Daily Archives: September 20, 2010

Reflection: Rethinking Politics

I have talked a lot today about examining the state of the political party system. More Americans want a third party, the problem is identifying what that third party might look like. One way to do this might be to analyze why certain parties form. Could it come from the angriest person, let’s hope not. In my view, the formation of a political party comes from looking at the needs of the people.

This might include finding out how to increase resources to the people, but it also involves finding a balance of trust between the federal government and the people. Here is where the problem lies. The people are very untrustworthy of government at this moment. How does one change this connection? The answer might lie in more outreach or finding a way to make politicians actually connect through the people by being near the same income bracket or term limits as some have suggested. I once heard a Democratic congressman say that he left congress after a couple of terms to work in the real world so he understood his full legislative impact. I find that to be pretty reasonable. In my view, all congressman should strive to do this.

To sum up my posts today:

1. My theme was a new kind of politics
2. I examined how to form a third party
3. Paul Krugman talks about the rich getting angry
4. Christopher Hitchens analyzes race politics

Thanks for reading my posts. I will cut it short with posts tonight since I have quite a bit of work to do. See you tomorrow!

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics, power walk, reflection

Afternoon Delight: YouTube Clinton Interview

Leave a Comment

Filed under afternoon delight, power walk

Christopher Hitchens On the Evolution of American Race Politics

Christopher Hitchens usually has some of the wittiest columns, but today he takes a historical track by talking about the evolution of “race card” in the American political system as only he can:

At the beginning of the summer, my conservative friend David Frum made a joking remark that stayed with me. The evolution of right-wing abuse of President Barack Obama, he said, was not unlike the evolution of American pornography. It took a long time for the appearance of things like bare breasts and pubic hair to occur, but once those thresholds had been crossed, it didn’t take long for the most lurid things to be freely depicted and for the competition for obscenity to become ever more extreme. “Everybody’s afraid now of being outdone from the right,” he told me. “So when somebody eventually comes out and calls Obama an ‘Afro-Nazi,’ it will go mainstream quite fast.”

High marks for prescience. For Dinesh D’Souza to label Obama the equivalent of a Kenyan Mau Mau was one thing, but for former Speaker Newt Gingrich to endorse the analysis with such dispatch was quite another. What will they do for an encore?
The “race-card” game, when I was young, was a simple one. It used to be George Wallace and Orval Faubus shouting about “n_____s.” As the 1960s advanced, this became less respectable and, with the defection of white Southerners to the Republican Party, more a matter of codes and signals. Nixon’s “Southern strategy” was a relatively subtle example; George Bush Sr.’s use of the Willie Horton subliminal ad a rather crude one. I would say that this began to change with Bill Clinton, the first politician to play the card twice.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Obama, power walk, race issues

Richie Rich Gets Angry

Paul Krugman discusses in column today about those who seem to the most angry by the Obama policies, the rich:

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

I made this case on Friday, that most of the policies advocated by the Obama administration like cap and trade, expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the biggest chunk of the healthcare and financial reform bills impact big business. It would not look good though if you had many of the corporate executives protesting on the capital mall that their tax rates would go up. So, you use organizations like Freedom Works and lots of funding from the Koch Brothers to rally ordinary people for your cause.

How do they do this? Mainly by playing off anger that most people already during this recession like losing their jobs and also maybe having to payer higher taxes. So the formula is have corporate anger + regular citizen anger = large rallies against the president.

Leave a Comment

Filed under economic policy, power walk, tea party

What Makes A Good Political Party?

I have been thinking a lot about that poll that I came out yesterday of more Americans saying they would like to see a third party. This implies that that they are not happy with any of the parties that exist in the current political system. One problem is that many of the debates we are currently having about this are, well, a bit old.

For instance, arguing whether capitalism is the best system is a bit hard to have when the Cold War is over and state run economies like China are doing very well, despite the fact that they have numerous human rights problems which is a very legitimate debate. Having debates about using the federal government for regulation is another old debate because it already does these actions.

What needs to happen is finding a way for political parities to reform their message that reflect 21st Century problems. An example would be finding a way to restore the peoples confidence in the federal government. Another might be use term limits, increase voter enthusiasm (some of the ideas that people suggested for my piece last Friday). It should not be about gutting the entire system, but making small reforms in the system which will make people happy.

Leave a Comment

Filed under political parties, power walk