If video games taught American anything…
Well, there are a few that have better lessons, but I think “diamond in the rough” is the phrase I’m looking for.
Until next time,
If video games taught American anything…
Well, there are a few that have better lessons, but I think “diamond in the rough” is the phrase I’m looking for.
Until next time,
This is how Florida governor Rick Scott deals with the people who disagree with him.
It’s time to vote this piece of useless political trash out of office and get Florida on a path that cares about Floridians.
Until next time,
I like to believe that the richest people in the world are so care-free that they just dress up like late 18th and early 19th century French aristocrats. I know I would.
But seriously, if all it takes to be called a socialist is to question why less than 100 people have fairly direct control over the collective wealth of half the planet, then call me a socialist. This actually reminds me of the time (twice, I think) that someone called me a communist and actually meant it.
The world is a strange place full of so many strange and varied people. And yet, some people just didn’t get the memo: love won and continues to win in the face of charlatans and demagogues like Donald Trump.
The image above, shared on John Barrowman’s Facebook fan page, makes a great point about perspective. There are still people in this country, (pick one), that seem to think that minority groups are taking advantage of the public at large, even deceiving them, to place themselves in superior standing.
Um… no. That’s not what’s happening at all, guys. More like this: everyone is working toward being equal to the people who have been at the highest social point for many thousands of years. It’s not strange anymore: we’re all the same in that regard.
It’s not about privilege for groups who have been disenfranchised, it’s about equality.
Except for churches. They still take up 2×2 squares of space and don’t pay taxes even though they attempt to affect policy; you yellow bastards.
There are fewer things more frustrating to we, citizens of the first world, then a job search. And in today’s brave new world, they seem to be getting longer, more arduous, and more frequent. If you’re having trouble getting people to see your resume, if you’re losing hope, if your existential consciousness is slowly being crushed by the sobering realization that all you’re doing is throwing your resume around in cyberspace and screaming into your computer screen, not only are you not alone, you’re right.
Here is a tough truth about the modern job market: most resumes are never actually read by humans in an HR department, and when they are they only get six seconds of review time on average. In fact, most resumes are spit out before human eyes even see them. That’s because these days firms use computer programs to filter through resumes and look for certain key words. And if your resume doesn’t make the cut, more like then not it will never be seen except by cold, heartless robot eyes.
But there is good news: you can still get a real human person to see your resume if you know the right tricks.
If all else fails and you still find yourself in the pit of despair, do whatever you can (within professional reason) to get your resume in front of an employer. A friend of mine from college landed her dream job because she drew a death-metal viking pony on her resume (in crayon, no less) and it got passed around the office (not recommending that, just encouraging you, dear reader, to be creative). Resumebot is ruthless and powerful, but its oppression can only go far. A little commonsense and thinking like a computer can get any resume around resumebots and into the hands of actual people who make actual decisions about actual jobs.
Marco Rubio is having his fifteen minutes (we’ll momentarily ignore the irony that everyone getting their fifteen minutes of fame is fundamentally a socialist concept) and this has led to a consensus that he’s emerging as the GOP’s anti-Trump and most likely to win the nomination at this point. I remain a bit skeptical, simply because the GOP field has a habit of going through repetitive cycles where one of its candidates surges and then falls apart a few weeks later.
At the moment, Marco’s eating into Trump’s support in New Hampshire and already lining up support in other early states but for the moment at least his road to the nomination remains long. New Hampshire is a primary state, meaning the polling on that state is going to be more accurate because the primary itself is more straightforward: people walk into voting booths and pull a lever for their preference. That means there’s a good chance Trump is more likely to win in New Hampshire then he ever was in Iowa.
I think the big difference coming out of Iowa for the GOP is the money factor. No one in the GOP donor class is acting as if Rubio’s third place finish in Iowa is going to make the primary significantly less painful for Republicans, at least not yet (that may change if Rubio takes a close second somehow in NH). But it does signal to the donor class that Rubio is now a viable candidate, worthy of an ever-growing share of their financial attention, and that definitely makes a difference. GOP donors have so far stayed out of their party’s primary, presumably because they didn’t see a promising investment yet and wanted to wait until at least one contest was finished as a way of taking the Republican primary electorate’s pulse. But I think that’ll start to change. I think a lot of donors are beginning to decide they see a pulse in a Rubio candidacy and are becoming increasingly ready to go all-in for him.
Hopefully, that’s not the case. Because if there’s one thing that could be worse for the country than a Texas Republican, it’s a Florida Republican.
Today is Iowa caucus day, something we’ll be covering at DSW in between our regularly scheduled content both today and in future analysis as the primaries move forward. But before the caucuses wrap up I wanted to take a minute to say a personal word on the Democratic primary:
The first state hasn’t even voted yet, and I’m sick of this nonsensical power struggle already. It makes no sense, it’s dragging the party back into the ideologically split hell it needs to stay out of to remain viable, it’s trapped in the same crisis-minded thinking that the tea party has used as a thinly veiled justification to hold the country hostage for years, and much of it is built on a lie.
The lie is something that consistent conservatives and consistent liberals/progressives seem to agree on: America doesn’t simply have challenges it needs to face, it’s in decline. We are falling apart as a superpower, splitting open at the seams, etc. etc. Despite plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, despite what has been called our greatest rival suffering through an economic slowdown, despite Russia, considered our main geopolitical rival, suffering a major economic crisis because of its incredibly stupid foreign policy decisions, despite double-digit unemployment still popular throughout Europe years after the Great Recession, despite a civil war in Syria producing refugees whose possessions are literally being stolen from them by countries like Denmark (which is often a country held up as a paradise the US should be aspiring to), despite all that, it’s us. America is a doomed, poisoned wasteland and we’re all going to die as slaves forced to work on oil rigs as the smog-choked air blots out the future sun.
This slightly pessimistic outlook has dominated the presidential primaries for both parties, primaries that started way too early. The campaign slogans say it all. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”. Sanders campaign rhetoric about restoring the American dream, a phrase that almost every single candidate has used at least once in recent years. Scapegoating of Muslims, millionaires, blacks, whites, and every other demographic group in the country during increasingly heated campaign speeches that are described by supporters of the candidates as “populist.” The groups being targeted might be different, the rhetoric might resonate with a different group of Americans, but the Democratic primary this cycle is threatening to turn into a mirror image of the bitter shit show going on in the other party.
And the reason is pretty Machiavellian, too. The amount of mud that’s been thrown by both front-runners at each other doesn’t normally happen unless there’s something deeper going on than the candidates. And there is: the introduction of raw and undirected populism into early 21st century American politics.
At least, it was raw and undirected for a little bit. But for most of the last few years, it’s been completely astroturfed. There’s actually a documentary called (Astro) Turf Wars that details how the Tea Party was started and then co-opted a few years ago by the fossil fuel industry and GOP mega-donors. Democrats seem to think they’re immune to that sort of thing; their form of populism is righteous and pure.
Not so fast, actually. There might be lest astroturfing (so far) in the left-leaning populism that threatens to split the Democratic party at a moment where it definitely cannot afford it, but there’s still plenty of fear and misinformation upon which certain presidential candidates are more than happy to capitalize. After all, an accurate reflection of both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders produce a huge amount of cognitive dissonance: how can two candidates who voted with each other in the Senate 93 percent of the time and whose views on issues only get more similar as the primary goes on be leading a campaign as filled with paranoia and background noise as it has been so far? Mistakes, real or misplaced accusations of sexism, endorsements showering down and even changing from people who would never normally endorse, hit pieces and nonexistent scandals, millions of people are caught up in the idea that this primary is very important and that the two frontrunners are radically different from one another.
But here’s the thing: that’s simply not true. The combination of a false perception of why Barack Obama won the nomination in 2008 with encyclopedias worth of populist propaganda and fearmongering has led millions of people to believe America is facing a massive crisis and on the verge of revolution when in reality only the Democatic party is facing massive crisis. The problem, of course, is if the Democrats don’t get their shit together this country actually will be plunged a few circles deeper into hell then Bush managed to get it just eight years ago when a Republican president and Republican Congress start rewriting the tax code, building a border wall, registering and tracking Muslims, opening temples to Reagan, and whatever else they have planned. In order to keep this from happening, on the eve of hearing results from the Iowa caucuses, we all have to calm down, take a deep breath, and critically examine both what’s happening and how to fix it.
The examination starts with OFA in 2008. Now known as Organizing for Action, OFA started as Obama for America, an arm of the 2008 campaign which did most of its field and political work somewhat independent of the DNC’s own work on the presidential campaign. This was an organization born from the mind of a community organizer turned presidential candidate and it’s not an understatement to say it completely revolutionized the way politics is done in this country. It brought community organizing into the mainstream and after the election thousands of organizations and campaigns took lessons from that success, many even hiring staffers trained in OFA techniques.
The thing is OFA was and is about a new (old if you know your history) way of organizing while Barack Obama’s historic presidency and indeed the man himself have been about a new way of thinking about politics. Despite the media and his supporters turning him into something of a celerity in 2008, Obama was different in that he sincerely didn’t want his time in office to be about him as a political personality. People adored the man, but he was prescient enough to understand that wasn’t always a good thing and had no problem telling the American people the truth, whether or not they actually wanted to hear the truth.
There is little evidence Clinton or Sanders on the Democratic side and Trump or Cruz or Rubio (just to name a few) on the Republican side have the interest or ability in doing the same. That’s why I cringe when I hear people on both sides describe this campaign as a movement, because the candidates in this campaign seem more interested in saying what people want to hear then what needs to be said. People who willingly subscribe themselves to part of a movement built around a single political identity (in other words a candidate), or at least the people who have done so this cycle, are all clearly influenced by the crash and burn worldview described above and are all more than ready to “take the country back”.
Here are a couple of great examples of just how people with this mentality think and how they’re engaging on the ground in Iowa as we speak. Their movement, because it is centered around the candidate, quickly becomes an all-or-nothing mentality about the candidate themselves and whether the public should nominate them. A pro-Trump blog tells supporters, “Let others know, especially the press, there’s only 1 CHOICE you’ll accept.” (For the record I’m completely mystified as to why choice is capitalized). A similar guide on Reddit was set up for Bernie Sanders with even more revealing advice like “KNOW at least some of BERNIE’S positions!” (again with the random caps).
In other words, the “movement” is about the candidate, not actually the issues. The candidate sells the crisis, points out a few important facts almost as a way to deflect from the fact that those are only facts being mentioned in their stump speech, and gets mad. 21st century movement politics suffers from an overload of emotion and a severe shortage of actual policy.
And that’s not an accidental occurrence, which brings me to what I consider to be the greatest and most sinister lie of the political age, a lie which is currently dominating the Democratic primary and the election in general. I mentioned astro-turfing in this article because the phenomenon happening now is very similar. Particular in the Democratic primary, candidate centered movements are being sold as something that happens organically. Hordes of people are just mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.
Except that they’re already being co-opted (on the Democratic side at least and I’m sure on the other side as well) to fight a battle that is anything but revolutionary: the tired and age-old fight between the center-left and the far left. Same old battle, just being played out with new boots on the ground. The talking points barely even change. And what’s amazing about ideological fights when they happen are the results they can produce. Think about this for a second: we are going into Iowa with two large movements, one in each political party, for revolutionary change. And if those movements are successful we will walk into the general election immediately following the administration of the first African-American president with two old white guys from the northeast still fighting the election of 1968 as our candidates.
More on this after the results.
I figure I owe that portion of DSW’s readership which is passionate about politics a “state of the race” post since we’re only a few days out from the Iowa caucuses. Before I dive into where the candidates stand for each party, let me be clear on one thing: Early primaries, especially the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire, are completely pointless. They in fact undermine the whole point of the primary system, which is to nominate a candidate for president that is representative of their political party as a whole. It’s hard to argue that states like Iowa and New Hampshire are representative of reality in the rest of the country, for a number of reasons.
But that’s for another post, most likely immediately following the results on February 1st. For now here’s where both parties are:
On polling, the Real Clear Politics spread tells very different stories depending on which party’s primary we’re talking about. While one poll (Quinnipiac) only has him squeaking ahead in Iowa, every poll on the Republican side for almost every contest shows Donald Trump in the lead, one national poll by as many as 22 points. It’s also notable that in every one of those polls Ted Cruz takes second place and Marco Rubio takes third in the vast majority. Depending on the polls one takes a look at, it’s arguable that the contest in Iowa specifically has narrowed in the past six weeks, though far from certain.
The same spread shows a much closer contest for the Democrats. The FOX News poll pus Clinton ahead by 6, ARG puts Sanders ahead by 3. National polls show Clinton with a ten to fifteen point lead, and a comfortable lead in other primary states like South Carolina (CBS News puts her up by 22) and Minnesota, where she’s up by 34. But Sanders is dominating New Hampshire, CBS News saying he’s up by 19 there, while the Suffolk University poll has him up 9 points.
While a lot of analysis has focused on how high-stakes the Iowa caucuses are for both parties, the truth is more complex than that. The Republican challenge in Iowa is far different than the Democratic challenge.
Republicans have to decide how they want to identify themselves, and whether that particular conflict is going to be settled in a state like Iowa. Nate Silver argues that Donald Trump hasn’t been stopped by the GOP perhaps because not all of them are actually trying to win the presidential election this time around because there’s no “professional incentive” to. I think the issue is a bit simpler than that. The Republican party has for decades carefully crafted the image of the conservative commander in chief, one that acts with strength, behaves like a toned down alpha male with a folksy appeal and a blue collar aura about them, but one that is still intelligent enough on policy matters to handle themselves adeptly on the world stage and propose the occasional sweeping reform of a long-standing domestic program. They had rebuilt this image from its previous low point at the end of the Nixon administration so successfully that Bill Clinton had to all but copy it in order to get to the White House in 1992. But in 2008 they had the commander in chief image stolen from them by Barack Obama, who in addition to checking off many of the boxes the GOP thought only their candidates could, did so while maintaining an identity as a black progressive politician with a background working in marginalized communities. I cannot state enough how much Obama was able to capture that commander in chief image and completely shatter the idea it belonged more naturally with the GOP (the Palin factor helped quite a bit as well). Ever since then, without the commander in chief image to hold it together, the Republican party has returned once again to swaying back and forth between conservative extremes like a drunken Barry Goldwater stumbling in the night.
Democrats have a different question, though there are a few similarities which I hope to touch on in a different post. Having won this image battle they have almost taken the spoils from their victory too far. The Democratic primary is dominated even more than the GOP contest by a cult of personality. The two leading candidates voted the same way in the Senate (during the years they were both Senators, that is) 93 percent of the time, and yet the primary contest between them couldn’t be more divisive. The ironic part about this is that the contest centers on key personality questions (who’s most trustworthy, who has the temperament to be commander in chief, etc) but the only way to see which candidate is best in that category is to see which candidate makes the most sincere call for a return to a sane level of discourse between the campaigns and actually gets their supporters to follow them (that second part is by far the more important).
It’s possible that Iowa will end up being a more decisive contest for the Democrats than for the Republicans, but the potential is there in both parties for open and contested primaries.
Image credit to The Atlantic
Political contests, especially in this country where everything focuses on the candidate instead of the party, are high-tension situations. I get that. I get that verbal slips are made in these situations. It’s how one reacts to these verbal slips that matters.
One of those slips happened on Tuesday night, when Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders made a comment on television implying that Planned Parenthood and several other progressive interest groups including NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign were part of the political establishment that his candidacy is fighting against. The one thing all of these organizations have in common, other than nor normally being described as establishment and fighting for progressive causes? They’ve all endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Interest groups endorse presidential candidates all the time, nothing special or newsworthy about that.
Except in the case of Planned Parenthood. Just two weeks ago news broke that Planned Parenthood was making its first endorsement in a presidential primary ever, and it was endorsing Hillary Clinton over her rival. The head of the organization had the following to say about this endorsement, quoted from above link:
“Let’s be clear — reproductive rights and health are on the ballot in 2016,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. “We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
“No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights,” she added. “This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.”
Before this endorsement, Democrats were united in defending Planned Parenthood from an unprecedented attack from Capitol Hill Republicans who were attempting to starve the organization of funds and shut it down entirely in the same way ACORN was shut down just a few years ago. This is nothing new for an organization that’s been breaking barriers since its founding in 1916 when its founding members were arrested for opening a birth control clinic. To this day it vehemently defends reproductive rights and its leading members regularly face harassment and even death threats for doing so. Nothing about that should sound to anyone like an “establishment” organization. And yet, in the middle of a primary that the country is watching closely and considering a referendum on progressive values, many in the Sanders camp are defending rather than even attempting to explain this opinion. If the Sanders campaign wants to be the organization known for defining what it means to be a progressive, it should start by explaining to the American people what a Senator who’s been in Washington so long his hair had color to it when he first got there is doing calling a group of dedicated progressive women under daily attack from other politicians in that same city part of the “establishment.” I have great respect for the man, but I believe if he’s going to fight against the establishment he first has to be honest and acknowledge that he has been an active part of that establishment for decades, as has Hillary, as have most politicians in Washington. Both candidates, in fact, are far more of the establishment than Barack Obama, a Hawaiian born to a mixed race family, raised in Indonesia, the product of public schooling, former community organizer. If you want someone with a legitimate anti-establishment background, Barack’s your man.
Maybe asking who’s pro “establishment” is the wrong question. Maybe Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton both should be asking themselves a far more important question: if they actually have what it takes to succeed the most successful American president since at least FDR.
I had high hopes when I sat down to watch the Democratic debate last night. As a Democrat who has been largely undecided over the primary I wanted to take the time for once to hear a whole debate, start to finish, from the candidates themselves instead of doing what I normally do and read a transcript the next morning.
Normally I don’t need to watch nor do I actually watch debates, especially live, but this time was different. I felt (and still feel) that both frontrunners had lost it a bit. Not necessarily mentally (though there is something to be said for the idea that anyone who actually wants to be President of the United States has something wrong with them), but in terms of their messaging. Even though the primary’s been going on for months on social media and in the news, the campaigns themselves haven’t been doing most of the talking. Instead the primary has been characterized by exponentially more and more petty mudslinging between increasingly crazy cults of Bernie and Hillary supporters. To less-than-fully-decideds and outside observers, it’s made the primary sound like the Spanish civil war, with alternating definitions of who’s the monarchy and who’s Franco depending on who you ask.
So needless to say I was excited to see a sane exchange between the candidates without the hordes of DNC apologists and Che Guevara wannabes ruining my ability to actually judge the best candidate for myself.
Alas, I would have been happier if I’d just read the transcript. Even though I’ve seen at least a dozen articles straining to argue that either Hillary or Bernie “won” the debate (depending on which one you’re reading), I was much less impressed with their behavior. There’s trying to be more aggressive and score points three weeks ahead of a caucus of massively inflated importance, and then there’s just acting childish. The latter was what I saw. I counted twice where both candidates were trying to shout over each other to make a point literally as the debate was going to a commercial break. I lost count listening to them stubbornly repeat slogans instead of spell out their policies (though part of that was no doubt the ludicrously short time limits they were given to answer questions).
It was a world away from the debates in 2008, and that’s not a good thing.
I plan to vote for the nominee whoever it ends up being, but I’m starting to get worried that it doesn’t matter who it ends up being. Negativity in a primary isn’t always a bad thing, but this amount of it is. The bloody shirt waving cults at the far periphery of the primary process shouldn’t be the loudest voices in the room dictating what the candidates say and do. Fight for your candidate, definitely, but once in a while just remember it’s OK to dial it back. Otherwise we’re going to end up with a losing nominee no matter who wins the primary.