A Quick Musing on Politics and Powers

Generally speaking, the dominant political power on the right (Republicans) tend to be suspicious of the growth and scope of governmental powers, but they turn a blind eye to any of the damages of corporate powers--environmental abuses, corporate fraud, low compensation toward workers, manipulation via advertising, and pushing out smaller businesses and sole proprietors (i.e., Walmart's destruction of our nation's downtown small businesses).

Generally speaking, the dominant political power on the left (Democrats) tend to be suspicious of the growth and scope of corporate powers, but they turn a blind eye to any of the damages of governmental powers--excessive and ineffective bureaucracy, fraud, corruption and misuse of public funds, the power of political machines, imposition on personal liberties, etc.

I'd be interested in a political movement that was suspicious of all dominant powers, be they corporate or governmental. I would be disposed to supporting a movement that empowered local governments, local communities, and individuals. Not a movement that promotes bare individualism at the expense of community, mind you.

Because bigger is not always better....and it's often worse.

A Sunday "Amen"

“If protest depended on success, there would be little protest of any durability or significance…Protest that endures, I think, is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one’s own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence.” -Wendell Berry

Health Care

"They [Republicans who oppose health care reform] are ideologically aligned with the industry. They want to believe that the free market industry can and should work in this country like it does in other industries. They don’t understand, from an industry insider's perspective, like I have, what that actually means and the consequences of what that means to Americans." --Wendell Potter

Wendell Potter is the former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. In June 2009 he testified against the HMO industry in the US Senate as a whistleblower.

Potter began his journey towards resigning and becoming a whistleblower in July 2007, when he saw a touring free clinic in Virginia. "What he saw appalled him. Hundreds of desperate people, most without any medical insurance, descended on the clinic from out of the hills. People queued in long lines to have the most basic medical procedures carried out free of charge. Some had driven more than 200 miles from Georgia. Many were treated in the open air. Potter took pictures of patients lying on trolleys on rain-soaked pavements."

He is now a fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy. [from wikipedia article]

The following clips are a three part interview with Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter.

Part One


Part Two


Part Three


Part three makes some interesting points. The main thing is that of a conflict of interests. Because U.S. health care insurance is a for profit venture, this means that profit is increased when medical payments are minimized. The less that is paid to medical claims, the more money there is for executives and investors. This is the "medical loss ratio." Investors dump an insurance company if the medical loss ratio is not agreeable. What makes a medical loss ratio look bad: payouts for patients.

Good for patients = bad for investors. The more premium money that is used to pay medical bills = less profit for investors.

Signs of the Times

Friends, it has been approximately a month now since my Barack Obama sign went missing. Yes, it appears to have been stolen. I was honestly not all that surprised by the theft. This is a staunchly Republican area of the country.

I will now be forced to purchase another sign (probably much bigger!); however, in the meantime, this little caper provides for some very fascinating reflection.

One of the staple beliefs of most Republicans is the importance of respecting personal property rights. Indeed, the interpretation of the rights of personal property will certainly be one of the primary differences between the candidates in this upcoming election. The issue will weave its way into discussions of health care, taxation, the economy, and more.

It seems quote probable, then, that the person who stole my sign violated their own beliefs at the moment of the heist. The burglar no doubt was passionate about his belief in protecting personal property rights: "Get the damned government out of my back pocket!" If the rustler was of a religious inclination, then doubtless the protection of personal property rights also has a moral imperative: thou shalt not steal. And yet, at the instant of the crime, the thief found himself in the precarious position of having violating the very personal property rights that he believed in. Hence, our friend, the righteous Republican robber, found himself violating personal property rights in the name of preserving personal property rights!

Was it a calculated move? Did the burglar decide that he would commit this one violation of property rights in the name of preserving the property rights of the many? Did he make this one sacrifice of his integrity in the name of the greater good? Certainly this is possible, and in fact, we can imagine a scenario where one violates one's principles in the name of the greater good. These are calculated compromises.



Was this a calculated compromise?

Probably not. In all likelihood, the pilferer made a decision of emotion. Our bandit was so overcome by passion to defeat a "liberal" candidate that he snatched up the sign! I suggest that it was a crime of passion.

But was it passion for an ideal? No. It was passion for winning and a desire for his side to win. And this takes us to the real moral of the story: passion for our beliefs propels us into another dimension of thinking whereby our zeal to win is even more important than the beliefs themselves. We all do this; we are all the same. It is a part of our nature. We live under the illusion that we "take a strong stand" for our convictions; but in reality, our convictions are only a secondary, almost insignificant consideration. Our beliefs, in most cases, are only a bit of a bump in the road before we can get to the real business of fighting each other.

So, friends, get ready for the upcoming months of politics. The "issues" are not the issue. Elections are most certainly not about beliefs or convictions. It is politics, and politics is about winning and losing. Politicians can only win by creating a mob of supporters who feel so strongly about their convictions that they would do anything to advance their beliefs, even if that means violating such convictions.

But don't let me stop you, good neighbor. Carry on! March forward! Fight the good fight! Go into the political battle knowing that you are right and that your cause is just, and if your cause is just, then any means is justified for reaching that end...the end being victory for yourself and defeat of the others. It is only our political opponents who are irrational and unreasonable: we are the pure in heart. Our cause is right.

Dobson sends a "Yo Mama" to Obama

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible:
Conservative is critical of Dem's stance on how the Bible should guide policy



Here is a link to Obama's speech that reportedly caused Dobson's blood pressure to rise:

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

Obama then goes on to situate this tension within the abortion debate:

I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason. (italics added)

Back to the MSNBC article with Dobson's response: "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

I'm not sure what Dobson is referring to here, by talking about a "fruitcake interpretation," but Dobson is clearly upset about Obama's speech. This from The Post

Dobson said he had just recently learned of Obama's speech and that reading it caused his blood pressure to rise.

"Why did this man jump on me? I haven't said anything near that?" said Dobson, whose comments were first reported by the Associated Press today, which received an early copy of Dobson's remarks.

In response to Obama's contention that religious voters had an obligation to "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values", Dobson asked: "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?"

The thing is, I'm not sure why Dobson is so upset. Obama seems to me to be simply making the point that an American leader can't legislate for everyone based on the fact that he hears voices from god (whether in the Bible or in his head, etc.). I don't know that Obama is denying Dobson his right to express his beliefs, just that as a government official, Obama can't say, "You know, God told me to do this." I think that's a fair position.

Also, it seems as though Obama's hermeneutic is a bit more sound that Dobson's. As we have discussed on this blog, the New Testament writers (Paul in particular) do not seem to divide up the Old Testament law into "laws that only applied to the Israelites that do not apply anymore" and "laws that applied to the Israelites and still apply to us today." Instead, the Christian is no longer under law (Galatians 5:18). The new life is one of Spirit living in freedom. To go back and pick and choose some Old Testament laws that sound like they might work good for us Americans in the 21st century might have its place, but it seems a bit arbitrary, and I'm not sure this is such a good idea in our pluralized culture. In other words, I think I agree with Obama more than Dobson on this one.

The interesting political ramifications.....Dobson is considering not voting b/c McCain isn't conservative enough for him. What's McCain supposed to do? He can't publicly reach out to Dobson or he will be labeled as right-wing religious. Obama, on the other hand, can be cool and let it play out. He can reach out to the Dobson's and other evangelicals of the world and express a desire to "work together for the common good." In this way, he can pick up a good deal of votes from disenfranchised evangelicals, or evangelicals who are not content with the state of the Republican party.

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made

The following are from an interesting little article The Five Mistakes Clinton Made by Karen Tumulty

1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics.

2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game.

3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing."

4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.)

5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over.

Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.

Indiana Primary Day

Today Indiana goes to the polls, and our votes actually mean something. Wow.



I am Jon Erdman, and I approve this message.

And Now In Local News

Normally Indiana is ignored in the primaries. Well, friend, truth be told, most of the time Indiana is ignored in just about everything! But this year Indiana actually has some influence in the upcoming Democratic primaries. (We vote tomorrow.)

As a result, Bill Clinton was in Warsaw, Indiana. Yes, that's right, Warsaw, Indiana.

Warsaw is right next door to my little lake side hamlet of Winona Lake. So, I went to see Bill speak on Saturday.

It was a good time. His message was conservative, no big surprise there. I was a bit worried at the outset of the speech because Bill seemed like he was zoning out! In fact, his mouth was kind of hanging open and he was leaning forward such that some high school guys behind me started laughing and joking that he was going to fall over.

Ah, but once Clinton started speaking, he got in the zone. The man is a very influential politician. He was very passionate and on point, glancing only infrequently at his notes. I was very impressed.

There was a young woman with him on stage, which of course caused the high school guys behind me to start cracking jokes. Being of a depraved mind, I joined in the course jesting and suggested that I had seen a young woman who had carried in a sign saying, "I want to be the next Monica." Yes, friend, I am wrong.

The President began his speech by saying, "This country is in trouble. And you know it." His tone was emphatic; he reminded me of sitting around a dinner table listening to my grandfather lecture. A few times during the speech, Clinton took a stern tone, warning the crowd that the United States had drifted off point from the utopia he created in the nineties. What is interesting is that Clinton never spoke of Barack. I don't recall him mentioning any other politicians by name, with the exception of mentioning a few local Democrat politicians. Only a few times did he mention "the other candidates."


Former Pres Bill Clinton Works Tough Crowd in Warsaw
(Hhhhmmmmm....I don't recall the crowd as being "tough," despite the fact that Warsaw is a staunchly Republican town. In fact, I recall quite a bit of applause and enthusiasm from the crowd. All in all, I would say that Bill had a very warm reception and good turn out.)
Bill Clinton visits Plymouth and Warsaw

Here is a hilarious Youtube clip of something of a typical Indiana local who couldn't get their camera to work in time!


In other local news...

Unfortunately for me, I missed the chance to hear Obama. He was in Ft. Wayne and then made a surprise stop yesterday in Elkhart, Indiana. Ft. Wayne is about 45 mins away and Elkhart is only 20 minutes or so. Darn. I would have liked to see Obama.

Diverging paths for two parties

The Republican and Democratic presidential contests began diverging Tuesday, leaving the Democrats facing a long and potentially divisive nomination battle and the Republicans closer to an opportunity to put aside deep internal divisions and rally around a nominee.
Adam Nagourney, Diverging paths for two parties, New York Times

State of the Union - The Defining Issue

A clipping from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22878539/ regarding last night's state of the union address. Bush names international terrorism as the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century:

But Bush cautioned against weakening American resolve in the struggle against international terrorism, which he called “the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century.”

“The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear,” he said. “Yet in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on: In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny.”

But despite the fact that this is the "defining struggle," what gets all the attention in the speech? The economy, stupid:

With the campaign to succeed him threatening to push him to the background in his last year in office, Bush devoted the bulk of his address to the economy, heeding opinion polls that indicate that it has surpassed the war as Americans’ foremost concern.

While the president went to bat for his military “surge” in Iraq, he devoted most of his speech to the economy, confronting Congress on two fronts, taxes and spending.

Clinton Double Team

Interesting article here on the political effect of Bill Clinton on the Democratic Primary. Hillary can abandon South Carolina (because in all probability she will lose) and jump to other states. Bill, however, can stay in S. Car. and campaign. With Bill in S. Car., Obama has to stay there a bit longer to make sure that he doesn't lose it.....Golly, those Clintons are quite a team!

Ugh

Here are your two New Hampshire winners.

How bad would it be if these were our two Presidential choices this year?

Ugh.

Twain of the Day

We have the best government that money can buy
- Mark Twain

Imagine if you can

This from Harper's:

"For at least two decades, our political landscape has been dominated by consultants; but there is no presidential campaign this year whose success or failure so will depend on media managers, marketing strategists, and political gurus as that of Mitt Romney. Unlike his chief competitors for the Republican nomination, he started out with a fairly low national profile and hence has needed to be introduced and marketed to a national audience. And the task of reformulating and repackaging the Romney brand - from the moderate Republican governor of the most liberal state in the Union to a red-meat social conservative and heir to Reagan - has been entrusted to an army of consultants far larger than that of any of his challengers. Campaign disclosure records are convoluted and poorly categorized, so it's difficult to make a precise inventory. But based on filings with the Federal Election Commission, as of this summer, Romney's campaign has employed more than a hundred different consultants, making combined payments to them of at least $11 million - roughly three times the amount spent by John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Much of that money paid for the creation and placement of TV ads through Romney's media consultant and chief strategist Alex Castellanos, but the campaign also spent heavily on polling, political strategy, and voter mobilization." (p. 34 Harper's magazine, November 2007 "Making Mitt Romney: How to Fabricate a Conservative" Ken Silverstein)

First, do any of us really believe that "there is no presidential campaign this year whose success or failure" will depend on media/marketing/political gurus as Mitt Romney? This suggestion strikes me as incredibly naive. Politics is media/marketing/political gurus. That's all there is. It's called "spin." Spin wins. The best spin wins the prize of power. Is there really any one of us that believes that any one candidate depends on spin more than any other? In American politics perception is reality; truth is what you can get away with. The politician creates their own world: It's called image. And image is everthing, as we all have known since the Canon Andre Agassi commercials in the 1980s.

The interesting thing about Mitt and other contemporary politicians is that they risk losing a clear identity in the mass of images. Image is everything, but too many images that go too many different directions will direct the collective minds of the American people in too many different directions. As such, the people will think that the politician is "not genuine." Of course, smart people on this blog know that there is no such thing as a genuine politician; there is only the politician who can imagine himself as genuine.

An inconvenient utility bill

Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
[Taken from http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=5073354]

How does Rudy look?

So, Rudy Giuliani's name is being kicked around as a presidential candidate for 08. The buzz amongst conservatives is whether or not they could ever get behind a pro-abortion candidate. Guiliani has been clear on his belief that abortion is the mother's choice (as oppossed, I guess, to the daughter who is in the womb).

But here is the thing: He simply needs to state that he is for the states deciding the issue. He can say that Roe v. Wade was a bad idea and that each state should decide the issue on its own.

Here's the scenario: Hilary and Rudy square off in 08. The conservatives will still vote for Rudy simply to avoid having the Clinton's in office. There may be some conservatives who stay home on principle, but the majority I think will rally against Hilary. If Rudy is articulate and does a good sell job, I think he can strike a delicate balance as a pro-abortion candidate who believes the states should decide the issue. Now all of a sudden he is going to get some moderates into his camp. Moderates who like the idea of having a pro-abortion candidate in office.

It would certainly be entertaining, from a political pespective, to see Hilary v. Rudy in 08.