United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Kentucky's State Flag

There are four states in our union that aren't technically states; they are commonwealths. My home state of Kentucky is one. From legal and constitutional standpoints, there's essentially no difference.

But I like the older term. To call yourself a commonwealth serves as a constant reminder of why we joined together politically in the first place. The role of government, at all levels, is to ensure the public welfare, the good of the community, the "common wealth" of the republic.

The Kentucky state flag reminds reminds us of our commitments to one another, not just by reminding its residents of their commonwealth status, but by reinforcing it through the sate motto, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Certainly an inspiring notion, that we can do more together than we can do alone. And even for someone like me who is a true believer in enlightened self-interest, I have come to recognize that my self-interests are often best served though collaboration and compromise.

These symbols of my home state -- or home commonwealth, I should say -- have resonated with me in the wake of this contentious presidential election. As of this writing, Michigan and New Hampshire are yet to be called, but it looks as though Donald Trump will win 306 electoral college votes to Hillary Clinton's 232. And for the second time in the past five election cycles, a Democrat will lose the presidential race despite winning the popular vote.

Those circumstances alone make the necessary legitimizing of a presidential election difficult, but the process of unification that typically follows elections will be that much harder given the pugnacious personality of President-Elect Trump. Still, some measure of coming together to serve the common good is necessary if we are to make any progress as a nation.

During his campaign, Trump insulted an astounding number of people, including Latinos, Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, and women. All of these groups responded to this vitriol in the voting booth, leaning heavily toward Clinton -- except for white women, whom Trump astonishingly won by 10 points.

Now many of these minority groups have genuine fears following Trump's victory. They are unsure if he will follow through with his rhetoric. Will they be deported? Will they be harassed by police? Will they maintain control over their bodies and their independence? You can't expect groups who feel stripped of basic human dignity to align behind a president who has scorned them so viciously.

For those not directly targeted by some of Trump's ugly remarks, there's still good reason to have serious concerns about a his presidency. Trump has been incredibly vague on many issues. We have some inkling about what he may do, but beyond a hard-line immigration stance and the promise to undo several "terrible" deals -- most involving trade, some involving treaties, and one regarding the ACA -- it's genuinely hard to say what his actual policies are.

Despite these worries, I think Hillary Clinton was absolutely correct in her concession speech:

We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought, but I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

Trump won. He will be the next president. We have to move forward together. But in order to do that, it's going to require some concessions from Clinton voters and some self-reflection for those on team Trump.

For liberals, we can't continue to imply either implicitly or explicitly that all Trump supporters are bigots. There exist vast swaths of working class people in rural areas and in the Rust Belt in particular who have struggled economically for decades with no substantial relief. A lot of Trump voters weren't particularly fond of him, but they were desperate to the point of trying something -- anything -- different.

For conservatives, you have to admit that Trump either is a racist, a sexist, and a xenophobe, of that he had no problem saying racist, sexist, and xenophobic things to win votes. Yes, not all Trump voters are bigots, but there is no question that some of them are. And for those who overlooked those flaws in your candidate and voted for him anyway, you have to understand that he's a package deal. You don't get to sweep that under the rug. That bigotry comes with him, and his election marks at least a tacit approval of this dehumanizing behavior by a majority of U.S. citizens.

Put simply, that shit ain't cool.

We have to put a lid on this hurtful, hateful, and wholly unnecessary rhetoric. Stopping the bigoted speech and behavior must start at the top, but all of us -- Trump voters especially -- have a responsibility reign this ugliness in. This plea isn't one of political correctness, it's one of basic human decency. To me, and to many Americans, this marks a nonnegotiable starting point, and frankly, it's not exactly a huge ask.

Assuming Trump steps in this direction, I'm willing to reluctantly and begrudgingly give him a shot -- which, by the way, is more than most Republicans did for Obama. Still, you can damn well bet that I'll be watching closely, as we all should. I seriously doubt that a Trump administration will lead to the apocalyptic hellscape so many liberals now fear -- at least not immediately, since inaction on climate change won't swallow Florida and our coastal cities into the sea for a few decades. But if this campaign has taught us anything, it's that it's hard to say what Trump will do next.

Rubio wins Iowa

Ted Cruz is my worst case scenario. I disagree with him on virtually every issue: his unwillingness to support any gun safety laws, his conflation of codifying Christianity with religious freedom, his opposition to gay marriage, his dogged attack on the Affordable Care Act, his proposed 10 percent flat tax (which would drive up the debt), his support of returning to the gold standard, his fight against net neutrality...you get the point. Every issue.

But I'm a liberal Democrat, so it's not unusual for me to be opposed to a Republican candidate's platform. What I find particularly distasteful about Cruz is the man himself, specifically his demeanor and his motives. He artfully packages his ideas ("Restore the Constitution) with total disregard for the truth value of his statements and his platform. According to Politifact, 67 percent of his claims are mostly false or outright lies.

While sad, that record is not particularly shocking. Kentucky Sen. Henry Clay once famously stated,  "I would rather be right than president." Cruz would rather be president than right.

His arrogance and egotism is excessive even for a presidential candidate. These are among the many reasons he's so hated by the Republican establishment in D.C. He's masterfully ridden an anitestablishment wave to brand his record -- which lacks legislative accomplishment and is characterized largely by contrarian temper tantrums and government shutdowns -- as something worthy of praise.

I would literally vote for any living human being rather than Cruz. Many Republicans feel the same way. Unfortunately, the most likely alternative is Donald Trump, who is equally hated, particularly among the intellectual branch of the party -- and I'm being generous with the word "intellectual" since this branch includes Glenn Beck and a host of other William F. Buckley wannabes.

On the Republican side, the media portrayal leading up to Iowa was almost entirely framed as Trump vs. Cruz. I can't say I blame these reporters. Who could resist such a narrative? The question was never who was better, simply who was less worse: Which devil do you want to dance with? The story had legs.

Thankfully, the Iowa caucus goers had legs too, and they used them, stepping to the tune of a record-setting turnout. In the final count, Cruz won the day. This morning, major media outlets trumpeted Cruz as the victor in his epic showdown with Trump. My initial reaction was, "Well, shit." Then my memory of recent history kicked in.

The Republican Party has been in disarray after the failures of George W. Bush's presidency. The Republicans haven't fully come to terms with it. They've distanced themselves from Bush to some extent, and the former president's absence at the last two Republican conventions has been noticeable. But exactly how to frame the narrative of the Iraq war and the Great Recession still remain major obstacles.

Iowa's voting record has reflected this identity crisis. John McCain, the eventual nominee in 2008, placed fourth in the Iowa Caucus, carrying only 14 percent of the vote. In 2012, Rick Santorum slightly edged the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney. In short, a Cruz victory in Iowa may mean little, especially considering his unpopularity in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

But chaos in the Republican Party isn't he only major political development over the last decade. The increased flow of money into politics, thanks in part to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, will likely extend the primary season -- yet another reason to dislike the ruling. The growing influence of campaign donations is so vast that The New York Times has actively begun covering "the Money Race."

This race matters, and even more so now. While victory in Iowa may not mean much, abject defeat certainly does. Among Republicans, Jeb Bush has raised the most -- nearly twice as much as the next highest fundraiser, Cruz. Unfortunately for Bush, his campaign is faltering fast; he captured just 2.8 percent of the Iowa vote.

Marco Rubio, expected to finish somewhere in the teens, managed a strong third place showing, tying Trump in the number of delegates secured. Perhaps most important, he appears to have solidified his stance as the most plausible establishment candidate, increasing the likelihood that rank-and-file Republicans will back him moving forward. Donors eager to support a more mainstream conservative are likely to view him as the last great hope for this election cycle, meaning we'll probably see an influx of campaign contributions flow toward Rubio as donors abandon less plausible candidates.

While Cruz technically won the Iowa caucus, Rubio's strong finish is more consequential. If recent history holds, he'll make gains in states with fewer evangelical and social conservatives but more fiscally minded and, for lack of a better word, sane Republicans. With 100 percent of the vote tallied, I'm declaring Rubio the true victor in Iowa.

Obama speaks, but will the Middle East listen?

Last night, President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office, speaking on a number of issues related to national security in the wake of recent terrorist attacks. Specifically, he defended his strategy for fighting ISIS, lobbied Congress to pass some critical but relatively minor restrictions on who may purchase firearms, and urged Americans not to be bated into discrimination or lured into a state of perpetual war.

The New York Times editorial board praised Obama for projecting strength and advocating for calm. While I have been critical of Obama's handling of ISIS, I must say I remain impressed with his resolve to act with the patience needed to attain a truly workable solution. Predictably, the Republican response was a slightly more polite version of, "Obama...man, what a pussy."

But for all their rhetoric, the Republican presidential candidates have no short-term military solution that is in any way discernible from what Obama is already doing. Front-runner Donald Trump recently articulated his exceedingly complex plan:

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, certain areas of oil that they took away. [...] They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the shit out of 'em.

Such elegance. But more or less, this is what Obama is doing and what he has been doing since September 2014. So far as I know, Lindsey Graham is the only presidential candidate explicitly calling for a sizable force ground troops in Syria and Iraq. The other Republicans' position is that Obama is weak and that they would project strength by...well, by continuing his policies.

Perhaps the most ironic response was that of House Speaker Paul Ryan:

Our primary responsibility is to keep the American people safe from the real and evolving threat of radical Islamic terrorism. That will require the president to produce a comprehensive strategy to confront and defeat ISIS. The enemy is adapting, and we must too. That's why what we heard tonight was so disappointing: no new plan, just a half-hearted attempt to defend and distract from a failing policy.

Ryan may be correct that the Obama policy is failing -- which I'll address in a moment. But somewhere in the midst of his required outrage at Obama, he must have forgotten that he is arguably the most powerful member of legislative branch, which is also capable of establishing a definitive policy agenda. Congress is also the only branch of government with the Constitutional authority to declare war, though again, to my knowledge, no such vote has been called. So again, I ask, what is the alternative strategy to the Obama plan?

Interestingly, the Senate did call a terrorism related vote on Dec. 3. Before them were two gun control measures, one requiring more stringent background checks on individuals purchasing firearms at gun shows and another preventing suspects on the FBI terror watch list from purchasing guns at all. Both were voted down, with presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Lindsey Graham all voting against the bill.

This is truly mind-boggling. First, the fact that Congress would vote against more stringent background checks runs counter to widespread, bipartisan public opinion: 85% of Americans -- including 79% of Republicans -- are in favor of such laws. Pew Research Center, who conducted this polling, didn't ask about public opinion concerning potential terrorists' gun rights, I assume because the very question is laughable. I can only imagine the level of cognitive dissonance required to allow a person to say, on the one hand, he believes national security is the most important responsibility of the presidency, while on the other hand casting a vote that continues to allow terror suspects to legally acquire firearms. 

Still, the Republicans are correct on one point: Obama's strategy will not work to defeat ISIS. But the GOP error here is twofold. The first is they believe defeating ISIS is the intent of the airstrikes. The second is blaming the strategy, when in truth, the problem is a lack of will and political feasibility.

I firmly believe Obama -- and any American politician for that matter -- wants to see ISIS defeated and terrorism stamped out. I don't believe that's the aim of our efforts in Syria. We're attempting to buy time by containing a threat, not eliminating it. By that lesser measure of success, the airstrike strategy is completely viable.

The reason for this lower bar is simple: Americans lack the will to win this war on our traditional military terms. The debacle in Afghanistan and the quagmire that was/is Iraq is fresh on the public's mind. Nobody wants to go down that road again, which is why no politician with a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president is calling for ground troops. John McCain lost the 2008 election to Obama for a variety of reasons, one of which was his commitment to the Second Iraq War. The electorate was wary of his assertion that a 100 year occupation of Iraq might be necessary for a total military victory. But he was probably right then, and he's probably right now.

The problem is that nobody wants to commit 100 years to a ground war. Simultaneously, there seems to be a recognition that dropping bombs is not enough. Obama is unquestionably right that "many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure."

We are.

But there is an eventual cure, and Obama, who favors the long game, nailed it during his speech:

If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.

There is a war at our doorstep. We can no longer prevent it. But we can control how the conflict will be framed. We must adhere to our values and temper caution with compassion, particularly in our treatment of refugees from the Syrian conflict. We must embrace the peaceful Muslim as our neighbor, for only then can we rightly condemn the Islamic terrorist as our enemy. And in so doing, we put pressure on other countries in the region -- predominantly Muslim countries -- to take military action against ISIS. 

A war between Muslim states would not carry the the immense and overt religious connotations that a war between the U.S. and ISIS would. A war of the latter kind has no immediate end, if any end at all. As Americans, we need to exercise the wisdom to see this conflict for what it is: a war that we cannot win, at least not alone. 

Something for nothing leaves nothing

About a week ago, Vox contributor Dylan Matthews pointed out that the media has no idea how to deal with Donal Trump's constant lying. I have mixed feelings about Matthews' assertion, partly because he forgot that "media" is a plural noun.

While I agree that many journalists like George Stephanopoulos seem stymied, there are some media personalities that have a better grip on Americans' current infatuation with political outsiders -- which is a nice way to call someone unqualified. I'm partial to the Stephen Colbert approach: making fun of them. Humor, after all, is based in the absurd, and there are few things in this world more absurd than whatever Donald Trump says at pretty much any given moment.

Of course comedic figures like Colbert have a key advantage in that there's no real concern about appearing partisan. Were a journalist to truly take many of these candidates to task, he or she might be labeled as liberal and therefore biased. The moderators of the CNBC GOP debate learned that lesson the hard way. Still, I fail to see how asking about a candidate's proposed tax policies constitutes a "gotcha" question, or how CNN's Democratic debate was the love fest Republicans claimed.

But perceptions persist in the face of facts, and in many cases, exposure to facts actually strengthens the effects of misinformation. Cognitive dissonance lies at the heart of such effects. Once individuals identify with a particular position, they find it difficult to process information that contradicts that position. Rather than changing their stances -- which is psychologically difficult -- they simply double down on their stupid.

And this brings me back to the Matthews' Vox article, and in particular the third paragraph:

But Trump also has a tendency to use his appearances on TV news to spout flagrant lies about a variety of topics. His statements aren't false the way that, say, Marco Rubio's claim that he can cut taxes by $12 trillion and still balance the budget is false. False claims of that variety are a long and distinguished tradition in American electoral politics, and it's an established policy on programs like This Week to not challenge them too aggressively.

Double take. Say that again? Media -- journalistic media -- have an "established policy" not to question falsehoods, and that is somehow okay?

Most of what Trump says is obviously bullshit, meaning we as the public require less help from media in seeing it as such. But many other candidates operate using covert bullshit, and we need more help sniffing it out, not less.

From what I can tell, elections are based in fantasy, appealing contradictions, and careful maneuvering. It's more or less a constant peddling of nonsense. You can't pay for universal healthcare and universal college education simply by raising taxes on the top 1%. You can't cut taxes and increase military spending and claim to be fiscally responsible. You can't be for states' rights and against state laws legalizing recreational marijuana use. You can't be for smaller government and against gay marriage. You can't be for free speech and against flag burning. And so on, and so on...

But in a democracy, the behavior of our potential leaders may say more about us than it does about them. Politicians lie to us for one simple reason: we don't want the truth. We say we do, but we don't.

In his so-called malaise speech, Jimmy Carter warned us very clearly about focusing too clearly on materialistic goals:

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

But rather than working to restore a sense of community and deeper purpose, we ousted Carter and elected Ronald Reagan, mostly because he told us we could have everything without paying for it. Moreover, the two men who tried to address Reagan's disastrous fiscal legacy -- his 1984 challenger, Walter Mondale, and his 1988 successor, George H.W. Bush -- were marginalized and ultimately defeated for telling the truth: more tax money was needed to pay for the Reagan spending spree.

And despite my derision of conservatives, liberals don't fare much better. I was pleased to see a New York Times report this morning stating that two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to join a climate change pact. Well, that is so long as we don't actually have to do anything:

Thinking about policies to reduce carbon emissions, Americans generally favor regulating business activity more than taxing consumers. The poll found broad support for capping power plant emissions. Half of all Americans said they thought the government should take steps to restrict drilling, logging and mining on public lands, compared with 45 percent who opposed such restrictions. Support for limiting mineral extraction on public lands rose to 58 percent among Democrats. But just one in five Americans favored increasing taxes on electricity as a way to fight global warming; six in 10 were strongly opposed, including 49 percent of Democrats. And support was not much higher for increasing gasoline taxes, at 36 percent over all.

There's no incentive to supply the truth when lies are in high demand. Accepting a fantasy is easy. It requires nothing from us. Living in reality is hard. It means making tough decisions, accepting tradeoffs, and dealing with opportunity costs. Americans have been running full speed from hard truths toward an impending dead end. Someday soon we're going to hit the brakes or hit the wall, and in large part, our willingness to accept ideological falsehoods may be the determining factor.

Why Mitch McConnell Hates Coal Miners

Earlier this week, the Senate voted to block two key initiatives from the EPA intended to reduce emission from coal-fired power plants and halt global warming. Using a familiar tactic, Republicans leading the fight justified their votes by pitting progress on climate change against progress on job growth. In reality, we don't need to choose between the two, and even if we did, we shouldn't care that much about protecting coal mining jobs.

Mitch McConnell, senior senator from Kentucky (and senior mutant neocon turtle), led the attack on the EPA and President Obama:

These regulations make it clearer than ever that the president and his administration have gone too far, and that Congress should act to stop this regulatory assault. [...] Here's what is lost in this administration's crusade for ideological purity: the livelihoods of our coal miners and their families. Folks who haven't done anything to deserve a 'war' being declared upon them.

As a native Kentuckian myself, I admit there's an instinctual response to defend coal miners. We're a coal state after all, right?

Well, yes and no. Kentucky is the third largest coal producing state, behind Wyoming and West Virginia. However, there are only about 12,000 coal miners employed in Kentucky, which accounts for less that 1% of total jobs statewide. Moreover,  coal mine production amounts to just over 1% of the state's total GDP.

So it turns out, coal isn't as big a part of the Kentucky economy as you might think. In fact, there aren't that many coal miners in the U.S. as a whole. The Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence estimates that there are 78,300 coal mining jobs in America. Fortune puts that number a bit higher at just over 93,000. That means coal mining employs .006% of the current workforce -- at best.

But when you think about it, those numbers aren't all that surprising. Alternative energies are growing as technologies become more affordable. Plus, coal mining is a shitty job. The life of a coal miner is nasty, brutish, and short -- largely thanks to diseases like cancer and black lung, in combination with poor safety conditions in mines. And coal mining doesn't pay particularly well either. Again, looking just at Kentucky, the Appalachian counties in which coal mining is most prevalent are consistently among the poorest counties in the U.S.

Finally, it's worth noting that progress always comes at a price. Remember the pianist who played Vaudeville tunes to accompany silent films. Of course you don't. Since you've been alive, theaters have only shown "talkies." Huzzah! Hell, the expansion of electrical services that coal-fired power plants contributed to also perpetuated the decline of kerosine lamp manufacturing. It was worth the trade each time, and the same is true now.

It's disingenuous to accuse Obama of waging a war on coal miners when in truth their jobs are just collateral damage in a larger battle. I doubt there are many politicians that truly relish in eliminating jobs. But quite frankly, coal mining jobs aren't worth protecting, especially at the cost of addressing the more pressing problem of global warming. And if Mitch McConnell and the other Senate Republicans really gave a damn about coal miners, they'd try to find them better jobs, doing literally anything else.

The Blogger's 10 Commandments

"Moses with the Ten Commandments"
by Rembrandt, 1659

The world changes quickly. Faster when you’re in PR. Even faster if you deal with online communication. Still, we have to keep up.

Think about how much has changed in just the last decade. Tweeting use to be something only birds did, “friend” is a verb now and around every turn you’ll find a variety of specialized blogs (which is short for “web log,” though it sounds like some species of monsters that lived in your childhood closet).

Blogs are great ways for organizations and individuals to communicate ideas to anyone interested in listening. The problem is that a lot of blogs suck...hard.

Bloggers commit several errors, usually because they write before they think. Blogging is like all other writing: it’s systematic, it’s rules-driven and it takes time to master. But rather than leave you to wander for years in the digital desert learning this stuff the hard way, I thought you could use some guidance. I give to you, my chosen people, The Blogger’s 10 Commandments:

I.) Remember your audience. Every blog reader asks the same thing: How does this affect ME? It’s sometimes okay to inject yourself and your personal stories into your posts, but make sure you offer a clear take-away for your readers. A blog caters to them, not you.

II.) Master writing headlines. This is the most important part of each post. Few people will make it past the headline unless you give them a reason. Create reader interest with your headlines. Some helpful headline techniques include: asking questions, using superlatives, creating intriguing analogies or employing numbers – particularly if you’re making a list like I am. How many “Top #” lists have you seen just today?

III.) Stay focused on your purpose. Every blog serves some purpose and every post should advance that purpose. Most blog hosting sites let writers clearly state what they intend to accomplish with their blogs, so follow the guidelines you set.

IV.) Be conscious of length. Posts should be long enough to cover the topic at hand, but not so long that readers lose interest. A good rule of thumb is to keep blogs between 200 and 500 words if you post frequently. Feature length blogs are sometimes appropriate, but be careful with those.

V.) Write like you speak. Blogs are meant to be conversational, so bend the rules of grammar to match your speech: end a sentence in a preposition, start sentences with conjunctions, even split an infinitive or two. But don’t get sloppy. And don’t, like, you know, take it too far, like, like...ugh.

VI.) Participate in the conversation. Speaking of conversation…you know those little comment thingies? They aren’t there to facilitate random rants. They exist to facilitate conversation, both among readers and between you and your readers. Shorter posts leave room for them to interject, and for you to respond.

VII.) Keep a schedule. Your readers expect to hear from you at certain intervals. Don’t disappoint. Keep a posting schedule. Usually twice a week is a good way to go, but depending on your purpose you might post more or less often. Different content requires different schedules. I find the 1-7-30-4-2-1 mnemonic pretty helpful.

VIII.) Think past words. It’s the internet! You have endless amounts of information to rely on, so don’t use only words. Embed photos and video. Link to relevant information. Just like any other medium, you want to make full use of this one. But be aware of copyright limitations or you can get into serious trouble.

IX.) Know the power of design. Everything about your blog communicates something. The template, style and background are no different. Select ones that advance your set purpose and speak to your audience. Usually these overarching design choices are done through cascading style sheets (CSS), but bloggers often introduce subtle design elements using HTML code. If you want to bold, italicize or underline something, there’s code for that. Similar codes are often used for photos, videos and links.

X.) Move the audience to act. Give readers something to do. Engaging them in your message is a means to an end, so provide an end. Prompt them to share the post. Ask them to make comments. Invite them to ask questions about products or services. Direct them to sites to buy tickets for events. Creating enthusiasm about your topic only takes readers so far. Show them where to go next.

This list is not a complete guide to blogging. I’m not sure there even is such a thing. But this list should at least get you started as you sit down to write your first posts. After some practice, maybe you can comment here and impart your wisdom on me. The learning never ends…not for anyone. 

It's Democracy, Dumb Ass!

On Tuesday, my home state of Kentucky elected Republican Matt Bevin as governor. To outsiders, this hardly seems surprising. Kentucky consistently votes conservative in national elections. Currently both senators and five of the state's six representatives are Republican. Since the 1960s, Democratic presidential candidates have only carried the state four times, and each time the candidate was a Southerner (LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton -- twice).

However, state-level elections typically tell a different story. Democrats have held the governorship for 40 of the last 44 years. Additionally, the Kentucky House of Representatives is the only state legislative body in the South currently held by Democrats. So why the change?

Voter turnout has become the scapegoat. Indeed, the numbers are troubling. Results show that Bevin captured 52.5%, while the Democratic challenger Jack Conway came in at 43.8%. This appears like a pretty resounding mandate, until you consider that voter turnout was 30.7%, which is abysmally low.



It's also worth noting that their are more registered Democrats in Kentucky than Republicans, meaning that lower turnout benefits conservatives -- as it does in much of the country. It's sad for the Republican Party that suppressed voter turnout is its best ally, but arguably even sadder for the Democratic Party that its constituents can't be bothered to vote.

Low voter turnout is a national problem, and there are several proposal to correct it: make voter registration automatic rather than an opt-in process, expand early voting, move Election Day to the weekend, etc.

I agree that voter registration should be automatic. A recent Census Bureau report estimates that a little over 35% of eligible voters are not registered. Still, expanded registration won't truly solve the problem as fewer than half of registered voters bother to vote in non-presidential election years.

Convenience could be a factor. Expanding early voting would likely help, though I'm skeptical about moving elections to the weekend: Would Americans be more likely to take time out of an off day than a work day? Perhaps a better solution may be to develop a system voters might cast their ballots at any polling station. After all, it's not 1850. Many Americans don't live and work in the same proximity that they once did, and voting at a polling place closer to work might help boost turnout.

But still, that doesn't fix the apathy. Part of the problem is that Americans are uninterested and ignorant of political issues and processes. Voters perceive national, and in particular presidential, elections to be most important because they involve higher offices; voter turnout supports this assumption. Presumably, they see the stakes as higher and they show up.

But this is democracy, dumb ass! The stakes are always high. State and local elections are just as important -- and arguably more so -- than national elections. Meaningful change happens at these levels and voters have enhanced influence. Mathematically, your vote has more meaning because the pool of voters is smaller and the ridiculousness of an electoral college is a nonfactor. Not to mention the fact that you may actually have real access to and influence over the candidate.

Indeed, local politics may be the last bastion of representative democracy left in America. The U.S. Congress now has more millionaires than non-millionaires. In what way are these people our peers? In state and local elections, there at least remains the hope of true citizen governance, where intelligent and civic minded people can serve without being independently rich or owned by moneyed interests.

Until citizens understand the importance of civic engagement -- at all levels -- all other efforts will be half-measures at best. Wake up, America. Let 'em know you're there.