ELECTION
Bark as good as the bite: On election night a third party candidate for Minnesota’s deeply-contested senate seat, Dean Barkley, gathered 15% of the popular vote, but you wouldn’t know it. None of the national media outlets did anything more than mention there was a strong Independent candidate who might gather a decent number of votes. Not putting the image, the name and the total number of popular votes received by a third party who is gathering anything over 6% is despicable; there isn’t a word I can think to use which best describes the decision to leave Barkley’s name from the display revealing to voters how much of the pie a third party is receiving at 15%.
Stewart and Colbert: After seeing how boring watching the election results on the major networks and cable channels was going to be, I switched to Comedy Central so I could at least have a little irreverence with the sobering reality that the two parties had again fooled the overwhelming majority of voters into choosing them. I was disgusted by the partisanship displayed by both Colbert and Stewart for Barack Obama. I still love Jon Stewart, but sitting next to Colbert would make anyone seem like a blood-thirsty socialist, whose brand of irreverence (Colbert's) is too self-serving for my taste. Irreverence is too good a word to be cheapened by some liberal she-man (Colbert) whose appreciation of his own high-minded strumpetness is intolerable.
Election judges and pig thieves: I served as an election judge this year for the primary and general elections. Several things struck me as strange, among them: registered voters are not made to recite their address prior to signing their name on the voting rolls and/or are not required to show a picture id, or even a bill from their current address. I was underwhelmed by the verification requirements in place to protect against voter fraud. At this point, considering how much research I have done for this overall adventure, I should not be surprised at the inconsistency of the government- as it does get involved in certain areas of life such as: politics, business, society, law, athletics, and science, but will just as often pull their punches; they continue to amaze me with their meddling and with their inaction. Politicians continue to interject when it seems clear they should remain at ease and coyly demure when it seems clear that they should respond. They are no more wise than the “Thieves Caught with 12 Pigs Stuffed in [a] Minivan” Reuters, November 6, 2008. Who knew that pig-stealing was illegal in Budapest? Who could equate pig-stealing to pork-barrel spending by the legislators we elect? But we are just as powerless to stop Hungarian pig thieves as of finding representatives who aren’t pigs that steal from us.
Electoral college- the setup: I have not much cared for the way in which we elect a president and have always been inclined to disapprove of the electoral vote method. A colleague reminded me, that at heart, republicans and democrats think of an Independent as a person who will never be able to change anything, who may cost others more worthy of winning elections by their very inclusion as a somewhat serious candidate, and that an Independent is merely capable of complaining about the ills of this country without being able to provide any solutions. Not quite true; I have often proposed a solution that balances the wishes of both parties, while providing for the middle class.
Electoral college- the ailment: It has always seemed strange to me that ten thousand people might vote in a state and have their vote completely cancelled out, and then some, by twelve thousand people who live in the same state 350 miles away whose way of life is vastly different, and whose occupations, interests, life experiences, childhoods, etc. have few resembling characteristics. City people and country people are quite different and may look for different things from a representative, and only both require, by definition, that the representative be competent. To the point, if all other representatives in the nation are elected by popular vote, why shouldn’t the oligarchic head of the country be elected in a manner that more closely resembles that way? I get it- I know how the electoral college works, the number of electoral votes each state gets based on the number of representatives according to population and senators (2 for each state), the Virginia Plan, the Connecticut compromise- blah, blah. I get why, in theory, this approach was adopted. But since that time, the nation has grown- people are quite different and require different things from their president. People will say, that Minnesota went for Obama. That the overwhelming majority of people spread across the state voted and thus all 10 electoral votes should go to him, though one of the congressional districts heavily favored McCain, for, by all intents and purposes, were exemplary reasons. No matter, the state of Minnesota elected Obama president, when in fact, they have done nothing of the sort, perhaps all urbanites, comprising a certain congressional district went for Obama, but rural voters chose McCain. This significant difference is not really reflected in the results, unless you are watching John King’s sliding map graphics on CNN.
Electoral college- the temporary cure: Many people complain about the notion that their vote does not mean anything and after I offer my attempt at a solution, they may still feel that way, but there is not a doubt that their vote will mean more. I am not even proposing that my attempt at an improvement would have changed the results in any meaningful way, but the point is that it could at some point. My proposal would be to award electoral votes according to a state’s congressional districts. Pure insanity right . . . so outlandish that it is hardly worthy of consideration, to change that is wrong. This method is already in place in two states. Nebraska and Maine already split their electoral votes in this way and as of November 7, 2008 one of the congressional district related electoral votes may still go Obama’s way, the first time a democrat would have picked up an electoral vote in Nebraska since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. I would wager that a Nebraskan feels as if his vote counts more than someone in most any other state, besides Maine of course. Again, I do not know that this is a permanent cure, but one which should be adopted in order to make everyone’s single vote more meaningful than it is now. California, as well as many other states, have introduced adjustments to the winner take all approach to electoral votes. Further, in primary elections, many states already split their votes. Candidates would have to lavish more faint praise, and some legitimate attention, upon states based on congressional district and it would give John King more numbers to calculate, more unknowns to assume and it would be more difficult for any network or cable election results show to award a state’s popular votes to Obama with 3% of the precincts reporting though he trailed by 11% in terms of the popular vote; this is no exaggeration, I actually saw this on election night. The whole feeding frenzy of determining the winner based on such a limited number of reporting precincts is mindful of those who buy, sell and trade stocks. We shouldn't have cause to compare our election process to a major component of our economic well being.
Electoral college- a further panacea: While this approach is not more likely to win an election for an Independent, it would benefit any candidate who legitimately captures the hearts of a more refined collection of voters, or successfully bores them collectively into submission. The current system awards all 55 electoral votes to the winner of California, even should the loser gather 49% of the popular vote, and who, given that proximity to a majority number of popular votes gained, likely won some congressional districts. Voters more closely linked on our American land mass have more in common with each other based on congressional district, and we ought to award electoral votes accordingly if for no other reason than to very posthumously annoy the hell out of Alexander Hamilton. Luckily, there are more reasons than that to adopt it. (Note: Nebraska awards 3 of its electoral votes based on congressional district and its two others (derived from its two senators), based on popular vote. As this version of the electoral college is already being administered as an elixir in some states, I do not see why the FDA, the voting public, or the representatives should not adopt it.
Independents who ruin elections: Minnesota voters in 1998 elected a former wrestler as governor and many of those who voted for him regret having done so. Some people may never vote for an Independent again considering in what ways Jesse Ventura abused his power, though the two major parties are filled with partisan windbags who are corruption mules, transporting havoc into the various legislatures across the country, who wreak of disrepute, who exude insincerity and continue to be a political pestilence. Has no democrat or republican ever earnestly abused their power or used their temperament to gain advantages- Ted Stevens of Alaska- republican (gift acceptance) and John Edwards of North Carolina- democrat (marital hypocrisy)? A local newspaper columnist reported that a Minnesota “exit poll found that if the Independence Party’s Dean Barkley had not been on the ballot, his voters would have chosen Franken over Coleman, 30 percent to 25 percent.” (Lori Sturdevant, Minneapolis Star Tribune OP1 & OP4, November 9, 2008.) That is like asking someone if steak were removed from the menu would you rather have a dog bone or some soup made from the insect guts collected from the grill of a Malibu that had just come back from a trip up north. Ask the question- “if Franken hadn’t been on the ballot who would you have voted for?” Um, Barkley had almost no money to conduct a proper campaign, and didn’t start advertising until a couple weeks prior to the election; his opponents combined to collect more than $32 million to spend on their campaigns and Barkley still captured 15% of the vote. Imagine what Independents could do if the campaign-related expenditures were more in line with dems and reps.
As good as it gets: The best line from a movie matching the title of this paragraph was spoken by Jack Nicholson (Melvin Udall) and was in reference to the female persuasion- “I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.” The women I’ve known, by and large, are far more accountable than men and far more reasonable than they have been given credit for. The quotation would be far more appropriate if Nicholson had replaced the intended targets- (women) with those who collectively have not so much reason and accountability as one who is voting for them might hope (politicians). The second best line of that movie, might invoke the first, if one were still referring to politicians and what they might hope to be. Imagine how appreciative thousands of voters might be, if just one of the elected representatives said something to us like: “You make me want to be a better man.” And imagine how elated we would be if we had reason to believe them. Unfortunately, hoping for a third alternative, or a fourth, when it comes time for us to vote for a representative is about as good as it is going to get. I have never indicated that was the cure, in the same way that Advil will not keep someone who suffers from chronic headaches from ever being afflicted with one again.
POLITICS GENERALLY I
It might be asked: “What in the hell would you know about politics, as you have never campaigned, served in elected office, been a lobbyist sometimes requesting the presence of an elected official, been married to an elected official or been the pet of an elected official. How could you say things such as: ‘Some politicians would play two-hand-touch football to the death against a quadriplegic’ and balk at the insistence of rules, claiming that they are Unconstitutional. Probably just a guess, and again I must concede that local, district and county officials are less likely to presume that the power they have been entrusted with is a mandate to promote agendas that would not benefit the greatest number of citizens or used to protect those citizens from their own collected vices or shortsightedness, thus the italicized "some" in the previous sentence. It is largely the presidents and congressmen I am worried about, not exclusively, but primarily.
What is Left to be Right About
What remains: What may have been the most important election in my lifetime* has just concluded, so I thought I should take stock in what remains to be covered for those people who are just patient enough to have kept track of any progress I might actually have made. I have to cover the free-market and taxation. That could take me 17 more posts. Very few people would think I was kidding at this point. So that it does not take me 17 more posts, I will begin to end.
Good and Bad
Good and Bad: The most basic tenet in the world- assuming life and following Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (food, water, shelter, etc.)- is the dichotomy between the search for pleasure, the finding of what is good, and the avoidance of pain, that which is bad, unless you are a masochist. Largely, life exists between the two extremes to the ennui of all. A living thing as biologically simple as a house plant leans into the light which is good for it. The fly which is approached by an annoyed homeowner carrying a newspaper tired of the airborne intruder, flees from the massive shadow about to take its life, whether it does so instinctively or because it has learned to do so is inconsequential. If I were to wager money on the first word uttered in the history of man, I would wager that that word was “good”- (this fire is good, this mammoth meat is “good,” Ooga, the Neanderthal temptress has a “good” body and the vittles she made to entice me to lie with her which has snow as its major ingredient is also good.** All that is good and bad in life is either empirically learned or is innately true, or we read it in the bible and laugh. God created the light which he thought was good; the dry land he called Earth and the gathering of the waters which he separated from the Earth was good; the division of the light he created from the darkness was also good; everything he created was good. Yes, god was very proud of himself and so it figures that he was our first politician.
Good and Bad in everyone: We are capable of considering what is good and bad for us based on intuition, experience, common sense, based on the prayers of our parents, the pleading of our children, from an exchange of ideas with intelligent persons or a random, or intended, encounter with the less fortunate. We discuss on which days our children will attend pre-school with our spouses, whether major league baseball should adopt a more far-reaching instant replay system with co-workers, or consider, in our own mind, which political party is more out of touch with our needs, and all of that is done with an eye toward what is good and what is bad for all involved, or if you are a selfish ass, only what is good for you. The objective of almost any debate I can think of is to determine which method, approach, result, or desire is better than others up for cogitation. Right and wrong, even at their core, is not as fundamental a concept as good and bad, for the former binary opposites are not so universally simplistic as the latter. Something is right because it is good for us, or as perceived by us. I imagine that the most pleasing thing one can say to the host of a dinner party whether that person resides in this country or you are the guest of some inhabitant of a country in Asia, is to tell them that whatever food they have served or whatever the condition of their abode- that it is good, even if you have to lie and must, at all costs, never inform them that such a thing as they have provided is displeasing (i.e. bad), whether you want to have action with them or not. Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder sang that “There’s good and bad in everyone.” Truly, truly profound stuff.
More good and bad: When people choose a political candidate who is the lesser of two evils they are choosing the person whom they feel can cause them the least harm. Thinking about Brooke Burke in Dancing with the Stars= good, waking up at 3 a.m. with a cramp in your calf= bad; a hand model losing a finger= bad (Associated Press, November 17, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774859) and a successful tracheal transplant= good, (Associated Press, November 18, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27790019) unless it is the windpipe of a talk show host. Making the decision to buy a light fixture, a universal remote, or a beagle is a decision made by weighing the merits of one option against the other to the point where one option is considered good while the other options are acknowledged as bad, not as good, or are non-existent.
A HIGHLY DERIVATIVE SECTION - ROUSSEAU
A social contract: . . . is defined in Wikipedia as “a broad class of republican theories whose subjects are implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, termed the ‘state of nature’ or ‘natural state’.” We give up living in a state of nature, a more crude and basic human existence where each person would hunt, farm, or gather food and no legal, societal or political order would have been pronounced or followed. All members of society subject a portion of freedom to both the general and the sovereign will in life under a social contract. The “sovereign will” can be a monarchy, oligarchy, republic or democracy. Largely, a social contract is preferable to mass anarchy or despotism, and therefore, is considered good.
Rousseau and “The Social Contract” (1762): Aside from being one of the biggest hypocrites in the history of civilization,*** Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote perhaps the most basic, and outstanding, philosophical treatise on freedom and the general will of the people as advocates for the common good. The opening line of “The Social Contract” is this: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” I would consider this far from representing the average life in this country, far, far from it- we have untold freedoms. Most of us think that we are free to vote for just one of two rich, privileged men for any office they should so desire. Until a couple of weeks ago, that freedom was also restricted to the choosing among two devious white men. Now, that is freedom.
Rousseau’s justification for the social contract: We want “ ‘to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.’ This is the fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution.” (pg. 60) I say definitively that the social contract is a good obligation to have oneself resigned to with certain caveats, certain side effects. Joe the Plumber, perhaps without knowing of Rousseau objected to at least one of them when he troubled Obama to explain his ideas on sharing the wealth. So, while the drug of a compact with the rest of a country’s inhabitants is good, the side effects caused by those who push the drug of conformity can cause complications- just ask your average conservative in the top 5% of the income bracket or virtually any member of the middle class who has been reading the economic tea leaves or those actually drinking the tea . . . that is probably about twice as expensive as it was last year, as everything else is.
Rousseau wrote a good number of meaningful words in The Social Contract that are well worth quoting to show how presciently predictable is our current state of political affairs- directly below are some of them . . . if you are waiting for him to have written about potential military entanglements with Pakistan and South Korea or an unpopular bailout package of the sugar-titted financial sector, you will be out of luck. Also, he seems to not have written much about free-trade agreements, but Lou Dobbs did (see below). For now, we could learn from Rousseau:
Democracy: “If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.” (pg. 114) Nor, I would add, has any such government been tailored by men; for men have never fit their own wants within the needs of all.
The will of the people: “ . . .it does not follow that the decisions of the people are always equally right. We always want what is advantageous but we do not always discern it. The people is never corrupted, but it is often misled; and only then does it seem to will what is bad.” (pg. 72) In each candidate’s arsenal is a campaign manager who advises their candidate to mislead the public . . . in a political contest involving two candidates, this approach works about half the time. The purpose of this is to mislead as much as it is to inform the public. There is nothing which causes me to disrespect someone more than a lack of honesty. Unfortunately, dishonesty is one of the politician’s most offensive weapons and is a weapon they employ just as well in their defense. I would provide examples of politicians who were caught transacting business illegally, but I don’t have the space to do such a list justice. Considering this Rousseau quote we could ask ourselves by whom are we misled and think on the result- that the people “seem to will what is bad” which is no worse than a group of politicians who are quite capable of doing the same, more demonstrably.
gods giving men laws: “To discover the rules of society that are best suited to nations, there would need to exist a superior intelligence, who could understand the passions of men without feeling any of them, who had no affinity with our nature but knew it to the full, whose happiness was independent of ours, but who would nevertheless make our happiness his concern, who would be content to wait in the fullness of time for a distant glory, and to labour in one age to enjoy the fruits in another. Gods would be needed to give men laws.” (pg. 84) Isn’t the person that Rousseau describes any candidate who has ever aired a political ad? Christians will claim that a god has already given us laws or the basis of laws (the Ten Commandments), but those are as collectively weak in their scope as is the Constitution in that way. I love irreverence, especially when I can insult the sanctity of religion and Constitutional politics at the same time. (Note: People should note that I continue to capitalize the word Constitution because I appreaciate the words that comprise it, and recall that I do not capitalize the offices of president, senator, governor, etc. I do not dismiss the contents of the document, but rather find fault with the document's brevity and related ambiguity; much could be added to it, that would make our society better.)
Immigration and natural resources: “. . . we should have to consider . . . the distinctive features of the land, whether more or less favourable to population; the number of immigrants that the lawgiver might hope to attract by his institutions. From this it follows that he must make his decisions in the light not of what he sees, but of what he foresees, calculating not so much the number of the existing population as the number which the population must naturally reach.” (pg. 94) Not that Rousseau is always the voice of reason, as I found many a passage which I could not defend, but his sense is too difficult to deny- (see parts 22-27). He has more justifications for believing one should consider more than just the present purposes of allowing mass immigration and touches upon the mass of land they are to inhabit and the resources they will need to use. Damn, he beat me to it, but only by a couple hundred years. Thankfully, he didn’t write about health insurance and emergency room visits and associated costs, etc.
Legislators: “When I walk towards an object, it is necessary first that I should resolve to go that way and secondly that my feet should carry me. When a paralytic resolves to run and when a fit man resolves not to move, both stay where they are. The body politic has the same two motive powers – and we can make the same distinction between will and strength, the former is legislative power and the latter executive power. Nothing can be, or should be, done in the body politic without the concurrence of both.” (pg. 101) Never fear, my good Rousseau, too often nothing has been done because the fit man and the paralytic have both resolved to stay where they are or have decided to move in concert when it would have served the people for them to have remained still.
Presidents: “The greatest kings known to history were not among those brought up to rule, for ruling is a science that is least well mastered by too much practice . . .” (pg. 121) Unfortunately, too many of those who legislate, and thus, who rule, have had entirely too much practice, say 12-36 years worth of practice . . . and sometimes as little as two.
Elected officials: “ . . . if, according to Plato, a born king is a very rare being – how often do Nature and Fortune combine to enthrone such a man? And if a royal education necessarily corrupts those who receive it, what must be expected of a succession of men brought up to rule?” (pg. 122) By the way, how many of our presidents, senators and house members were attorneys with vague aspirations inclining them toward the political realm. Admittedly, being a politician is a thankless job and most of mankind does love to be appreciated. Why would someone pursue the activity in a field where they are rarely to enjoy the adulation and success that they know at the outset is well near impossible to gain? What motive, (a word they should be familiar with, given the field in which they make their way), could an attorney have for entering such an arena? There must be something about the position of “representative” that does them some good. It seems to me that we ought not elect those who exhibit such a desperate need to get elected . . . it seems less that they are running toward a life of public service as away from anonymity. Those same qualities possessed by the most tactically able politicians are the ones that most definitively seal our fate as citizens of an oligarchy, keeping me a political agnostic.
Term limits: “. . . it is by this simple means that all the governments of the world, once armed with the public force, sooner or later usurp the public authority.” (pg. 147) How? Those classes which receive the most pity (the poor) or have the most money (the rich) find the most laws protecting the state of their indigence in the former case, or their property in the latter. The middle class’ authority is continually usurped, so much so that one might question what brand of authority the middle class has, or if such a suppressed will can be called by that name.
Voting:
“At the opening of . . . assemblies, of which the only purpose is the maintenance of the social treaty, two motions should be put, motions which may never be annulled and which must be voted separately:
“The first: ‘Does it please the sovereign to maintain the present form of government?’
“The second: ‘Does it please the people to leave the administration to those at present charged with it?’ ” (pg. 148)
One should keep in mind that this differs from the manner in which business is conducted in the United States. We come together to elect house of representatives members every two years, and some will suppose we are charged with the answering of that second motion. But how is our vote really executed when we change a zebra that is black with white stripes for one that is white with black stripes? Much more needs to change than the exchanging of one set of wolves for another. Sometimes I consider that certain candidates are so desperate in their expense of energy in getting elected that they have little left to rule.
Elections: Rousseau says as much when he writes- “Election by lot would have few disadvantages in a true democracy, for where all men were equal in character and talent as well as in principles and fortune, it would hardly matter who was chosen. But as I have already said, no true democracy exists.” (pg. 157) He may just as well have written this in 1962. There are few with an exemplary character who actually run for office. I must here reiterate, that by and large, I am not referring to district state senators, or representatives, for they are usually small fish in the cesspool of corruption and may only become more infected with the desperate need to keep getting elected the longer they find that the waters they swim in accommodate them.
What is good: “Men always love what is good or what they think is good, but it is in their judgement that they err; hence it is their judgement that has to be regulated.” (pg. 174) So, why so few regulations concerning that area of judgement in our American business, the financial and free-trade industries? See the Alan Greenspan quote below.
Rousseau and “The Social Contract” (1762): Aside from being one of the biggest hypocrites in the history of civilization,*** Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote perhaps the most basic, and outstanding, philosophical treatise on freedom and the general will of the people as advocates for the common good. The opening line of “The Social Contract” is this: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.” I would consider this far from representing the average life in this country, far, far from it- we have untold freedoms. Most of us think that we are free to vote for just one of two rich, privileged men for any office they should so desire. Until a couple of weeks ago, that freedom was also restricted to the choosing among two devious white men. Now, that is freedom.
Rousseau’s justification for the social contract: We want “ ‘to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.’ This is the fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution.” (pg. 60) I say definitively that the social contract is a good obligation to have oneself resigned to with certain caveats, certain side effects. Joe the Plumber, perhaps without knowing of Rousseau objected to at least one of them when he troubled Obama to explain his ideas on sharing the wealth. So, while the drug of a compact with the rest of a country’s inhabitants is good, the side effects caused by those who push the drug of conformity can cause complications- just ask your average conservative in the top 5% of the income bracket or virtually any member of the middle class who has been reading the economic tea leaves or those actually drinking the tea . . . that is probably about twice as expensive as it was last year, as everything else is.
Rousseau wrote a good number of meaningful words in The Social Contract that are well worth quoting to show how presciently predictable is our current state of political affairs- directly below are some of them . . . if you are waiting for him to have written about potential military entanglements with Pakistan and South Korea or an unpopular bailout package of the sugar-titted financial sector, you will be out of luck. Also, he seems to not have written much about free-trade agreements, but Lou Dobbs did (see below). For now, we could learn from Rousseau:
Democracy: “If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.” (pg. 114) Nor, I would add, has any such government been tailored by men; for men have never fit their own wants within the needs of all.
The will of the people: “ . . .it does not follow that the decisions of the people are always equally right. We always want what is advantageous but we do not always discern it. The people is never corrupted, but it is often misled; and only then does it seem to will what is bad.” (pg. 72) In each candidate’s arsenal is a campaign manager who advises their candidate to mislead the public . . . in a political contest involving two candidates, this approach works about half the time. The purpose of this is to mislead as much as it is to inform the public. There is nothing which causes me to disrespect someone more than a lack of honesty. Unfortunately, dishonesty is one of the politician’s most offensive weapons and is a weapon they employ just as well in their defense. I would provide examples of politicians who were caught transacting business illegally, but I don’t have the space to do such a list justice. Considering this Rousseau quote we could ask ourselves by whom are we misled and think on the result- that the people “seem to will what is bad” which is no worse than a group of politicians who are quite capable of doing the same, more demonstrably.
gods giving men laws: “To discover the rules of society that are best suited to nations, there would need to exist a superior intelligence, who could understand the passions of men without feeling any of them, who had no affinity with our nature but knew it to the full, whose happiness was independent of ours, but who would nevertheless make our happiness his concern, who would be content to wait in the fullness of time for a distant glory, and to labour in one age to enjoy the fruits in another. Gods would be needed to give men laws.” (pg. 84) Isn’t the person that Rousseau describes any candidate who has ever aired a political ad? Christians will claim that a god has already given us laws or the basis of laws (the Ten Commandments), but those are as collectively weak in their scope as is the Constitution in that way. I love irreverence, especially when I can insult the sanctity of religion and Constitutional politics at the same time. (Note: People should note that I continue to capitalize the word Constitution because I appreaciate the words that comprise it, and recall that I do not capitalize the offices of president, senator, governor, etc. I do not dismiss the contents of the document, but rather find fault with the document's brevity and related ambiguity; much could be added to it, that would make our society better.)
Immigration and natural resources: “. . . we should have to consider . . . the distinctive features of the land, whether more or less favourable to population; the number of immigrants that the lawgiver might hope to attract by his institutions. From this it follows that he must make his decisions in the light not of what he sees, but of what he foresees, calculating not so much the number of the existing population as the number which the population must naturally reach.” (pg. 94) Not that Rousseau is always the voice of reason, as I found many a passage which I could not defend, but his sense is too difficult to deny- (see parts 22-27). He has more justifications for believing one should consider more than just the present purposes of allowing mass immigration and touches upon the mass of land they are to inhabit and the resources they will need to use. Damn, he beat me to it, but only by a couple hundred years. Thankfully, he didn’t write about health insurance and emergency room visits and associated costs, etc.
Legislators: “When I walk towards an object, it is necessary first that I should resolve to go that way and secondly that my feet should carry me. When a paralytic resolves to run and when a fit man resolves not to move, both stay where they are. The body politic has the same two motive powers – and we can make the same distinction between will and strength, the former is legislative power and the latter executive power. Nothing can be, or should be, done in the body politic without the concurrence of both.” (pg. 101) Never fear, my good Rousseau, too often nothing has been done because the fit man and the paralytic have both resolved to stay where they are or have decided to move in concert when it would have served the people for them to have remained still.
Presidents: “The greatest kings known to history were not among those brought up to rule, for ruling is a science that is least well mastered by too much practice . . .” (pg. 121) Unfortunately, too many of those who legislate, and thus, who rule, have had entirely too much practice, say 12-36 years worth of practice . . . and sometimes as little as two.
Elected officials: “ . . . if, according to Plato, a born king is a very rare being – how often do Nature and Fortune combine to enthrone such a man? And if a royal education necessarily corrupts those who receive it, what must be expected of a succession of men brought up to rule?” (pg. 122) By the way, how many of our presidents, senators and house members were attorneys with vague aspirations inclining them toward the political realm. Admittedly, being a politician is a thankless job and most of mankind does love to be appreciated. Why would someone pursue the activity in a field where they are rarely to enjoy the adulation and success that they know at the outset is well near impossible to gain? What motive, (a word they should be familiar with, given the field in which they make their way), could an attorney have for entering such an arena? There must be something about the position of “representative” that does them some good. It seems to me that we ought not elect those who exhibit such a desperate need to get elected . . . it seems less that they are running toward a life of public service as away from anonymity. Those same qualities possessed by the most tactically able politicians are the ones that most definitively seal our fate as citizens of an oligarchy, keeping me a political agnostic.
Term limits: “. . . it is by this simple means that all the governments of the world, once armed with the public force, sooner or later usurp the public authority.” (pg. 147) How? Those classes which receive the most pity (the poor) or have the most money (the rich) find the most laws protecting the state of their indigence in the former case, or their property in the latter. The middle class’ authority is continually usurped, so much so that one might question what brand of authority the middle class has, or if such a suppressed will can be called by that name.
Voting:
“At the opening of . . . assemblies, of which the only purpose is the maintenance of the social treaty, two motions should be put, motions which may never be annulled and which must be voted separately:
“The first: ‘Does it please the sovereign to maintain the present form of government?’
“The second: ‘Does it please the people to leave the administration to those at present charged with it?’ ” (pg. 148)
One should keep in mind that this differs from the manner in which business is conducted in the United States. We come together to elect house of representatives members every two years, and some will suppose we are charged with the answering of that second motion. But how is our vote really executed when we change a zebra that is black with white stripes for one that is white with black stripes? Much more needs to change than the exchanging of one set of wolves for another. Sometimes I consider that certain candidates are so desperate in their expense of energy in getting elected that they have little left to rule.
Elections: Rousseau says as much when he writes- “Election by lot would have few disadvantages in a true democracy, for where all men were equal in character and talent as well as in principles and fortune, it would hardly matter who was chosen. But as I have already said, no true democracy exists.” (pg. 157) He may just as well have written this in 1962. There are few with an exemplary character who actually run for office. I must here reiterate, that by and large, I am not referring to district state senators, or representatives, for they are usually small fish in the cesspool of corruption and may only become more infected with the desperate need to keep getting elected the longer they find that the waters they swim in accommodate them.
What is good: “Men always love what is good or what they think is good, but it is in their judgement that they err; hence it is their judgement that has to be regulated.” (pg. 174) So, why so few regulations concerning that area of judgement in our American business, the financial and free-trade industries? See the Alan Greenspan quote below.
POLITICS GENERALLY II
The cure that ails us: So, we have chosen to elect the same old type of politician, one who seems polished, and seems like they should be respected within your community, especially considering his performance on 60 Minutes just the other night. While this cure will make us believe that our property taxes will be lowered and the money from the school referendum we pushed through will all make it to the children who most require it, we soon find that everything is about the way it was before. We have solved that pain in our knee which riddled us and we did not heed the side effect warning that told us not to take it if our elbows have grown in size since our twenties, have a secret respect for the Southwest Florida ‘Bra Bandit’**** or if we have ever side-swiped a moose outside of Alaska. We voted for Obama because we make less than $200,000 and we expect our tax break, though Mr. president-elect had forgotten all about the fiscal conservatives and conservative liberals he must also convince to give it to us. We had no idea of these contingencies, given our age and experience living in a country so filled with such austerely provided for checks and balances? Who knew we would lose our tax breaks because of the efforts of some who pushed through a legal way for those to power their Blue Tooth with propane and in the same bill found a way to deny everyone the right to ever have sexual intercourse on Halloween again . . . or at least until the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
Smoky clothes metaphor part I: Many of Rousseau’s words from above cause me to be mindful of so many events reported on in the news these days, those I read in newspapers, on the internet and those I discuss with neighbors, family and colleagues. I think of people I know who have complained about as much as I have about the current state of our political affairs and who have a mind to vote for an extended party candidate (i.e. third or fourth party), but ultimately relent in order to caste their vote so that they might keep the candidate they like least from getting into office. Anyone who has ever sat close enough to a fire for a period of about 30 minutes should be able to follow this metaphor. Consider that you have gone camping with friends and it is decided that a fire shall be made. You put on a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt and sit out talking and drinking some adult beverages for awhile. You eventually decide to call it an evening, head inside and remove the clothes you had been wearing, smelling them to see if perhaps you might be able to wear them in the boat the next morning as the weather is expected to be a little cool until the heat of the sun comes calling.
Smoky clothes metaphor part II: You figure that the sweatshirt and jeans do not smell all that smoky as you remove them. This judgment has nothing to do with your level of inebriation. The next morning you awake, ready for the day and go to slip on the clothes that did not seem to smell all that bad the night before. You generally find that the smell of fires is earthy, relaxing and you recall many a time you spent as a kid dazzled by the flames dancing before you roasting marshmallows and telling ghost stories, amid games of flashlight tag. But this sweatshirt and pair of jeans you thought smelled fine the night before now has an obnoxiously unwelcome smell, as if only the worst parts of the fire have embedded themselves in your former attire, infecting your denim and cottony goodness. You set aside the clothes in a location some distance from other clothes you thought you brought as you wish to keep the smell of smoke from them. But, as has happened to all of us, you have packed fewer clothes than you had planned; in your haste to hit the road in order to beat traffic, you have forgotten another long sleeve shirt that would have protected you against the cold.
Smoky clothes metaphor part III: Ladies and gentlemen, you have been cajoled for months upon months by a set of storytellers who made you believe again in simple solutions, who did not inform you of where they were going to get the money they planned to allocate to the dozens of programs that were their top priority. You were led to believe in change and led yourselves to believe that the clothes you were wearing while you were deciding how to caste your vote did not smell as bad as they soon will now that the fire of the election is over. Twilight judgment is not a thing to be proud of when the cold hard morning stretches out before us and leaves us again with fewer wardrobe options to face the day than we had figured upon the night before. The only clothes we have to wear after the fire is put out. . . to put it simply- stink!
FREE TRADE
Note: All of the quotations below come from Lou Dobbs’ book “War on the Middle Class” – chapter 6- “The Exorbitant Cost of Free Trade” (pages 92-107)
1) “We are borrowing almost $3 billion each and every day to pay for the goods and services we import. The result is that the only nation in the world that can claim to be a true superpower is being bankrupted by a nearly $9 trillion national debt [as of 2006] and an almost $5 trillion trade debt.” (pg. 93)
2) “We are still the world’s leading exporter of agricultural products, such as soybeans, corn, cotton, and wheat. But we may soon lose that global title. In fact, the United States is on track for the first time in half a century to import more food than it exports. It is likely that in the next two years that we will not only be dependent on the rest of the world for our automobiles, computers, consumer electronics, and clothing, but also for our food.” (pg. 95) I cannot overstate that- "for our food"!
3) “We are still the world’s biggest consumer economy, but we have also become the world’s biggest debtor. And that debt will only rise while the administration’s so-called free trade policies continue to export our capital and wealth to foreign companies and governments.” (pg. 95) It is because we are the world's biggest consumer economy that I believe that a change in our free-trade policies will benefit the country, while punishing those attempting to over-profit from business dealings where now they are hiding their profits off-shore. (See the Crime and punishment paragraph below.)
4) “The United States encounters trade barriers and high tariffs and restrictions . . . When Chinese-made automobiles . . . begin coming to this country [in 2007] they will face a 2.5 percent tariff. Ford and General Motors will face a 25 percent tariff should they muster the courage to even export to China.” (pg. 96) If an economist wants to declare that the U.S. is only trying to convince other countries to trade with us in the hope that we will in some way be better off down the road because of a globalized marketplace where the philosophy- a rising tide floats all boats is king, the risk is not worth the reward given those trade disparities. I think it is best if there are more sources for the rising tide than just one which may be emptied to pacify the depth that all might begin to get overly used to. The automobile manufacturers (GM and Ford) are now clamoring for a bailout though it is the government that is responsible for their predicament . . . and in turn, ours. The government is responsible for selling them down the river- to keep with the water metaphor. (Note: See "Automaker bailout Appears in Jeopardy" Associated Press, November 17, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27766792/).
5) “NAFTA proponents and free-trade-at-any-cost advocates point to the doubling of U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada over the past decade. But during that period our imports from these countries have tripled, and the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada combined is almost $127 billion as of 2005. We buy almost everything that Canada exports; 85 percent of their exports come to the United States.” (pg. 100)
6) A congressman from Ohio said this on Dobbs’ show- “ ‘In Guatemala and Nicaragua, the average wage is less than three thousand dollars a year. We’re not going to sell products to them. They can’t buy cars made in Ohio, or software from Seattle . . . But they are places where American companies will move. We’ll lose American jobs, and exploit workers in Guatemala. These trade agreements aren’t working for Americans or for the countries who are our trading partners.’ ” (pg. 103) Can those in Guatemala, Nicaragua, or say, the Philipines afford to buy information from American companies? See below.
7) “ . . . in 2005, America imported 700,000 cars from South Korea. American car companies sold a grand total of 3,900—three thousand nine hundred—cars in Korea. That’s because Korea limits the number of cars that it will allow into its country.” (pg. 103) We do not, and seemingly will not limit the number of American pimps that are sacrificing the livelihoods of tens and hundreds of thousands of American workers.
8) “The Bush administration proposed a rule change that would allow foreign airlines to control U.S. air carriers . . . the Department of Transportation wanted to change the rules and allow foreign control, despite the fact that foreign carriers do not allow U.S. airlines to control them.” (pg. 105-106)
9) “The cost of free trade is truly exorbitant. The United States is losing not only production, capital, and jobs, but our sovereignty . . .” (pg. 107) Huh, and here I thought that subjecting our collected general will to the sovereign will of our own countries "leaders" was a good thing. When they trade that will to a set of foreign powers- that seems like a bad thing to me. That seems like the collected politicians could have a bit of a personality disorder. They preach that the other party candidate is completely to blame, but they are just as likely the culprit for our current and future predicament. They extol their virtues and we forget their vices.
10) One senator told Dobbs: “ ‘This is about the corporate agenda in America. Big corporations, more powerful than ever. They want to access cheap labor overseas; they want to sell the product back in this country, [and] run their earnings through the Cayman Islands to stop paying taxes. And who are the victims here?’ ”
11) Dobbs continues to write: “As Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy and Research told Business Week, ‘We have had a 30-year period in which the real median wage has grown 9%, while productivity is up 80%. Almost none of that improvement has gone to the majority of the labor force.’ ” These are things I have been writing about for well over a year, things I did not have to read to have noticed.
12) “The administrations of three presidents . . . have underwritten this war on the middle class. Both political parties have embraced the misguided politics and faith-based economics of so-called free trade, which philosophically exculpates our elected officials from any responsibility for the declining quality of employment. They can, in fact, defend the lower standard of living their policies are creating by declaring that lower wages and benefits are actually making America more competitive in a global marketplace . . . God knows, we wouldn’t want our policymakers to interfere with the creative destructionism of unfettered capitalism. Never mind that there is nothing free about either the trade policies or the markets that are dominated by multinational corporate interests.”
First-hand knowledge: I know of what Dobbs writes. Just last week the very large corporation that employs a friend of mine announced that India and the Philippines will be the home of an apparently undisclosed number of new employees in 2009. This will cost 70 people their jobs, at least initially, whether by attrition, buyouts or layoffs. This is probably only step one. Hundreds of people were courted into different rooms at appointed hours and told that this is just the way business works. Employees were informed by the two heads of operations for the business units in video form, men who are probably given hundreds of thousands, if not more, in bonuses each year for doing what thousands of people could do- run the business, optimizing its money making ability, by partnering with politicians and economic climate conditions that reward a businesses diabolical ways. The two men proclaimed that a big portion of its customers were overseas. Great, then you do business with them exclusively, and we hope that you rot in Gordan Ghekko hell. If you live in this country and hide your profits in off-shore accounts, you will need to move your residences outside of the country and will need a passport to come and visit here in our country. That is about all I feel up to communicating on that event at this time. If more information is required, please see- http://www.startribune.com/business/34497509.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU.
Crime and Punishment: To me, this is corporate crime. The punishment for corporate crime is always more difficult to dole out. It isn't illegal yet, mind you, but should be. I was talking with a relative a few months ago and stated that this type of off-shoring and outsourcing maneuver is exactly the type of thing which must be quashed. He said there was no way to punish them for doing this. But there is. For each transaction, shipment and service they provide to an American individual, business or entity, tax them a rate which makes the idea of outsourcing unpalatable. If the American company continues to conduct business with overseas business partners, how can they still hide their incomes in offshore accounts? They are Americans and derive special benefits from being so. If they want to denounce their American citizenship and live a life in exile for the almighty dollar let them go. When they want to visit here they will be required to enter the country with their passport, just like any other visitor.
Seeeeee: Alan Greenspan, during his congressional testimony a few weeks back said: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” Just about everyone has quoted this line from the Wizard of Oz, in terms of the philosophy of free-market advocacy. Fourth-graders who were doing state reports on Michigan probably threw the word “shocked” (also a word Greenspan used) into their reports about how the “markets did not work as anticipated.” (New York Times, David Brooks, October 29, 2008- which appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Opinion A13). Perhaps conservatives should not be too sure of themselves . . . “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley. Even now, conservatives are denouncing Greenspan for giving their liberal counterparts so much ammunition. While Greenspan's words are specifically directed at financial industries and not free-market businesses generally, they are just as well-suited to the latter as they are to the former. In an economic climate when people are deferring retirement and losing their jobs as executives are given millions in bonuses and golden parachute packages, we have to require more of our politicians who continue to allow businesses to run rough-shod over the citizens of this country.
Next: I will get more into corporate interests and outsourcing next time. This is an element of campaign finance reform that can be seen to have come full circle; believe I know. I had remarked at least six months ago that I could be the victim of the very types of job losses I was speculating on when I was writing about immigration.
__________________________________________________________
* Of course this will be a matter of debate. Politicians and those with a tendency to overstate everything will say this every four years. Clearly we heard this during the 2000 presidential election and I believe I heard it when I watched some Nixon v. Kennedy footage a few weeks ago from the 1960 election. But considering all of the things I have written about extensively for the past 38 posts, which I do not need to catologue, the opinion of how important this election was is difficult to deny.
** Hey, it probably didn’t take long for the caveman to learn to lie if he wanted to get some action.
*** I would be shocked if he and Alexander Hamilton weren’t pals.
**** “ ‘Bra Bandit Strikes Again in Southwest Florida,” Associated Press, October 6, 2008.
