The Rabid Independent, Nonpartisan solutions, independent policy ideas

Defeating Michael Savage

Everyone is asking how we got here. Is America more stupid or  corrupt than it was ten or twenty years ago? We thought we had a country that was progressing, intellectually. After all, the internet delivered the widespread availability of information which can and should crush superstition and absurd conspiracy theories. Why have we gone the other way?

Hate Radio

A new medium started out in the 90’s – conservative talk radio. Its primary message had to be – “Don’t believe or listen to TV news, we’ll tell you what’s really going on.” Then they offered content loaded with entertaining what-you-want-to hear half-truths and fiction. They were successful beyond their wildest dreams. Even when Rush was discovered to be a hypocritical drug addict and Michael Savage made unconscionable statements about gay men, their audience returned every day because the shows were entertaining. Flaws and errors all became forgivable. There is only one thing that is never acceptable – dullness. That’s why Trump has been invincible.

The audience is primarily male and old so these entertainers fed them a healthy dose of racist and homophobic diatribes. Denouncing Washington came next because people find it hard to connect what happens there with their day-to-day lives. Politicians are easy pickings. It turned out that radio hosts’ success changed a political party and directly contributed to political dysfunction. But the one unexpected outcome was that a politician would embrace their tactics and use them to win the Presidency.

Who would have thought that old tech (AM radio) could defeat new tech (the internet)?

The question at hand has become – how do you ruin the ratings of Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones? Trump’s stupidity will continue to be interesting and it will get ratings. His sexist rants and ill-informed opinions are all forgivable by his followers as long as he is provocative and on their side, repeating well-known tropes about evil politicians, dysfunctional government, immigrant criminals and the lying media who fact check him.

This works for AM radio and it has worked so far for Trump but now that he is in office he becomes part of the problem. He must deliver huge changes or claim that his ineffectiveness is not his fault. So we move into phase 2 – the blame game. It would be better for him if no health care bill were passed so he could denounce both parties as losers who can’t get anything done. If a tax bill stalls because it would create a $2 trillion budget deficit then he can say he tried and then move on. His followers won’t blame an entertainer for getting nothing done in evil Washington DC.

The Dems must fight fire with fire. They must out-entertain the crazy right. A great speaker, joke teller or provocateur must appear who can play their game but with facts. Policy wonks need not apply unless they can deliver scathing satire. Their first job is to offer biting mockery. The opponent is a buffoon and if you can’t expose him as such (especially) to his own rabid base then the Democratic party can’t use you. You must entertain the mob like a good episode of The Kardashians.

Go hard and Go left.

The candidate must then offer some policy bait to the working poor (and even white) population in the middle of the country. (Start with trade.) Trump is failing to deliver on every populist policy he promised so the Dems have lots to steal from.

Mockery and (policy) theft – sounds like a job for Stuart Smalley:

The Populist Vote is Up For Grabs Again

It is pretty clear that Donald Trump has abandoned all his promises, including those he made about keeping jobs in America. He has eaten chocolate cake with the President of China, now they’re in love. The Prime Minister of Japan was the first to get a deal after he supplicated himself. Is Trump canceling NAFTA?  – not as far as I can tell. He has even come out against a border tax in the next budget – something that Paul Ryan was going to put in.

His one touchstone (promised) policy that resonated with (almost) everyone (especially me) has been abandoned completely. That means the Democrats can grab it and grab it, they must. Forget all this identity politics and globalism nonsense. They desperately need an economic program that will resonate with laborers even if they’re white. They can dump the elitist nauseating position of the Clinton’s and get back to where they are supposed to be – right next to Bernie Sanders. Sorry, Joe, speeches about your love for the LGBT community won’t win elections.

This needs to happen immediately as it is becoming clear that time is running out. About five years ago I wrote about how China wasn’t looking to just steal low wage jobs, it wants everything. The two biggest value added industries we have are cars and airplanes. We need to protect those with our lives. The New York times recently wrote about how Ford is going to produce their next flagship compact car in China.  My nightmare is coming true.

If the Dems stand up, their losses could be limited to the 2016 election and they would grab back their brand. They let it be stolen by a fake billionaire with no conviction about anything. Al Franken – are you listening? You should put this issue right next to Medicare-for-all and hit the road.

This is your time.

Why did Jerry Seinfeld go to jail?

Do you remember why the Seinfeld cast were put on trial in the final episode? They watched someone get robbed and did nothing (in fact Kramer filmed it). They all decided that a person in distress wasn’t their responsibility. The cast were arrested for violating the Good Samaritan laws of Massachusetts. Normally Such laws protect you from liability in case you injure the perpetrator of the crime.
In England the laws are more aggressive (Seinfeld style):
In instances where there has been an assumption of responsibility by the bystander, a dangerous situation was created by them, or there is a contractual or statutory duty to act, criminal liability would be imposed on the bystander for their failure to take action.”

England already has the solution to terrorism!

All they have to do is enforce this law with new vigor. Anyone with knowledge of a person’s plans or desire to kill innocent people would be guilty as an accessory to murder. Yes, that would include girlfriends, Imams, parents, and roommates. If you don’t inform on suicide bombers then their sentence will also be yours. One of the men in the last British attack was in a video about the glories of Jihad. All the people who were in the movie with him and the director should be arrested. Call it aiding and abetting, or involuntary manslaughter if you like. We want every citizen to be an informant.
If a girl can be put in jail in the US for involuntary manslaughter because she told her boyfriend to kill himself, then an Imam can certainly put be put in jail for telling people to wage Jihad. He would have to be very sure that no one in the crowd would ever do anything violent.

It’s very hard to prepare to commit suicide while killing as many people as you can and stay totally silent during the planning (or contemplation) stage. We don’t need to find accomplices we just have to put the fear of God into the perpetrator’s friends and family. This could trigger a lot of false positives but it would also produce a lot of serious conversations with the prospective Jihadist about how he is putting all his friends and family in jeopardy. People would have to choose their friends carefully.

You may say this is too extreme and would create a society overloaded with informers like in East Germany during the cold war. The test question to ask is – If you knew someone who told you he was planning such an attack would you keep quiet? I wouldn’t.

So why can’t I demand the same level of civic duty from every citizen?

Tribalism and Cognitive Dissonance

Do you remember the scene in Casino Royale when James Bond runs through a courtyard in Venice. An expert marksman with a machine gun manages to miss him completely. A piece of you thought: that is ridiculous, but most of you said – let it go, after all he is James Bond. Such movies consistently test our willingness to accept absurd outcomes so that our hero can survive. We are left to reconcile (and ignore) what we know about physics and human biology [death] with what appears on the screen. Cognitive dissonance is the effort to think consistently. It’s OK for James Bond to be special but it’s not OK for him to be superhuman.


Apparently cognitive dissonance occurs less often among extroverts. Perhaps their higher level of emotion prevents them from appropriate introspection. Are all Donald Trump voters extroverts? Are Republicans less inclined to reconcile inconsistent facts then Democrats? The first question is impossible to answer but the second one is not. Republicans are more tribal simply because they come from a more homogenous demographic group than Dems. It is hard to break the bonds of tribalism. Even when clear evidence is presented to show that their beliefs are flawed or based on fiction, they feel the obligation to band together and fight back for group survival. Scientology still exists in spite of the exposure of fraud and criminal behavior within the sect.
Paul Krugman marvels at the inability of West Virginians to see that every part of the AHCA and the new Trump budget will hurt them. Tribalism guarantees that these believers won’t abandon their faith until their healthcare is completely gone. They won’t believe that Trump and his cronies are criminals until they are actually in jail.
There is one source of hope: People’s love of scandalous news. What would you do if you worked at Fox or Breitbart News and your guy offered a healthcare bill that destroyed health care, or a budget that blew up the deficit and included a huge adding mistake. Should they mention that Trump’s son in law felt a need for secret talks with the Russians? We know the answer: Bury the story or wave it off as absurd. Both reactions guarantee that neither outlet is where anyone would go to hear about these stories. The result – ratings implosion. Breitbart has gone from a website ranking around 63 last year to #284 now. Fox News ranks below CNN and MSNBC for the first time in 17 years. Trump believers are either changing the channel or turning the TV off.
There is another big problem for these media outlets. For decades their listeners have been programmed to believe in conspiracy theories. We thought the Glenn Beck had taken it to ridiculous extremes but now Alex Jones is out doing him. These talking heads play into a fundamental human weakness. Everybody is fascinated by the idea that powerful people are conspiring against us. What secrets are not being revealed? We are now being offered some of the best conspiracy stories we’ve ever seen from the presidency and there will be more. Trump is so stupid and so devoted to his business and ego over the office that he will have special private discussions and plots. There will be leaks. Everyone will want to hear the news and speculate about what it all means. If Fox and Rush and Drudge refuse to give credence to the stories by investigating them then their rabid listeners will go to CNN. Then the Repubs have a huge problem – tribalism depends on solidarity. They must stay together and constantly reinforce their mythology with rhetoric and rituals.
Belief will wither and die in direct proportion to the number of words heard from Anderson Cooper’s mouth.

Trying to understand the revocation of Obamacare

I’m going to make a solid effort here to understand the reasoning behind the repeal of Obamacare. I’ll try my best to withhold my shock and depression over this issue, at least for a few minutes. Let’s make a list of all the reasons why repeal makes sense to those voters who will continue to support their congressmen (or senator) after he votes for the AHCA:

  1. It was President Obama’s signature piece of legislation and Obama is the devil. He is a black, Muslim, Kenyan, socialist who nearly destroyed the country. We must destroy his legacy. By definition, if he was in favor of such a program, it must have been profoundly damaging to the American economy.
  1. As a libertarian, I detest any Government interference in the economy. I believe in free markets and the ability of price to effectively allocate resources. Everything will be better if the government gets out of the way. I’d be in favor of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare as well.
  1. The obesity epidemic in this country has shown us that people must be responsible for their own health. If they are sick then it’s their fault. Why should I have to pay any taxes towards their healthcare? Why should my premiums be higher to average out an insurance pool. I have no pre-existing conditions.
  1. I am fabulously rich and perfectly able to buy as much health coverage as I want. If you have failed to make a lot of money like me then you must accept the consequences.
  1. I am on Medicare or have fabulous coverage through my employer so this is not really important to me. If people die from this repeal then that’s not my problem. I’d just like to see my taxes go down, and Roe vs Wade revoked.
  1. How did the government raise taxes on capital gains or force me to buy healthcare insurance when I don’t want to. That’s an infringement on my liberty!

Obamacare is just made up of two things: a restriction on charging people more for their pre-existing conditions, and a series of subsidies for poor people [Medicaid, high risk, and older people). That’s it. So if you hate it you have only a few things to get angry about. You must hate sick people, poor people or you must make a ton of money from capital gains. You must not know anybody who is between the ages of 50 and 65 who have been sick or might get sick. (Is that possible?)

The other option, of course, is that you think that Obamacare is a much more intrusive system which tells doctors how to do their jobs. It doesn’t. Ask the AMA what they think. Maybe you believe that subsidies are the same as socialism. If everyone gets healthcare they’ll become lazy economic leeches.

In this debate, there is sort of a sweet spot – around the age of 45. When you’re that age your parents are old enough for Medicare so they are not affected by any of this. You’ve been healthy all your life and your insurance rates before Obamacare were reasonable, or you got your insurance through your employer. You’re too old to have more children so prenatal care or child delivery coverage is irrelevant. Such a person may not realize that cancer can hit somebody younger than 65. They are on the edge of a cliff, premium wise. Simply being 55 is a preexisting condition in and of itself. Ageism makes it very hard to get a new corporate job if you get laid off. These “nearly old” are unemployable and uninsurable. 45 year-olds don’t realize how close they are.

In the end, it comes down to compassion versus a tax cut. It’s a matter of recognizing that the state has a logical role when it comes to establishing insurance pools. Every actuary and every other country in the world understand this. As with climate change we are unique in that we have a significant (vocal) minority who prefer not to have a plan when it comes to long-term complicated issues. They simply hope that supply and demand will take care of things since they (and their donors) can’t or won’t. Consequently, CO2 emissions are not taxed to pay for negative externalities [secondary spinoff effects]. Similarly, prices do not allocate healthcare resources effectively. There there is no “elasticity”. Simply put, demand does not decline if price rises. That’s why the United States free market version of healthcare is so spectacularly less efficient than every other socialized system in the world. We pay more but receive the same services as any Dutchman or German. There is no state monopsony.

It’s hard to admit when free markets, don’t work. When you read Ayn Rand at the age of 16 you completely bought into her depiction of government as evil. How can you recant or explain to other true believers that there seem to be a few holes in the storyline? Will someone call Milton Friedman? You decide it’s better to ignore these glaring exceptions so you can reduce regulation and government corruption. Voters don’t want to hear about complexity anyway. So in the name of your God – Free Markets you declare:

If 24 million uninsured people must die in the gutter or go bankrupt to pay for hospital care then – so be it!

 

 

What will drive the Trump agenda?

I think we are actually progressing faster than we ever have to the universal conclusion that a (this) president is a profoundly stupid man. I almost never hear anyone defending his acumen or foresight. No one defends his “policies” because he clearly has none. Every campaign promise has been broken and his opinion on any subject is driven by the last conversation he had or what he saw on Fox News. Republicans of various stripes – libertarians, Christian fundamentalists, big defense interventionists, and fanatical tax cutters are all hoping the Trump wheel stops spinning at their number. None of them can (honestly) say he shares their ideology – they all know he has no ideology other than self-enrichment.
The last place the wheel stopped was on government contract bidding. He proclaimed that contracts should only go to American companies. What could make better sense? I argued that the Obama Stimulus plan of ’09 should have a buy-America requirement built in. Isn’t at least part of the point of government spending to stimulate the US economy.  Trump seems to get this “buy America” thing but when it angers certain interest groups like Ryan’s Border Tax would, then he runs away – just like a man devoid of ideology would do. He wants to do some of those things he promised but only if certain people don’t get mad. Why? He was supposed to be the rich guy who could ignore special interests.

The only logical reason is that it’s bad for business – the Trump Hotel business.

Forcing China or Japan to relent from their mercantalist policies would hurt his chances to open new hotels there. Raising taxes on retailers who source their goods overseas would aggravate many rich hotel patrons and investors. Conversely, policies that only benefit the working poor do the company no good. In fact, association with racist yahoos may hurt the brand.  Such people don’t buy $10mm condo’s in New York. They don’t have low handicaps. If there is no impact on Trump Hotels then his opinion gets blown around by the wind. Let’s filter policies for whether they are OK for his business:

  1. A border wall – poor illegal immigrants don’t stay at the Trump International Hotel. He has no properties in Mexico (he did have a failed one in Baja) or for that matter any part of Central America.
  2. Cancel all health care for the middle class and the very sick. Health care insurance company executives may join Maralago.
  3. Bomb only places where there are no Trump hotels. That takes North Korea off the list since Kim Jong Un would destroy Seoul and Trump has real estate there. Iran is OK.
  4. Tax cuts must only be for the rich – prospective hotel patrons.

In the end the very thing – money, that was supposed to make him able to drain the swamp actually makes him aligned with all the same wealthy vested interests that already control Washington. All of this would have been prevented if he had chosen to completely liquidate his assets before being sworn in. As it is we have just stepped closer to a classic third world construct.

Trump voters have been left hoping that his proven stupidity will shake things up for the better. As long as they are on the side of Trump hotels they won’t be disappointed.

The Populist Scam

We have had populists rise to the top of the American political system in the past. In each case, we saw a relationship between the man and the message. Take a look at the style and wealth of Eugene Debs, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Wallace, and Bernie Sanders. Their message was clear and no one doubted their sincerity.

It became hard to understand the commitment of a real estate millionaire to populist policies such as trade tariffs, more healthcare for the lower and middle classes, lower levels of immigration and less international engagement. Trump’s believers bought into the inconsistency because the man seemed so different from the standard polished lawyers who competed against him. They couldn’t be trusted/believed. Trump spoke his mind and had no history of flip-flopping on policy because he had never been a policy maker.  The fact that his promises were altered to suit his audience never shook their faith.

Trump has abandoned all his populist positions in record time:

  • Repeal and replace became – dump coverage for all those middle-class voters.
  • China (and India and Mexico) were not declared to be currency manipulators as promised, and his talks with the leaders of Japan and China seem to be warm and fuzzy. Wasn’t China our economic archenemy?
  • The tax bill that was to include a Border Tax Adjustment seems to be dying as the retail industry gets its way.
  • No NATO countries are being asked to contribute more or raise their level of defense spending.
  • NAFTA cancellation has become NAFTA renegotiation – light.
  • Where’s the wall?

He seems to need love from whoever is in the room more than the satisfaction of actually doing anything he promised. There are always far more people in the room who favor corporate interests over those of the people. That was supposed to be the problem he was going to change. As we watch the demise of Steve Bannon and the rise of Xi Jinping and Jared Kushner we are watching the logical failure of a millionaire who never believed in the cause.

You can tell by how Bernie Sanders combs his hair, that he is a true believer. No one can doubt that when confronted by Wall Street lobbyists he would be deaf to their remonstrations. Trump says he wants to make deals. Did it occur to anyone that blowing up a trading relationship is the opposite of a deal? China will always offer us a “good” deal. After all, they just want to sell us cheap stuff. It will be far easier for Trump to take the easy path.

Inertia is powerful.

The question then becomes – when do his supporters realize they have been had? Do they maintain hope because of his unconventional (moronic) approach/appearance? How will he defend his failure to deliver on anything other than a bombing raid in Syria which is exactly the sort of thing his voters really don’t care about?

The conventional forces of the Washington political quagmire are taking hold – they have sucked this neophyte into their black hole of dysfunction and failure.

What is the constituency of an interloper?

Donald Trump entered the political realm as a self-proclaimed pragmatist with no perverted loyalties, free from the corruption of Washington. He sold us on the idea that as a businessman he would get things done. He then chose various issues somewhat at random based on (presumably) populist outcry – the chanting of crowds. There were so many contradictions and absurdities that we could never trust his sincerity or commitment to any of his promises.

Now that he is in office we find that many of his ideas – a Mexican wall, punishing trade cheaters like China, and healthcare for all (but not Obamacare) are falling by the wayside. Since Trump is not a politician and not (really) a committed party member he can take or leave various policies as it suits him but that causes a natural problem. Who are his true-blue followers that will stick with him through thick and thin?  His voters were with him for what he was handing out. Some media members may stay loyal (Sean Hannity) because he’s good for ratings but everyone else is now figuring out that he will betray you – eventually. The wall will never happen and your healthcare may be taken away – still OK? How about a budget with no improvement in the deficit and a giant increase in the defense department budget? Did you really expect to see new trade deals and manufacturing jobs?

After Trump abandons all of these promises and gets buried in Twitter scandals, his voters will melt away like an iceberg in Jamaica. Populists will have to go back to Bernie and Repubs will fall back on Paul Ryan or maybe Mike Pence. Trump will find himself naked and afraid – friendless and mocked.  Steve Bannon may cling to power for as long as he can but a better test will be what all the (cabinet) oligarchs and generals will do when they see that their reputations are getting destroyed. So far Trump seems to think that following the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and abandoning his populist crowds will be safer. It won’t be.

Donald Trump is a political interloper who succeeded by promising everything and lying when asked to reconcile those promises. He doesn’t have the backing of a green party, the socialists, or the libertarians. He is an atheist fighting for the religious right on abortion and LGBT issues. He seems to like single payer healthcare but is (sort of) supporting Paul Ryan’s plan to take away coverage for 24 mm people. His only hope to succeed is to stick to his brand of populism. That means more, not less healthcare. It means new trade deals and new high-paying manufacturing jobs. It means big cutbacks in immigration. If he gets none of this done and only delivers  Ryan-style tax cuts for the highest earners or Pence-style destruction of Planned Parenthood then 2018 could be a mess for the Repubs, to say nothing of 2020.

There is one way I get this all wrong: We find out that the Republican party is a rotting corpse full of racists and moronic Ayn Rand followers. They have no coherent vision of the country or of social and economic policy. Since they have no plan they’ll stick with Mr. Crazy in the White House because that’s all they’ve got. By their tortured standards, he is the most electable in their party so they use him to pass whatever laws they can think of for two years – until the voters come back with a new verdict.

Does immigration produce economic prosperity?

There seems to be a popular narrative that says that immigration acts as a sort of economic engine. People arrive, many without skills, and get trained. They work their way up feverishly. They use their new money to educate their children. The next generation is entirely American. They know little of their parents’ homeland and have no desire to move there. They see that they would have never have been so well off if their parents had not emigrated.

The twentieth century provides a sort of glorious history with regard to labor empowerment and enrichment as long as you can live it in fast forward by reading a textbook and avoid one critical fact.

Hordes of people arrive in the 19th century and live horrible lives in poverty and misery while robber barons become rich on the back of labor’s woes. By 1910 everyone understands that the labor glut is killing any chances for labor advancement. Teddy sets up an arbitrator to rule on the coal strike of 1910. The union/labor movement is born. 

Before we continue, allow me to inject an irritating fact:

immigration

As you can see the percent of foreign born people peaked in 1910 – at the exact same time as the labor movement was born. What allowed it to succeed was the steady decline in new cheap foreign labor – until 1970. I’d like to continue my history of economic success and upward mobility by virtue of innovation, foreign wars, government stimulus and the accumulation of skills and education by the great American workforce but, unfortunately, this chart has ruined the narrative.

All those factors put the wind at the backs of labor. When we virtually stopped immigration we saw wages grow with GDP and productivity. An economist must make a hard argument to claim that everything will be fine this time just like it eventually was for our great grandparents in 1910. They have to argue for foreign wars that kill lots of people in countries we trade with and we need a sort of reverse industrialization where labor is needed to boost production rather than machines. If you can’t see either of those two things happening then there is only one way labor recovers from the hole it’s in – we must stop immigration or at least slow it to a trickle. (Need I point out that median wages peaked in 1974?)

Immigration by Another Name

But what about all those poor desperate people who just want a shot at the American dream? (You cry.) I see examples of them every night on the news. Well, there is another answer. Foreign immigrants come into the country in another way: They trade their way in. If we have no tariffs with China then we essentially allow every Chinese peasant to work here. There are hundreds of millions of them. If you want to help a poor Guatemalan immigrant you have to stop buying goods made by that Chinese peasant. Think what the chart would look like if I added in all those Chinese peasants.

This is, of course, nothing more than an argument based on supply and demand. If you expect to have a system that will benefit US labor then you have to have less labor. If you are an open border person (such as Mayor de Blasio) then you have to live with this:

Corporate-Profit-Margins

Once again, I must point out that labor’s share peaked in the 1970’s. Maybe it was too high? It couldn’t last and it wasn’t fair that an hourly worker at Ford without any education at all could make more than a college professor. True. Foreign competition and corporate outrage broke up union power but did we want it all to be completely destroyed so we could go back to the gilded age?

When I hear Silicon Valley whining about immigration bans I have no sympathy. Let the price rise and a labor shortage ensue. Let them train people and push them up the system. Sorry Mr. Zuckerberg, your costs may rise a little and your next useless feature may get delayed. Is there a foreign competitor you are worried about? I don’t hear China whining about not being able to hire Indian programmers. They buried and replaced Google and their economic growth seems to be unaffected. The arguments that begin by decrying our prospective loss of competitiveness are absurd and self- serving. If you repeat them then you have become a dupe for CEO’s desperate to pad their own pockets.

Alas, Trump the idiot has stumbled upon the correct policy of America First = less immigration and a tax system that favors “insourcing”. Beware of malevolent morons executing good policies. The policy may end up being desecrated.

A Reply to the Madison Initiative

Last week I went to a talk by Larry Kramer, a lawyer at the Madison Initiative – a subsidiary of sorts of the Hewlett Foundation. I struggled with his balanced assessment of blame regarding the dysfunction of Congress so I wrote him this letter as a retort:

The Problem: Congressional Dysfunction

The Madison Initiative: The objective is to find solutions to congressional dysfunction so that government works as it should for the benefit the country as a whole. You argue that unwillingness to compromise has spread evenly throughout both parties and therefore we cannot blame either party for this dysfunction.

This is a false assumption/belief.

If we can show that one party has moved significantly away from its traditional position in the political spectrum, then it naturally follows that both parties will become unwilling to compromise. For example, if the Democratic Party becomes a Marxist party, it will dig in and only accept legislation that promotes or advances its new radical ideology. Similarly, the Republican Party will find this new agenda to be completely unacceptable, so it too will try to veto every Democratic initiative. The fact that both have become intransigent is not a sign that both are equally to blame. One has completely stepped away from representing the American people and so it is solely to blame.

The Republican Party over the last 30 years has become dominated by media ideologues. The Democratic Party has no equivalent set of influencers. There is no one on the left as extreme as Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh on the right. It is an easy task to show that the Republicans have moved to the right in lockstep with the demands of their entertainers (http://wapo.st/2kUj5mK). The Democrats have responded appropriately with intransigence.

This means we have a new task. If we are to improve functionality, then we must make sure that congressional representatives are voted in that represent the views of the population [more or less). The problem with a radical party is that it may pass laws that are completely out of sync with the beliefs of the country (See NSDAP in Germany) even, or especially when, they are elected in disproportionately large numbers.

Solutions:

  1. The Democratic Party could finance a more extreme left wing [radio or Internet] media program to energize its own base. This may help offset the influence of “hate” radio.
  2. A legal battle must be made to eliminate Gerrymandering at all levels of government. Proportionality is critical to any democracy. (I shall dodge Hamilton’s apprehension about mob power.)
  3. Term limits must be enacted. This will prevent old and famous politicians from gathering too much power.

Final Thoughts

The intransigence of Democrats during the Bush II years was an appropriate response to a government that was engaged in radical policies. One would expect and demand such inflexibility from the opposition. It does not prove that Democrats are equally responsible for dysfunction unless you can show that Bush’s wars, support for torture and warrantless wiretapping (to name 3 easy cases) were well reasoned and consistent with American values.

Greater proportional representation may not prevent stalemates. These will still occur when no significant polarization exists on a specific issue in the voting population. The goal must be to prevent majority power accruing to a radicalized few – that is far worse than dysfunction.

History is replete with examples.

Fair and Unbalanced

Website Apps