothing tangible to close on.  Certainty feels increasingly academic the more closely you pay attention.

Orwell’s idea matches up stunningly with the essence of Gandhi’s Satyagraha.  It essentially means “truth power”.  But saying the truth is powerful doesn’t immediately reveal its effective usage.  Often compared to a double edged sword, it does share this in common: it has a point.  To use the truth well one must aim carefully.

NancyP over at Pam’s House Blend insightfully invites us to confront conservatives with their immediate truth, framed perfectly as the question: “Are YOU better off than you were 8 years ago?”.  Paraphrasing Altemeyer (an expert on analyzing authoritarianism, emphasis mine):

Cognitive dissonance has to be extreme, and personally very uncomfortable/painful, for authoritarian followers to abandon their Authority of the Hour. Some authoritarian followers will remain loyal to their Authority despite severe personal injury (pastor schtupps follower’s wife or minor daughter or son; leader loses follower’s life savings – see Bakker or Bush 43 for that). Even for the less injured followers, the tendency is to defend the old leader by blaming subordinates (“the Leader is wise but was misled by evil advisors”).  If the follower has finally decided that his Leader has damaged him intolerably, he will treat the situation as the breaking of an (often intimate) personal relationship – an individual moral failure of that Leader, having nothing to do with policies or competence of that Leader. Thus, the authoritarian follower can claim, without the least discomfort, that the New Leader is nothing like the (now discredited) Old Leader, even though New Leader voted with the Old Leader, continues the Old Leader’s policies, and uses the same advisors.

This immediately sets the game plan and the stakes.  We need to make this election about the immediate impact of the economy, and about the Democratic party’s fiscal prowess.  NancyP notes this:

I really think that the Dems are fools for not sticking to the “It’s the economy, stupid” campaign strategy. Eight years ago we had a budget SURPLUS. Now we are looking into a large black pit without a visible bottom.

The problem is that both McCain and Obama are being mushy centrists on the bailout.  (The Caucus, NYTimes, emphasis mine):

Senator Barack Obama this afternoon urged Treasury and Federal Reserve officials to include four conditions that he and other Democrats are seeking in the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for financial firms – though he stopped short of saying he would vote against the bailout if his terms were not met.

The pressure is building as the administration attempts to equate congressional delays directly with stock market dips and plunges.  Much of congress is taking the Democratic party’s standard operating procedure of the past 8 years to heart: equivocate and compromise till it hurts (Reuters, emphasis mine):

“What they have sent us is not acceptable,” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said after a five-hour hearing on the plan. His Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Shelby, also vowed not to “rubberstamp” the proposal.

That’s a very polite way of saying they’ll take a look at it, make very serious and thoughtful comments, and then pass it with minor modifications.  For agents of change, both Obama and McCain are surprisingly in step with the establishment when it comes to the bailout.  They are providing a united front (NYTimes, emphasis mine):

With pressure mounting on Congress to pass a $700 million bailout of financial firms, Senator John McCain struck a more urgent tone Tuesday on the need to act quickly, but he and Senator Barack Obama insisted on conditions that had to be met in the final plan.

This bill is going to pass.  Which brings us back to truth.  George Bush’s successor as “Dear Leader” is united with his opponent in supporting the most visible economic bill before the election.  Their opposition is purely superficial.  This idea of whipped supporters crawling back to their leader is one we might be tempted to cast purely on the conservatives.  But if we are honest with ourselves, and ask that very same question, we need to realize how sorely we’ve been hurting for an opposition party these past 8 years.

While the economic hardship more and more Americans face drags us all eagerly towards a cliff, asking directly “are you better off now than you were 8 years ago” is risky.  Canny Republicans can point to cringing Democratic officials and suggest they were all in it together, and gosh darn it we need a maverick.  Keep in mind that Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to convince not-filthy-rich Republicans they are voting against their economic interests for decades.

Working with someone truly stuck in an authoritarian mindset is possible, but results won’t necessarily come quickly enough for November.  (For a start, read Cracks in the Wall parts One, Two, and Three).

If you want to effect the upcoming election (especially if you live in a swing state), your best bet is to reach out to Democrats and Independents and help them make it to the polls registered and ready November 4.

Posted under Economy, Politics