Voting and Watching Out For the Other Guy

Remember those old defensive driving public service announcements imploring drivers to ‘watch out for the other guy!’?




That’s the logic I used for casting my vote in this year’s presidential election.


I seriously considered voting for Jill Stein. Unfortunately, her campaign never caught fire, which is sad because her party's platform is outstanding. But reality is what it is. America in 2016 has only two viable political parties: Democrats and Republicans.


Despite a manipulated primary process earlier this year, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton survived a surprising challenge from Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (whom I supported) and won the Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, businessman and reality show TV star Donald Trump whittled down a field of 17 weak candidates and shockingly won the Republican nomination. Such at is, we are left with that choice: a status-quo, corporatist neo-liberal hawk or a reckless, racist, narcissistic, sexist, unstable demagogue. Because of the appalling foulness of the latter option, in my opinion, the former becomes tolerable. I, therefore, voted for Hillary Clinton.


I believe Donald Trump’s election to would prove to be an imminent, catastrophic danger, not only to our country, but to the entire planet. New York Times columnist Charles Blow captured my sentiment last week and expressed it much better than I can.

“On Election Day, America faces a choice, and it’s not a tough one, but a stark one. It is the difference between tolerance and intolerance. It is the difference between respect and disrespect. It is the difference between a politician with some flaws and a flaw threatening our politics.

Donald Trump is an existential threat. On Tuesday (tomorrow), America has an opportunity to defend itself.”

Don’t get me wrong. I have some serious misgivings about Clinton. She encourages a foreign policy that relies too heavily on interventionism. Her record on trade issues that adversely impact America’s working class is murky at best. And she is way too friendly with lobbyists pitching the interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. Plus, I still haven’t quite forgiven her for her 2002 vote in the U.S. Senate to authorize the use of force in the ill-begotten Iraq War.


Given this track record, I believe Hillary possesses some semblance of sanity. And unlike the recent past, the party’s left wing does have some clout. Should she become president, they'll be able to hold her accountable. At the very least, they'll have a seat at the table. And thanks largely to the influence of Sanders and his delegates, the Democrats at their summer convention adopted a remarkably progressive party platform that includes, among other policies, a plank that calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexing it to inflation. Yes, party platforms aren't carved in granite. But they do provide a framework in which Hillary can be held to keep her promises. I cannot say the same about a Trump presidency. Any progressive ideas will be completely shut down. In fact, even the status quo will be in peril. The thought of him holding office terrifies the ever-loving shit out of me.


So, I’ve decided to fasten my belt and watch out for the other guy.

Let's Abolish The Bogus Superdelegate System

Yes, Hillary (now, the presumptive nominee it appears) has won more votes from actual voters during the Democratic primaries and caucuses. But did she win their support by nearly a 13-to-1 margin? Because among the so-called "superdelegates", who are unpledged technically until the convention next month, Clinton has the stated support of 572 of them, compared to 46 for Bernie. In fact, she started out with the support of more than 500 superdelegates before a single vote was even was cast. Superdelegates need to be abolished.

Hell, the dang Republicans are more democratic than the Democrats when it comes to superdelegates.

A True Equivalency

With the federal government shutdown now entering its fifth day, much of the mainstream media continue to frame the impasse in a false equivalency setting. This inaccurate portrayal appears in media reports complaining about "a failure of leadership", "partisan gridlock", or similar memes. John Darkow's political cartoon that ran in a recent edition of the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune illustrates this widespread view quite nicely.

Fortunately, not all journalists are buying into this misguided effort to play the middle ground. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reveals in her blog the absurdity of this false equivalency by creating a fictional situation where a true equivalency occurs.

Let's say President Obama, feeling good after winning re-election fairly easily, adopted an overly confident posture with lawmakers. He started boasting about the fact that his approval rating is four times higher than Congress' approval rating; his policy agenda enjoys broader public support than Republicans' policy agenda; and he decided it's time they start rewarding him before he considered engaging in basic governance.

"Sure," Obama said to Republicans in this imaginary scenario, "I'll sign the spending measures to prevent a government shutdown, but first you have to raise taxes on the wealthy. And end the sequestration policy. And pass comprehensive immigration reform. And approve universal background checks. The American people are with me, so I expect you to compromise and negotiate with me on these matters."

The president then said to GOP lawmakers, "And sure, I'll sign a bill to raise the debt limit, paying the bills you already piled up, but I'm not ready to sign a 'clean' bill. Instead, I also expect Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill, a public option for the health care system, universal pre-K, and billions in infrastructure investments. If you refuse, I'll have no choice but to tell the public you refuse to compromise and negotiate."

-Rachel Maddow, The Maddow Blog

Maddow says reports claiming that Obama refuses to compromise or negotiate as if it were a legitimate debate point aren't just misleading, but "demonstrably silly". I agree. This isn't normal give and take. It's extortion. Part of the minority party is strong-arming the majority to get everything they want. To report otherwise is a failure of journalism.

I'm just not buying it...

This false equivalency opinion, which basically says both the left and right are guilty of recent violent rhetoric, really burns my ass. So many pundits and politicians, particularly Republicans, have adopted this line. I, personally, don't see it that way. Sure, some fringe leftist blogger somewhere may have said or written something violent.



But, I defy anyone to name a Democratic politician who has said something like:



"Don't retreat, reload" -Sarah Palin (as reported on CBS News).



or "People are really looking for Second Amendment remedies...we need to take [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid out." - failed Senate candidate Sharron Angle (as reported on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show.



This link provides a rather lengthy rundown of some of the inflammatory rhetoric coming from right wing commentators, activists and politicians during the last two-and-a-half years.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

I'm pretty sure one can't find a similar list of violent rhetoric coming from the left.

AND SO THE MYTH CONTINUES…

Republicans still seem to have most Americans convinced that their way is the path to austerity and fiscal responsibility. Despite a contrary record of governance during nearly the last four decades, the GOP continues to campaign by boxing progressives into a corner using the old name calling, sucker punch tactic: calling Democrats “big spenders”.

But now this image has grown to be so entrenched, the 44th President of United States, who was elected just two years ago on a left-of-center mandate of change, has allowed himself to be portrayed as one. While yielding to yet another Republican talking point, President Obama has offered to freeze the pay of civilian federal workers for two years.



A federal pay freeze isn’t the worst idea on the table. At least it’s better than federal job cuts, which is what many in the GOP want.

But what’s so troubling about this latest effort at bipartisanship isn’t so much the nuts and bolts behind the idea, but the consequences it will have on public perception. Obama’s federal pay freeze idea reinforces this false notion that Democrats are ‘big spenders’.
Why has Obama ceded this argument when the record clearly shows that the GOP has been the party that’s run up biggest deficits?

And what makes this idea so depraved is that it’s an ineffective and unnecessary gimmick that puts undue hardship on many hardworking Americans who aren’t exactly rolling in the lap of luxury. It’s a penny-ante, symbolic debt reduction measure that totally ignores areas where huge cuts could be made, such as two needless and seemingly never-ending wars.

President Obama is in a lose-lose situation. He’s allowing his foes to frame the debate by inaccurately manipulating the public’s perception of him and his party. Plus, he’s appearing weak and spineless to his political base.