Partisanship: quote of the day

“It’s not a partisan issue.  We are working for our republic, and not for Republicans."
- Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan






See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html

People power can beat too much money power

The Coffee Party posted on Facebook a cartoon of a politician at a podium on a plank out over a cliff.  The only thing preventing him from falling into the abyss is the number of people standing on the other end of the plank.  Except one person who is walking away.  The words on the cartoon are “The people don’t know their true power.”

I posted the following comment on Facebook.  If you have a Facebook account you can find it in context here.

“The problem with too much money in politics is too few votes to counter misinformation.  The cartoon is clever, but the person leaving should be walking to a politician's plank on solid ground.

“Let's show up each and every election day and get off-year turn-outs better than the Afghan turnout.  Too many of us don't bother because it's too inconvenient; the Afghani's stood in long lines at the risk of being attacked!”

If you don’t have a Facebook account or just want to see how often this has been published, search for “The people don’t know their true power”.  You’ll find hundreds of postings of this cartoon going back at least two years.  You’ll find many comments on it, but you will be hard pressed to find who created the original.

As I was adding “money in politics” to the keywords for this entry it occurred to me to have a keyword “people in politics” because the only way to get money out of politics is to get people into politics, even if it only to get more people to show up on election day.

Congressism

We have racism, sexism, and anti-semitism.  Now we have Congressism.  Congressism is a dislike of Congress out of all proportion to reality.  Commentators claim Congress is broken.  Polls indicate that people are very dissatisfied with Congress but that they are satisfied with their own Representatives and Senators.

Wait a minute!  Congress is broken but people like their own Representatives and Senators.  But Congress is made up of other people’s Representatives and Senators.  And those other people are satisfied with their members of Congress.  If all these Congress members are doing such a good job according to the people who supposedly elected them, how can Congress be broken?

“The Tea Party wins if we start hating our government. The solution is to find ways to be informed and engaged in our democratic process all the time, not just when there is a presidential election.” - Annabel Park, a Coffee Party founder (see www.coffeepartyusa.org)

“Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Doctor Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

If we don’t trust Congress, which is supposed to be most representative of the three branches of our government, are we giving up on keeping our republic?

So, let us not give up on our government.  Let us count the ways we can improve it.

First, of course, is to show up at every election and vote.  This is especially true if you live in a “gerrymandered” district.  You could contribute to an upset or you could reduce the margin of victory.

Also, don’t make any assumptions based on polls.  Vote whether the candidate you support is ahead or behind the polls.  The polls sample far fewer people than actually vote.  Remember also that polls can be very, very wrong.  In 1998, the polls predicted Skip Humphrey, Norm Coleman, and Jesse Ventura for governor in that order.  The results were Ventura, Coleman, and Humphrey.  As far as big money in politics, Ventura spent about one-tenth as much money per vote as either of his opponents.

Second, write about government.  Write letters to the editor.  Write to your representatives.  Write to the mayor, governor, or president.  You don’t need an essay.  You can simply state your support or opposition for some action.  Personally, I prefer writing directly to signing petitions.  One hundred persons writing about an issue probably has more influence than one thousand people signing a petition.

Unless you have some compelling information for or against an issue, a short letter is best.  Consider that the more people a politician represents, the greater the volume of mail and the less the chance that the politician will even see your letter.  But his or her staff will probably be counting them by subject and position.

One of the reasons Congress is “broken” is that few, if any, members read every word of the bills they vote on.  They depend on staff advice and often just follow their party.  I read that somebody challenged Congress to read the Patriot Act before voting on it.  Supposedly only one Congressman took up the challenge and voted against it.  I find it a bit hard to believe because supposedly complete copies were not available to Congress until twelve hours before the vote!  What’s this about the U.S. Senate being the greatest deliberative body in the world?  And people who are making the most noise about limited government now voted for the Patriot Act then.

Maybe we should follow Grover Norquist’s example and get Congress to sign a “Read the Bill Pledge”.  Maybe Warren Buffet or George Soros could fund this effort.

If all of these ideas seem to be getting nowhere, then maybe a few brave souls would start a new third party.  Say a few Republicans who don’t like the theft of the Party of Lincoln by the Tea Party and Southern Conservatives and a few Democrats who don’t care to jump whole-heartedly into every cause that some in the party expect everybody to support unconditionally.  Also, members of either party who feel that large corporations have too much influence on a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The name I thought of was “Pragmatic Populists”.  That is, the government should work for the people as a whole with consideration that there will be conflicts of interests.

As usual, when I think I have a new and unique idea, somebody has already thought of it.  One source I found is an analysis of Justice John Paul Stevens’ decisions with regard to the First Amendment.  Gregory P. Magarian considers the balance that Justice Stevens sought in “The Pragmatic Populism of Justice Stevens’ Free Speech Jurisprudence”.  The abstract is at http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/art57/ and you can get the full text by clicking the “Download” button to the right of the title.

I don’t know if I’ll ever finish all forty-some pages of legal reasoning, but Magarian writes that Justice Stevens thought that the purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that all could participate in political discourse, regardless of their background, status, or wealth.  Justice Stevens was writing opinions in support of this view, opposing his colleagues who interpreted the First Amendment as protecting political speech from government interference.  In other words, he didn’t think the First Amendment protected those who had the most bucks from buying the biggest microphones thereby overwhelming any speech of those who disagreed with them.

And the great irony is that John Paul Stevens is a Republican appointed by a Richard Nixon, a Republican.  The next irony is that Stevens seems to be holding the ideal of protecting individual against state power and the other conservatives seem to be favoring state or corporate power.

You can find an interesting biography of him in “TheDissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, Majority of One”, Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times, 2007-09-23.

"Congressism" was also published in the Reader Weekly, 2013-10-23 and can be found at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2013/10/24/2305_party_of_one-2

U.S. oligarchy, history repeats itself

"The Penguin democracy was not ruled by itself: it obeyed a financial oligarchy that put its opinions in the newspapers, and held in its hand the deputies, ministers and the president.  It was the final power in the finances of the republic and directed the foreign policy of the country."

Anatole France, L'Ile des Pingouines (The Isle of Penguins), 1908
My translation based on Google Translate

"La démocratie pingouine ne se gouvernait point par elle-même; elle obéissait à une oligarchie financière qui faisait l'opinion par les journaux, et tenait dans sa main les députés, les ministres et le président. Elle ordonnait souverainement des finances de la république et dirigeait la politique extérieure du pays."

Or as Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote in 1849:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose

I found the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it is not pretty

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a spoof on mythology. Rather than gravity keeping us all on the ground, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) uses its zillions of spaghetti-like tentacles to hold everybody to the ground.

I'm sorry to tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists, and it is using thousands of its tentacles to convince legislators and voters to support its interests. Except, its abbreviation is not FSM but ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council.

I've often wondered how Republicans seem to be following a script of issues rather than thinking independently in a "conservative" way. I've long known about ALEC, but through the wonders of Facebook and The Coffee Party, I found a site that has a laundry list of people who are involved in Alec: from profit-above-public-good CEOs to state representatives. It is Alec Exposed http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed.

In addition it has article after article about how corporate profits are more important than the public good, from worker safety to child safety. Like the maker of d-Con thinks that children ingesting rat poison pellets is an "acceptable risk" – "Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an 'Acceptable Risk' for ALEC", submitted by Brendan Fischer to PRWatch of The Center for Media and Democracy, 2011-12-06 http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/12/11171/kids-eating-rat-poison-acceptable-risk-alec

The Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy is so appropriate because ALEC members provide many of the goods and services that we depend on. If you want to starve the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are going to have to avoid most big box stores, you will have to give up on some "socially responsible" products (like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream), you will have to give up your home phone and cell phone, and you will have to ship packages only with the US Postal service. See the complete list at "Alec Corporations http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations.

If you think we have a democracy or a republic, think again. We have a corporatocracy or a massive oligarchy. ALEC wants to reduce the number of people who vote by claiming voter fraud; when will it decide that we should again have a certain amount of property to have the right to vote?

Where's the praise for Obama on gas prices?

Here in Duluth, gas prices have been falling bit by bit from near four dollars last spring. Today I've seen $3.39/gallon. So, if President Obama was blamed by some for the high prices, where is the praise for the lower prices? See "Bachmann: I'll bring back $2 gas", Charles Riley, CNN Money, 2011-08-18

Actually, there are many factors outside the President's control for prices of anything. Would we want it otherwise? If the President could have such control over our economy, wouldn't we be getting into a dictatorship?

One of those factors is where fuel is sold, and I don't' mean within the U.S. According to today's Star Tribune, fuel prices might be lower if diesel oil and gasoline weren't exported to other countries.
"Fuel exports hit record, keeping gas prices high", Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times, 2011-11-12.  See either http://www.startribune.com/business/133720623.html or http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fuel-exports-20111112,0,7229614.story

Where's Michele Bachmann now on these exports? My searches on her name, fuel exports, and November dates didn't find anything obviously her opinion on these exports. However, her web site seems to be only drill, drill without any considerations of the consequences and without any mention that some fuel is exported.

You can't argue with Tea Party supporters

Today's Duluth News Tribune had a rebuttal of my Tea Party Local View.  See "United States on a fast track to tyranny".  You can see it free for about seven days.

His first fixation is on taxes as being a sole driver of economic activity - "High taxes drive taxpayers out of high-tax states…"  True if you consider only people who measure only taxes as a cost.  These writers never consider that taxes buy us lots of things that drive economic activity.  He ignores that many companies move to where skilled labor is available and that it takes taxes to educate and train people.

That bastion of free enterprise, the Wall Street Journal, published an opinion earlier this week that a company moving to the South (low taxes and anti-union) may be getting lower quality: "Boeing's Threat to American Enterprise: When major firms move to the South, it's usually a harbinger of quality decline.  Why let that happen?", Thomas Geoghegan, Wall Street Journal, 2011-06-20.  Sorry, you'll have to subscribe to see the whole article.

He gets on the tax and spend mantra and that much is paid for by borrowing.  But why is the money borrowed?  For two wars?  For infra-structure investment?  To bail out large corporations?

He claims that the "intent of our country's founders is obvious from their writings…"  I guess he knows better than the Supreme Court, which over the decades has had difficulty discerning the intent.  He completely missed my comment that first a slave was property and not a person and then property (a corporation) was a person.  I didn't put in my article that these cases were Dred Scott and Citizens United.

He claims that we are on "the fast track to tyranny as we relinquish … our dollars and choices to government officials who supposedly know what is best for us."  He ignores that we are still a republic and can vote these people out.

He missed my point about free markets being many players with sufficient information.  He ignores that our free markets have devolved into a few players with the power to buy our government.  Now that is tyranny!!

Not always two sides to every issue

One of the fallacies of discourse is that there are two sides to every issue. For example, one of Carinda Horton's fans said that "Horton's show respectively portrayed both sides of an issue." This is an indirect quote by the Duluth News Tribune, "Talk show host Horton let go by Duluth station", 2009-05-28. Carinda Horton was a talk show host on KDAL-AM in the Duluth-Superior area.

There are often one side, two sides, three sides, or any number of sides.

There is really only one side to the issue of the earth being round. There may be some that believe the earth is flat, but all the evidence shows that earth is round. Not exactly perfectly round, but sufficiently round to not be flat, square, or egg-shaped.

The two-side fallacy comes from so many people believing in "two-party system". You're either Republican or Democrat. But even that was not always true. In the days when the parties were less rigid than now, many Democrats would agree on a particular issue with the majority of Republicans, and many Republicans would agree with the majority of Democrats on the same issue.

Even when there seem to be two sides to an issue, there are quite frequently really three: for, against, and don't give a damn. How many people in Duluth wish the school board and "Let Duluth Vote" would just shut up about the Duluth School District's Red Plan?

If we had a true democracy, we would have only independent candidates, each being relative unique in their positions and not beholden to any larger group. That probably will never happen, because people with similar views will work together more often than not. Our best arrangement is to have multiple parties with overlapping views. Unfortunately, we won't get this as long as people are concerned about "throwing their vote away" by voting for other than a Democrat or Republican.

The best thing about having more than two views is that we are more open to new ideas. Suppose there had been only two sides to the slavery question: keep all people with any African ancestry as slaves or send all of them back to Africa. The third side is to treat all people with any African ancestry as full citizens. Stay tuned: we're still working on that.