What Do the People Want?

As a new Congress is seated, one that has a tidy GOP majority in the House and a slimmer Democratic majority in the Senate, one of the big questions will be -- what do the people want?  John Boehner and Eric Cantor have made much of the fact that the GOP won "big" -- that is won the House in the most recent election.  This, they believe, gives them a mandate to undo all the bad things the Democrats did in the last Congress, which in their opinion the American people didn't want.  Well, if I remember correctly, in the previous (2008) election, the American people gave the Democrats, at least for a time, a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and an overwhelming advantage in the House -- plus they gave the White House to the Democrats.  So, you would have thought that 2008 gave the Democrats a mandate.  But, if you thought that -- according to Republicans -- you would be wrong. 

The way the Republicans seem to look at the 2008 elections is very different.  Consider that they keep on insisting, quoting Sean Hannity almost verbatim, that the Democrats "shoved down the throats of the American People" a health bill they didn't want.  Truth be told -- the poll numbers are much more complicated than many have been led to believe.  A sizable number don't like the Bill because it doesn't go far enough -- that is, they didn't like the compromise.  But if you take those who want a better, more far reaching bill, plus those who like the fact that a Bill got passed, and put them together you have a majority of Americans who favor government involvement in health care -- because they don't like the former system (now being fazed out).  Oh, and if they didn't want health care reform why did the American voters overwhelmingly support President Obama's bid for office.  I seem to remember him saying quite clearly that one of his top agenda points was health care reform!  Maybe I misheard him, but I think he made that clear in a debate with John McCain. 

Then there's the tax issue.  The Tea Party folks, which in my mind still seems to be a small but very loud minority, wants you to believe that all taxes are bad and that we should make the government really small -- sort of like it was at the beginning, back when Thomas Jefferson was advocating pretty much unfettered freedom.  What people seem to forget was that Jefferson came out of an Agrarian context much different from today.  When the Republic was founded the Industrial Age had yet to even hit America.  Folks -- things have changed a lot since 1800!  

People want services.  They want safe food, they want safe roads and streets, they want quality health care at an affordable price, they want good schools, but they're not thrilled about paying for them.  Read just the other day that a majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthiest Americans before budget cuts are made.  

So, Republicans, watch out -- you may be claiming the mantle of the people, but the people may have already moved on!   

The Day After

"The Day After" is the title of a 1980s TV movie about the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.  I don't think we went through a nuclear holocaust last night, but the election results weren't pretty.  The Democrats will keep the Senate, probably because of a couple of Tea Party candidates that went too far out of the mainstream.  We will have to wait to see what happens next.  Health Care Reform isn't going anywhere, but there won't be any more stimulus.  Tea Party folks will be calling for deep spending cuts, believing that there are billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and fat to cut.  We've heard this before.  There are those who call for the end of earmarks, but conservative Republicans are just as apt, if not more apt, to bring home the pork as liberal Democrats.  So, who wants to give up the benefits they bring home -- benefits that lead to re-election.  I remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger came into office, he was sure there was lots of fat to cut and quickly found out that there wasn't much he could do -- largely because the voters, through the initiative process, had tied up most of the budget. 

One of the things to notice is that while there are younger Tea Partiers, the vast majority are older.  Thus, my sense is that this "revolution" we're seeing will be short lived, maybe no more than a year.  It will be interesting to see  how "mainstream" Republicans try to coexist with their fractious newcomers, many of whom have no experience in government.   Will their constituents support them in the long run?   Remember that two years ago, the Democrats rode a crest of enthusiasm to historic gains.  This time, with a much older electorate than two years ago, Republicans rode a wave of voter discontent to victory. 

I think we also need to ask the question of how much influence the recent Supreme Court decision freeing Corporations to spend as much as they want on elections, with no transparency.  Money can't be given to candidates, but can be given to parties, so the vast majority of ads were either 3rd party or Political party ads -- and much of this was full of deception or misinformation.  My sense is that many voters were so turned off by everything that they just decided not to vote, and that's likely true of younger voters.

Finally, I want to make a comment about what happened yesterday in my new hometown of Troy, Michigan.  There was a ballot measure that would fund the library for ten years, restoring its funding in full.  The opponents of this measure, which was placed on the ballot with the support of the Friends of the Library, fought it through what I believe was extremely deceptive means.  They placed three other ballot measures that looked almost exactly like the first one, forcing voters to figure out which one to support.  Then, they began a separate campaign of disinformation calling for the defeat of all four tax increases, suggesting that if all four passed, then there would be four tax increases, which wasn't true.  They also suggested that the library would have to go out and buy a new building and new resources, which is also untrue.  If the separate board had been established, the city could easily transfer ownership to the new board, as has been done in other communities.  The difference between yes and no votes is a mere 600 or so votes.  If the other three had not been on the ballot, would it have been defeated?  I don't think so.  I've learned something very quickly about Troy -- there is a small group of people who have figured out how to control the structures of power, and they will do everything they can to achieve their purpose.  They lost out in the last city council election cycle, but I fear that they will regain power and that doesn't bode well for what is supposedly one of the most affluent cities in the state.

But, at the end of the day, we will survive.  We will live on to fight another day.  My hope is not in any one party or program, but in God.  I will continue my calling to push for the common good of all, and not just the few.  That is, I believe, the desire of God. 

Party Like It's . . . A Political Party

Randall Stephens

Third party politics has long altered the American political landscape. Some of those included, along with periods of most activity:

Anti-Masonic Party (1820s and 1830s)

Liberty Party (1840s)

Free-Soil Party (1840s and 1850s)

Know-Nothing/Nativist Party (1840s-1860)

Greenback Party (1870s)

Prohibition Party (1880s-1890s)

People’s Party (1890s-1900s)

Socialist Party (1900s-19-teens)

Progressive Party (three separate movements: 19-teens, 1920s, 1940s)

Dixiecrats (1948)

For details on each, see this handy Encyclopedia Britannica site. Will the Tea Party change party politics in America? Will it be a factor in the coming years?

Related links: "Third parties leave a mark: A timeline of third party showings," Christian Science Monitor, 28 October 2010.

Is Voting an Act of Violence? Reflections on Election Process

Yesterday I offered up some thoughts on the upcoming elections.  The day before that I offered up a review of a book entitled Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics.  I have always believed that voting is not just a right, but a sacred privilege to be taken very seriously.  I have tried to vote in every election and I make it a point to go to the polls to vote.  I have taken my lead in part from Romans 13, though my interpretation might not be standard issue. 

In Romans 13, Paul tells the people to be "subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God."  In our country, which is a democracy, the governing authority is the voter.  Thus, I am to be subject to the direction given by the voters, even if I don't always agree with the majority on every issue or candidate.  Now I don't follow this lead blindly, but I understand that in our system we have the right to resist through the vote.  Because I believe that voting is important it has been my belief that if you don't vote then don't complain.  That's the way I was raised.

With that as the background I find quite challenging the premise that voting could be an act of violence.  In an essay in Split Ticket John Edgerton and Vince Amlin make this very claim.

Most of us think about voting for a President as choosing between candidates, deciding who is best suited for the position.  This is only part of the story.  We are also voting to place someone in the office of President.  This office, like any, comes with a job description, part of which is the role of Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  When we vote, we collectively decide to give one person control over the deadliest weapon in the world, the U.S. military, and authorize him or her to use it whenever necessary.  Voting in a Presidential election does more than simply express a preference.  Voting also affirms the broader political order of our nation, and that political order is not peaceful.  (Split Ticket, p. 59). 

Although I don't find the argument convincing -- maybe that's because of my own upbringing -- I think it is appropriate to consider the kind of political order we've committed ourselves to.  Remember that Paul was writing to people living under Roman Rule.  He suggested that government provided structure and order, but he didn't give his imprimatur on any particular form of government. 

Although I'm not sure that voting is an act of violence, I have become more and more convinced that the act of campaigning is verging on becoming an act of violence.  I realize that nastiness has always been part of the campaign process, but with the multiple forms of media available, and the huge sums of money available due to corporate spending on elections, they have become more and more polarizing each time out.  It is rare to see a positive TV commercial, and if you're watching TV for a couple of hours in an evening you will be bombarded by commercial after commercial. 

Is voting an act of violence, I'm not convinced that it is, but the process has become increasingly violent.  And, to be honest I'm concerned about the kind of governance we will get if we continue down this road.  

Election Day is Near at Hand

A week from now, we'll all wake up and be able to enjoy watching TV without having to endure the constant drone of political ads that seem to multiply exponentially each year.  We will know whether the GOP has been able to wrest control of one or more houses of Congress.  We'll have a better sense of the short term impact of the so-called Tea Party.  And we'll get on with life.  Indeed, we likely will see the stock market soar. 

I'd like to make a few comments about the political forecast.

• Third party ads  that are financed by unknown groups and corporations are impacting this election cycle -- though we don't know in what way to this point  (there could be a backlash against candidates backed by shadowy groups that are financed by corporations protecting their own interests)
• Restating the first point, the recent Supreme Court ruling, allowing Corporations to spend whatever they wish on elections is having in my mind a negative impact on the elections.
• Concern about the anti-intellectualism present in this cycle.  In its populist backlash against so-called "elitism" we're seeing a lot of rhetoric that is anti-science and simply anti-education.  It's a "don't trust egg-head" mentality.
• Although politics can corrupt, political experience is helpful.  Lobbyists prey on rookies.  One of the reasons why California is in such bad shape is that the legislature no longer has experienced legislators, and so lobbyists have run amok.
• The Obama team has not done a good enough job selling its accomplishments.  Here in Michigan ads are being run against the incumbent freshman Democrat, who has won the endorsement of all the local papers, suggesting that he voted for a failed stimulus plan that has cost Michigan jobs.  Last I knew, the Obama administration had provided considerable support to two important industries in this district -- including Chrysler, which has its headquarters in Auburn Hills. And people are buying the rhetoric.
•  Closer to home, I'm really dismayed by the politicized nature of judicial elections in the state of Michigan.  I'm used to a very different system in California, where the governor appoints judges and they are then later confirmed by the voters in non-partisan elections.  Here there are as many ads for the Supreme Court candidates as the governor, and not only that but they are nastier and more politicized than the ones for the gubernatorial candidates. 

I'll leave it at that.  My word of encouragement here is to go vote on Tuesday.  I believe that this is an important election, one that may have a lot to do with the future of the country.  We have a Republican Party leadership that has one thing on its mind -- making sure that President Obama is a one-term President.  In other words, it's not the good of the country that is foremost in their mind, but regaining the White House, and with it power. 

I will admit to being a left of center Democrat.  I'm still a strong supporter of Barack Obama.  I believe that the Health Care Reform that was passed this last year is an important building block to providing access to health care for all Americans.  Did it go far enough?  No.  Does it need to be tweaked? Yes!  Should it be repealed?  I'm a pastor, so I shan't use the word I want to us, but no it shouldn't.  In fact the majority of Americans don't want to see it repealed, they want to see it strengthened.  As for financial regulatory reform so that we don't have a repeat of the Great Recession that we're still clawing our way out of, well it's not a perfect bill.  It doesn't go far enough, and yet once again it is a good beginning.  As for the Stimulus, is it a failure?  Well, as I remember it, not long after the last election the experts were saying that we would hit around 15% national unemployment.  We never did.  While unemployment is stuck at 9.6%, the economy is growing and things never got as bad as predicted.  So, just maybe it did work, its just that the hole was so deep it's taking us a lot longer to dig out from it.  And as for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- don't think that a McCain administration would have exited them earlier than an Obama one.  McCain's platform called for going in deeper and staying longer.  So, while I'm not "satisfied," by the progress of the last two years, I surely do not want to go back to what was. 

Finally, I want to say I'm disappointed by the way the media has painted this election.  It has from the very beginning, because of all the Tea Party ruckus, chanted the mantra about an enthusiasm gap.  I believe it is a gap that the media has contributed to by its continued message that the Republicans will win and the Democrats will lose.  Sometimes that message can have the effect of suppressing voter confidence.  So, to the media -- shame on you!

Obama won because Jim Crow-era law not on books - Tancredo

hat tip- morphus

From the Tea Party Convention today:

Tea Party convention's racial brouhaha: Obama won because Jim Crow-era law not on books - Tancredo
BY Brian Kates
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention called President Obama a "committed Socialist ideologue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

"You have launched the counter-revolution," the speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), told 600 or so delegates of the grassroots movement assembled at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville Wednesday night. "It is our nation.

Tancredo also insisted on using Obama's middle name, Hussein, and said he was thankful Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona lost the 2008 presidential election because Obama has mobilized an uprising.

"People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House," he said.

To make it simple, he wants THE LITERACY TEST BACK AT THE POLLS.

This ' test' was done to totally DISENFRANCHISE Black folks, because BLACK FOLK were the ONLY ONES given the Literacy Test during Jim Crow.

You can put this under the THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE news.

Nobody has come out from the GOP to condemn Tancredo...

Michael Steele, are you a mute on his comments?