I've never lived in a battleground state. I've lived in California, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey, and New York, and in none of those states did my vote matter much.
In states like New York, and especially in cities like New York City where I am currently, there's something to be said for voting against the local hegemony. Because let's be real: there isn't the liberal conspiracy in NYC that some republicans say there is, but there's definitely a liberal establishment. When I'm at a party or in an elevator, it's a safe bet that I'm the only conservative or even moderate in the group, and I tend to assume as much.
When an entire city of 8 million takes that attitude, it's easy to take liberalism for granted and wind up believing that conservativism is for flyover states. Beyond the inherent arrogance in such a belief, I actually think it makes New York every bit as small-town provincial as any flyover state, because New Yorkers are so rarely exposed to another point of view. Every liberal ideal gets piped from Hollywood and New York into Oklahoma and Utah, but the pipes only flow one way. For instance, have you EVER seen a conservative-slanted movie get major distribution? Yet I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the liberal-slanted major motion pictures from the last four years alone.
So here's how this ends up: flyover-state conservatives "get" urban liberalism, or at least are exposed to it regularly. In the meantime, urban liberals think flyover state conservatives are either stupid or out of their minds. I see this offensive attitude literally every single day, both in the office, on the street, and on TV and in print.
If you're at all on the fence this election season and you don't live in a battleground state, vote against your local political hegemony. Liberals in New York and their representatives need to know that there are intelligent conservatives among them. Conservatives in Oklahoma and Utah might be enlightened by the fact that liberalism isn't just for urbanites who live near large bodies of water. In each case, though, representatives will know that there are diverse constituencies in their districts, and might be pulled toward the center.
Oct 6, 2008
How McCain Almost Had My Support (but lost it)
I've been on the fence about who to vote for for months now, and the whole time I said I'd probably make my decision based on the running mates. I know the veep doesn't actually do much within an administration (present administration excepted), but I have grave doubts about Obama's ability to lead, and while I like the younger McCain of 2000, his kowtowing to the far right over the past four years has soured my view of him, and I don't have much confidence in his ability to tackle the fiscal issues that need tackling.
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin made my decision a heckuva lot easier, and solidified his role in my mind as a craven politician of the worst kind. Essentially, a man of McCain's age choosing Palin as his running mate, given the odds that he won't be able to make it through a full term alive, represents reckless endangerment of the United States.
If McCain were a "maverick," he would've picked someone capable of assisting with our country's problems regardless of the votes they would bring to the ticket. Romney is an obvious choice, Bloomberg a less obvious one only because he;d likely refuse the position. Heck, pick Huckabee...at least he governed for 11 years, and he might actually shore up that far-right base. Instead, McCain did the opposite: picked someone who has absolutely nothing to contribute to the ticket or to the country except deliver votes.
Frankly, Sen. McCain should be tried for treason just for increasing the odds that Gov. Palin ends up leading this country in the next four years.
Maybe she'd grow into it. She's certainly intelligent, and she's handling the situation and her current level of ignorance with supreme savviness. And in all likelihood her ignorance is only temporary. But she's not ready to lead this country, and whoever is on the ticket with McCain (or any candidate) needs to be.
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin made my decision a heckuva lot easier, and solidified his role in my mind as a craven politician of the worst kind. Essentially, a man of McCain's age choosing Palin as his running mate, given the odds that he won't be able to make it through a full term alive, represents reckless endangerment of the United States.
If McCain were a "maverick," he would've picked someone capable of assisting with our country's problems regardless of the votes they would bring to the ticket. Romney is an obvious choice, Bloomberg a less obvious one only because he;d likely refuse the position. Heck, pick Huckabee...at least he governed for 11 years, and he might actually shore up that far-right base. Instead, McCain did the opposite: picked someone who has absolutely nothing to contribute to the ticket or to the country except deliver votes.
Frankly, Sen. McCain should be tried for treason just for increasing the odds that Gov. Palin ends up leading this country in the next four years.
Maybe she'd grow into it. She's certainly intelligent, and she's handling the situation and her current level of ignorance with supreme savviness. And in all likelihood her ignorance is only temporary. But she's not ready to lead this country, and whoever is on the ticket with McCain (or any candidate) needs to be.
Oct 1, 2008
Where Have All the Moderate Legislators Gone?
Slate's "The Big Sort" has quickly become one of my favorite features on the site, and this recent post is excellent.
The article traces the causes behind the lack of consensus in Congress. Basically, the left- and right-wing members of congress can't agree on anything anymore for three reasons:
The scary thing for moderate Americans is that this could be happening on a macro level as well, and we could end up living in a nation of idealogues living in their enclaves (even more so than we are already). Says Bill Bishop in the Slate article:
This will likely become a predominant theme of this blog; but in the context of this particular post, I can think of two solutions: First, vote moderate. We desperately need more moderates in congress. Second: We need to try getting outside of our comfort zones, whether that's Salon or Fox News, Salt Lake City or New York City. I don't understand the desire to shield ourselves and our beliefs from any person or opinion that might come in conflict. Liberals like to lob this accusation at Bush, but in my personal experience they are no less guilty of this than Bush is.
I'll definitely do another post on this later, but let's all try stretching our brains a bit by exposing them to some ideas, even if--heaven forbid--we might not agree with them.
The article traces the causes behind the lack of consensus in Congress. Basically, the left- and right-wing members of congress can't agree on anything anymore for three reasons:
1) There's no longer a moderate middle in Congress to pull the differing parties together
2) Congressional districts are more lopsided than ever (either all-red or all-blue), so pleasing your constituents involves going way right or way left
3) Congressman and women don't live in D.C. anymore, so there isn't as much personal and social interaction around town and across party lines.
The scary thing for moderate Americans is that this could be happening on a macro level as well, and we could end up living in a nation of idealogues living in their enclaves (even more so than we are already). Says Bill Bishop in the Slate article:
Many Americans now live in like-minded communities so isolated that they have little understanding (or sympathy) for those people and places with different opinions. Americans have become like the people of Babel, wrote congressional scholar Nelson Polsby.
This will likely become a predominant theme of this blog; but in the context of this particular post, I can think of two solutions: First, vote moderate. We desperately need more moderates in congress. Second: We need to try getting outside of our comfort zones, whether that's Salon or Fox News, Salt Lake City or New York City. I don't understand the desire to shield ourselves and our beliefs from any person or opinion that might come in conflict. Liberals like to lob this accusation at Bush, but in my personal experience they are no less guilty of this than Bush is.
I'll definitely do another post on this later, but let's all try stretching our brains a bit by exposing them to some ideas, even if--heaven forbid--we might not agree with them.
Sep 27, 2008
Who's to Blame? Not Just Wall St.
Emptiest words during last night's debates: Both candidates' calls for "accountibility" with regards to the Wall St. meltdown. What they clearly meant was that there needs to be some kind of justice meted out to the SEC and the "greedy" CEOs of the fallen Wall St. firms.
And yet, this is a perfect example of a comprehensive systemic meltdown. Every part of the supply/demand chain had a hand in it.
-At the bottom, you've got optimistic homebuyers and speculators snapping up ARMs with little regard for the "adjustible-rate" part of the deal. As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and they've got a home!).
-Above them, you've got the local loan officers, who are all too happy to sign all comers up for these cheap ARMs with little money down and as little paperwork as possible. As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and they're making a ton of money!).
-Next up, the Wall St. guys that are buying up these mortgages in bulk, and leveraging themselves to the hilt to do so. And why not? As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and earning tons of short-term gains for the firm!)
-At the top, the Wall St. CEOs, who are willing to take big risks to get the short-term profit spikes that their boards of directors and stockholders demand. As long as housing values keeping rising, they're fine (and they've got golden parachutes even if they aren't fine!).
So housing prices soften, a few of those homebuyers default, the bundled mortgages that were so recklessly peddled by the loan officers and snapped up by the Wall St. guys may not be worth as much as previously thought, and over-leveraged companies implode.
All this has been transpiring for almost a decade, and now that the whole system went south, the answer is to blame the greedy CEOs? There was greed at every point along that spectrum, including those foolish "Main Street" home buyers. They're guilty of the same thing as the CEOs, really: over-leveraging themselves to pay for a risky investment.
The outcome seems pretty evenly distributed: the homeowners have lost either their homes or a pile of money, the loan officers and Wall St. guys have lost their jobs, and the CEOs have lost their companies. Everyone benefited when the phony system was up and running, and everybody's paying now that it's fallen.
The only party left that may have actually dropped a ball is the SEC...but where along the spectrum should they have stepped in and said "wait a minute..."?
And yet, this is a perfect example of a comprehensive systemic meltdown. Every part of the supply/demand chain had a hand in it.
-At the bottom, you've got optimistic homebuyers and speculators snapping up ARMs with little regard for the "adjustible-rate" part of the deal. As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and they've got a home!).
-Above them, you've got the local loan officers, who are all too happy to sign all comers up for these cheap ARMs with little money down and as little paperwork as possible. As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and they're making a ton of money!).
-Next up, the Wall St. guys that are buying up these mortgages in bulk, and leveraging themselves to the hilt to do so. And why not? As long as housing values keep rising, they're fine (and earning tons of short-term gains for the firm!)
-At the top, the Wall St. CEOs, who are willing to take big risks to get the short-term profit spikes that their boards of directors and stockholders demand. As long as housing values keeping rising, they're fine (and they've got golden parachutes even if they aren't fine!).
So housing prices soften, a few of those homebuyers default, the bundled mortgages that were so recklessly peddled by the loan officers and snapped up by the Wall St. guys may not be worth as much as previously thought, and over-leveraged companies implode.
All this has been transpiring for almost a decade, and now that the whole system went south, the answer is to blame the greedy CEOs? There was greed at every point along that spectrum, including those foolish "Main Street" home buyers. They're guilty of the same thing as the CEOs, really: over-leveraging themselves to pay for a risky investment.
The outcome seems pretty evenly distributed: the homeowners have lost either their homes or a pile of money, the loan officers and Wall St. guys have lost their jobs, and the CEOs have lost their companies. Everyone benefited when the phony system was up and running, and everybody's paying now that it's fallen.
The only party left that may have actually dropped a ball is the SEC...but where along the spectrum should they have stepped in and said "wait a minute..."?
Sep 22, 2008
Why People Vote for Republicans?
Dear social scientists:
Stop trying to figure out why I tend to vote republican, you condescending idiots. It's not, for one, out of any sense of loyalty or for moral clarity or for lack of self-interest, as one scientist suggests:
I'm not a rural republican (I'm an urban independent who on some issues leans right and on others leans left), but I do have some in my family and my social sphere (yes, they're even here in NYC, and I really think this study is already on the wrong course. Aside from the crazy evangelicals that have infected the party like a rash, there's a huge chunk of Americans in every social class that basically just want to be left alone and see as little of the government as possible in their lives. Whether that's "against their economic interests" or not is up for interpretation, but these people will vote for the party that seems the most likely to interfere the least and require the least amount of taxes.
Unfortunately, when I say I voted for Bush, I'm suddenly an evangelical from Alabama with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other, who wants LA and New York to secede so we can send all the gays there.
I'm sure there are plenty of republicans like that. And there are plenty that aren't like that at all, who don't think the government should be involved in your sex life or your pregnancy, and frankly think those issues don't warrant the amount of weight we give them in an election season.
Unfortunately, with the primary system the way it is, we'll probably never have a socially liberal fiscal conservative candidate for president, at least from the republicans. The system takes SL/FC candidates like McCain and Romney and makes them prostrate themselves and their positions before the mighty evangelicals to win votes in Iowa and South Carolina.
Until someone comes along to claim them, I guess the South Park Libertarians (few of whom would wish to be called South Park Republicans anymore) will just float outside the party system, or be lumped in with all the fearful, morally certain republicans.
Stop trying to figure out why I tend to vote republican, you condescending idiots. It's not, for one, out of any sense of loyalty or for moral clarity or for lack of self-interest, as one scientist suggests:
"What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies?"
I'm not a rural republican (I'm an urban independent who on some issues leans right and on others leans left), but I do have some in my family and my social sphere (yes, they're even here in NYC, and I really think this study is already on the wrong course. Aside from the crazy evangelicals that have infected the party like a rash, there's a huge chunk of Americans in every social class that basically just want to be left alone and see as little of the government as possible in their lives. Whether that's "against their economic interests" or not is up for interpretation, but these people will vote for the party that seems the most likely to interfere the least and require the least amount of taxes.
Unfortunately, when I say I voted for Bush, I'm suddenly an evangelical from Alabama with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other, who wants LA and New York to secede so we can send all the gays there.
"conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world."
I'm sure there are plenty of republicans like that. And there are plenty that aren't like that at all, who don't think the government should be involved in your sex life or your pregnancy, and frankly think those issues don't warrant the amount of weight we give them in an election season.
Unfortunately, with the primary system the way it is, we'll probably never have a socially liberal fiscal conservative candidate for president, at least from the republicans. The system takes SL/FC candidates like McCain and Romney and makes them prostrate themselves and their positions before the mighty evangelicals to win votes in Iowa and South Carolina.
Until someone comes along to claim them, I guess the South Park Libertarians (few of whom would wish to be called South Park Republicans anymore) will just float outside the party system, or be lumped in with all the fearful, morally certain republicans.
Sep 10, 2008
Groundwork
So, I've decided to devote this blog solely to my political thoughts and ramblings. Nobody is giving voice to my beliefs on the Web or in the media, but that kind of stuff isn't really a good fit for my other blogs, so I'll do my venting here.
First, some groundwork:
"Fiscally conservative" means I expect the government to keep my effing taxes down, and make sure I get some kind of ROI on the taxes I do pay. It means the government treats my tax money as sacred funds that were earned with my hard work.
"Socially Liberal" is not a statement on the morality of gay marriage, abortion, or anything else. My moral values tend to align with traditional Christian values, but I believe through and through that such values should not be enforced by law, due to their religious underpinnings.
I don't understand how we came to a point where freedom-loving fiscal conservatives are fine with enforcing their religious views on the rest of the electorate. Nor do I understand how the party of civil liberty came to align themselves with unions and certain socialist ideas.
If anything, Christians who fight abortion and gay rights should be all for universal health care and making sure society is caring for the poor and needy. Liberals who fight for justice and equal rights for minorities could just as logically claim that socialized medicine and sliding tax scales unjustly require some citizens to pay higher taxes than others. I'm not sure how or why our two major political parties have managed to set aside the inconsistencies in their own platforms, but I think there's an enormous untapped group of voters who would more easily align with either a Social Liberal, Fiscally Conservative party, or a Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal party.
If those were my two choices, voting would be easy. As it is, I have to choose between two candidates that each espouse half of my ideals and go against the other half. It's enough to drive a man to blog...
First, some groundwork:
"Fiscally conservative" means I expect the government to keep my effing taxes down, and make sure I get some kind of ROI on the taxes I do pay. It means the government treats my tax money as sacred funds that were earned with my hard work.
"Socially Liberal" is not a statement on the morality of gay marriage, abortion, or anything else. My moral values tend to align with traditional Christian values, but I believe through and through that such values should not be enforced by law, due to their religious underpinnings.
I don't understand how we came to a point where freedom-loving fiscal conservatives are fine with enforcing their religious views on the rest of the electorate. Nor do I understand how the party of civil liberty came to align themselves with unions and certain socialist ideas.
If anything, Christians who fight abortion and gay rights should be all for universal health care and making sure society is caring for the poor and needy. Liberals who fight for justice and equal rights for minorities could just as logically claim that socialized medicine and sliding tax scales unjustly require some citizens to pay higher taxes than others. I'm not sure how or why our two major political parties have managed to set aside the inconsistencies in their own platforms, but I think there's an enormous untapped group of voters who would more easily align with either a Social Liberal, Fiscally Conservative party, or a Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal party.
If those were my two choices, voting would be easy. As it is, I have to choose between two candidates that each espouse half of my ideals and go against the other half. It's enough to drive a man to blog...
Jul 2, 2007
Loder on Moore on Health Care
I've been wanting to see "Sicko" for a while now—Michael Moore movies are a guilty pleasure of mine. "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 911" were both greatly entertaining movies, though I disagreed with pretty much every point Moore made in either film.
With "Sicko" I was hoping Moore and I might finally be able to find common ground on something...I'm kind of on the fence about socialized health care, so I was planning on seeing it with the intent of giving Moore a chance to perhaps both entertain me and convince me.
But Kurt Loder of MTV News got to me first, and he formulates a very convincing argument against Sicko's credentials as a documentary.
First and foremost, Moore rests most of his argument on the state of socialized medicine in countries that rely on it, in order to suggest that the same thing could happen here. Loder takes issue with that, citing not just anectdotes from the very countries Moore uses (Canada, England, and France), but Sicko reviews by film critics in those same countries, who themselves take issue with Moore's slanted treatment of their medical systems. Loder reports that 2-year wait times for even urgent procedures are not uncommon in countries with socialized medicine.
Here's the money quote:
Loder's article is a very interesting read (and one I was frankly surprised to find on MTV.com). Contrast it with David Edelstein's gushing review in NY Mag, which he concludes with "How can we let our politicians feed us sugar pills?" Perhaps he never considered the idea that Sicko might be a placebo, too. I like Edelstein when he talks movies; when he gets into politics I can't stand him. It's hard to reconcile the genius film critic with the unquestioning idealogue, which he so often proves to be.
In any case, I'll still see the movie so I can draw my own conclusions, but I'll definitely be doing some fact checking of my own afterware
With "Sicko" I was hoping Moore and I might finally be able to find common ground on something...I'm kind of on the fence about socialized health care, so I was planning on seeing it with the intent of giving Moore a chance to perhaps both entertain me and convince me.
But Kurt Loder of MTV News got to me first, and he formulates a very convincing argument against Sicko's credentials as a documentary.
First and foremost, Moore rests most of his argument on the state of socialized medicine in countries that rely on it, in order to suggest that the same thing could happen here. Loder takes issue with that, citing not just anectdotes from the very countries Moore uses (Canada, England, and France), but Sicko reviews by film critics in those same countries, who themselves take issue with Moore's slanted treatment of their medical systems. Loder reports that 2-year wait times for even urgent procedures are not uncommon in countries with socialized medicine.
Here's the money quote:
After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher [film critic of the Times of London] wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have."
Loder's article is a very interesting read (and one I was frankly surprised to find on MTV.com). Contrast it with David Edelstein's gushing review in NY Mag, which he concludes with "How can we let our politicians feed us sugar pills?" Perhaps he never considered the idea that Sicko might be a placebo, too. I like Edelstein when he talks movies; when he gets into politics I can't stand him. It's hard to reconcile the genius film critic with the unquestioning idealogue, which he so often proves to be.
In any case, I'll still see the movie so I can draw my own conclusions, but I'll definitely be doing some fact checking of my own afterware
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
