Process over substance

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is on the horizon, and since the resurgence of Republican power during the midterm elections, it seems an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy is inevitable. But why would this be, considering that -- at least during the election -- Democrats campaigned on repealing cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy and the political "left" still controls the Senate and the veto power of the presidency?

Paul Krugman offers an interesting solution in an op-ed article in today's New York Times. In short, Obama is a political pussy.

I've been avoiding such emotionally charged language in my posts as of late, but I can't hold back on it any longer. If I vote for a Republican, he or she will take action that is usually in line with the campaign rhetoric. If I vote for a Democrat, he or she will fail to represent my interests in favor of promoting bipartisanship.

As Krugman puts it, Obama "defined America’s problem as one of process, not substance." Obama and the Democrats as a whole have elected to place the process of bipartisanship above the achievement of substantive legislation, and what has that gotten us? Gitmo is still open; "don't ask, don't tell" is still in place; we still lack meaningful economic reform; campaign financing is a mess; the Supreme Court lacks leadership from the left; health care reform stopped short of, well, reform; and now the deficit disaster tax cuts will likely continue.(And isn't reducing the deficit one of your things Tea partiers? I'm just saying.)

And the right has played Obama against himself perfectly. Knowing that he seeks compromise and opens negotiations from a moderate point, they counter with an offer from the extreme right, painting Democratic policy decisions with buzz words like "socialist" or "elitist." The Democratic response is to compromise from an already compromised position, moving legislation to a new center, which is in actuality the political right.

This scenario is maddening. The real outrage from the left doesn't come from a misunderstanding on the part of the electorate, but rather a misunderstanding on the part of the politician. Voters on the progressive side of the isle have no true voice; they are relegated to voting for Democrats, who are legislative centrists at best.

So I guess my holiday wish is for the Democrats we send to Washington to stand up on behalf of their principles, if not for their constituents then for themselves. If it were me, I'd rather lose my position because I fought and failed than because I lacked the courage and political will to do what I thought was right. So sack up!

The nonvoter

PEW research conducted an interesting study of nonvoters -- and considering that only 40% of adults vote in midterm election, nonvoters become that much more important.

According to PEW, when compared to likely voters, nonvoters are "younger, less educated and more financially stressed." In other words, they're Democrats.

In fact, nonvoters are typically more liberal on most issues than the general population and favor activist federal government. None of that information is particularly surprising. I'm young and financially stressed and I'd welcome a leg up too.

But if your wondering why Republicans may regain control of Congress in the coming days -- and they are projected to -- the answer is very simple. Throw out all the concern over the Citizens United ruling, the influence of corporations, the power of lobbyists, and the persuasiveness of fear, and you're left with a simple truth: Republicans vote, Democrats don't.

Reelecting Obama?

The folks over at the PEW Research Center published some interesting results concerning midterm opinions about reelecting sitting presidents.

There's a lot in the study to talk about, but this chart is what interests me the most:


PEW argues that, while a majority of individuals don't want to reelect Obama (only 47% favor a second term), Obama's numbers are much higher than Reagan's were during the same time in his presidency (only 36% of Americans favored a second term for him).

There seems to me, however, to be a pattern here that PEW is overlooking. Of the presidents listed -- Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter -- only those with low midterm voter support actually succeeded in winning second terms. The election of a Republican Congress in '94 helped Clinton win in '96, and then for Reagan there was Mondale. Enough said.

If the pattern holds, perhaps a midterm Republican victory would lift Obama to a second term... that or if he runs against a political moron, Sarah Palin being the most obvious fit.

Rebublicans, taxes, and manufacturing opinion

Today Republicans offered up their "Pledge to America" should they take control of the House in the upcoming elections. According to an article in The New York Times, Republicans are demanding that issues on their agenda be discussed, "including making lower tax rates for all taxpayers permanent, holding back federal spending, repealing the health-care overhaul enacted this year and reducing the federal deficit."

I find the desire to repeal the health care bill a bit odd, particularly because many of the changes it was designed to make have not yet been implemented (in fact, several points of the plan are just going into effect today). There's not much evidence to say this bill is a failure, so repeal seems premature.

Deficit spending is a problem. We should just admit that. However, during recessions and depressions, deficit spending is common and it has been argued that such practices can help economies rebound. The question is not one of should we cut spending, but when. Some feel the time is now; others think it's too soon. This debate is worth having.

This whole thing about cutting taxes and making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just odd. It seems, more than anything else, to be an attempt to placate what we perceive to be a majority view. Perceive is the key word. Consider the following from Pew reported just 3 days ago:






Most people don't feel as though they are overtaxed. This is not to say there is a call for increases, but the idea that the public is clamoring for lower taxes is a manufactured opinion. Moreover, roughly 60% of the population is for either eliminating the Bush tax cuts all together or at least eliminating them for the wealthiest among us.

The saddest -- and perhaps most dangerous -- aspect of this whole scenario is the fact that this manufactured opinion will likely shape media and political discourse during this election season. Unlike past elections which are often based on lies, this one may be based on a fabrication spun out of control, which is much more insidious.

Losing my religion

It seems this new professor gig I've landed has seriously changed the focus of this blog from blind rage to curious intrigue. Hopefully you handful of readers find both as interesting as I do.

Anyway, yet again, some more numbers from Pew that I found interesting. As it turns out, over two-thirds of Americans believe religion is losing ground as an influential part of society and politics. Here's a more detailed breakdown:


An interesting change over the past 4 years, no doubt. The more intriguing question, for me anyway, is whether this decrease in influence is seen as positive or negative. According to the report, 53% see this shift as bad, while only 10% view it as positive. This is one of the few times that I, as a white male, can consider myself part of the minority. The Man is walking all over me...

Confusion over Republican policies

The good folks at PEW have an interesting new study out concerning Republican counter-proposals to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats.

Overall, people seem to favor the idea of allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes at their leisure (I agree). Also, people generally oppose the replacing of Medicare with a private voucher system (I agree), yet paradoxically oppose the new health care bill (I disagree. My position on health care reform is that we didn't do enough, not that we did too much).

By far the most interesting results concern the Bush tax cuts:


People are almost evenly split across income levels about repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy; oddly, it seems that the richest Americans favor taxing the wealthy slightly more so than do the poorest. Perhaps people don't always vote their wallets after all, something I've long suspected and even known.

The way I see it, if the wealthy don't generally mind anteing up a little more, I don't see why we shouldn't take them up on the offer, considering we're broke and all.

Opinions about the "Terror Mosque"

I was looking at an interesting study from the folks over at Pew concerning Americans' opinions about Islam as a whole and the building of the mosque near Ground Zero.


This graphic above I found to be most interesting. Opposition to building the mosque correlated with political conservativism, lower education, and increased age. There are still sizable percentages of liberals, young adults, and educated individuals who oppose the mosque.

I personally have now problem with it, but given my demographic that should be no surprise. My good friend Jon Stewart probably sums up this whole should-we-or-shouldn't-we debate best: "One side says our weakness emboldens jihadis. The other side says our strength embitters jihadis. How 'bout we try a new system where we don't give a fuck about what they think."