~synthesis~

fear foiled

Why is Mitt Romney not winning? He should be - his background is perfect - proven business man (Bain), proven state leader (Gov. MA), proven repairer of things gone bad (Olympics). On top of this, he’s a good person - faithful to his family, committed to his community, strong moral foundation, etc.

And yet the incumbent who has presided over the largest national debt in history, middling economic performance, difficult times internationally, massive unemployment, and has Hussein for a middle name is preferred.

How?

Is it because Mitt is so far up the ivory tower that he simply doesn’t connect to “regular” people? Is it because his plans are ambiguous? Is it because he equivocates too much? I don’t think it’s any of this. Compare Romney to W. Bush, and you don’t see major differences (President Bush never equivocated; but he was perceived as a bumbling idiot, no-one will accuse Romney of being an idiot so that evens out).

President Bush won because he sparked fear in his constituency. He (and Karl Rove) polarized their base against Gore (and Liberals) to the point where its fervency was so strong, it bled to the center to make the election very close. The Florida debacle did tip the balance, but fear made it close enough for Florida to matter.

In 2008, candidate Obama won because he caused people who had never done so to vote; his rhetoric combined with the absurdity of Palin assured a win. That fervor abated by 2010, allowing the Tea Party to take control of the Republican machine and dominate the House.

Over the last year, Tea Party fervor has abated some (abysmal Primary candidates), and while they still have a hold on Party policy, they are not controlling the campaign dialogue.

Here’s the problem - Team Romney (despite the best efforts of the FoxNews whackos) has not been able to spark enough fear in the base. Potential wedgies:

• Economy - everyone is resigned to a crappy economy; the EU crisis and China’s strength have taken their toll. No-one believes either side can really do much.
• Unemployment - no one believes either candidate’s claims that they can fix this, also a wash.
• Foreign Policy - as much as the media cares about this, most Americans just don’t.
• Redistribution - what crap! A society can't exist without redistribution; Romney has already said wealthier Americans should get a smaller Medicare benefit.
• Obamacare - well... sucks that Romney implemented 1.0.
• Terrorism - whatever - we’ve all got terror fatigue.
• Obama the Socialist - those who believe this are already voting Republican - the rest don’t see it as real or a big enough threat.
• Obama the Muslim - he’s been President for four years, and no-one’s singing the call to prayers from the White House balcony.

See what I mean? The fanatical Left and fanatical Right will vote for whomever their Party nominates - that’s a given. But this leaves Romney way short.

The “issues” aren’t scary enough, and no amount of Hannity/O’Reilly spin can change that. The tried and true Karl Rove strategy is failing despite the money they’ve raised and the vitriol they are spouting.

Romney could ask Grover Norquist to have every Republican candidate sign a pledge promising to cooperate with a Romney White House; it’s hard to imagine that happening, but it might be the one legitimate opportunity to one-up Obama... But then again, people hate Congress.

So, short of Romney so flustering Obama during the debates that he admits to being a closet Muslim who intends to give Palestine nukes, the Democrats have fallen into the good fortune of a country so resigned to its fate that it can’t be scared into voting for Change.

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

my first vote

Yesterday was a good day. I’ve been a fan of the Dallas Cowboys since I was 12 (yes - it was the cheerleaders), and they won their first game of the season vs. the team that undid them last year, the NY Giants. :-)! The Cowboys won because both the offense and defense played well; last year it was one or the other, and they sucked.

I also watched one of the best orators of our time, President Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention. He is masterful. I watched him on FoxNews, and was impressed by how differently they heard his speech vs. those at MSNBC. Their interpretations also differed during the Republican Convention, except the other way.

This is to be expected - elections are a zero-sum game, you either win or die. Fox advocates the right, and MSNBC the left. Their “journalists” interpret the candidates based on the outcome they seek vs. the true nature of the candidate, their platform, their patriotism, or even their record.

The Constitutional framers designed our government (division of power, House vs. Senate, debate procedures, etc.) to create a stilted enough process where as little as possible could get done, where megalomania was less likely, and where government has as little influence on citizens’ lives as possible. This is a good thing - we want government to do just enough so that our country is safe, our infrastructure is reliable, and we have a basic safety net to protect us in tough times.

Because of the complex and convoluted design, effective governing requires that the White House work with Congress; it requires that the House work with the Senate; and it requires that members of the House and Senate work with each other.

When this doesn’t happen, we are destined for dysfunction. Witness the last couple of years.

I have always thought that the Democratic Party is at best a random collection of special interests who hardly agree with each other much less anyone else. That they can never be organized or cohesive enough to stay in power on a sustained basis. The Republican Party on the other hand has always struck me as being both focused and unified - a powerful combination.

I didn’t realize until now that Democrat dysfunction embodies a fundamental principle of democracy - pluralism. Whereas Republican cohesion demands homogeneity. In the former, there are many roads to Rome; in the latter, it’s Caesar’s way or nothing.

When the Tea Party started to coalesce in 2007, they were idealistic about effective, constitutional governing - I liked them then. The 2008 elections were a landslide the other way, and they realized they needed to retool. Their new strategy: gain strength and inertia by co-opting the far right; focus the message (spend less, tax less, grow military, fear God); and, most critically, forget winning elections, just win primaries.

They realized that heartland Republicans vote against what they don’t like vs. for what they do like (witness how fervently they’ve now embrace Mitt Romney, a candidate they disliked intensely during the primary; but they hate Barak Obama more). They also realized their distributed, grassroots nature is ideally suited to placing their candidates in positions to win primaries. Once their person was the mainstream party candidate, all Republican voters would flock to him/her - they didn’t need to worry about the last mile.

This is how they took over the Republican Party in 2010. Ironically, the very adaptability and situational awareness that led them to this strategy has made them ABJECTLY INFLEXIBILE. They will now NOT compromise.

The result - Congressional dysfunction.

It took years of bad performance before the Dallas Cowboys made some tough changes, invested, and are now more balanced than they’ve been in a long while. This balance will hopefully lead to sustained success.

President Clinton’s speech yesterday extolled the Republicans of his time as much as it extolled President Obama. He harkened back to a day when governing took precedence over party, and when compromise took precedence over ego.

Governments are effective when politicians balance leading with winning.

The "new" Republican Party is incapable of this thinking; those that do believe that governing requires compromise know they will be replaced by “righteous” Tea Party candidates in the next Primary unless they toe the line. There is no balance, and there is no compromise.

This is the first national election in which I will be able to vote. As a Canadian, I was always a conservative voter - abortion, gay rights, national healthcare, role of religion in politics, and other social factors are broadly adopted and not up for debate. I care about these issues, but I care also that we have a government that will create a sustainable future for our children. I always believed that the Supreme Court would help protect the former, and a good Republican government the latter.

I must admit, I now have a hard time voting for a party that is so intractable, so absolute, and so opposed to balance and cooperation, that it would allow us to fall rather than compromise.

politics and not getting stoned

The Democratic Convention happens this week; they now get to respond (in kind) to what was thrown their way last week at the Republican Convention.

American politics is full of many things, most are far from honorable. But one thing which is more present than ever in both parties does give me hope. It is not supposed to have a place in government, the Constitution makes that explicit; and yet both parties honor and celebrate it with vigor.

I didn't watch much of the Republican Convention (I missed the genesis of Eastwooding :-(). All I did see was the last of Mitt Romney's speech, and of course the 100,000 balloons + 500 lbs of confetti. Did you see what happened next? The Romney/Ryan families left the stage amid raucous celebration, and suddenly the entire stadium - tens of thousands of celebrants, fell silent. Why? This man came to the podium to lead everyone in the closing ceremony - the shift from partying to praying was remarkable.

This same phenomenon will no-doubt occur at the close of the Democratic Convention - religion is a powerful, powerful force in American politics. But instead of an instrument of spirituality, community, and moral purpose; it is a bludgeon of orthodoxy, divisiveness, and ultimatums.

If I were President Obama, I would ask that the invocation to open the Democratic Convention speak of this passage from the Gospel of John, where the people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, and asked if they should stone her as the Law of Moses commanded. He contemplated this, and then said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd then dispersed, and Jesus told the woman to "go, and sin no more."

If you have or know children, I'm sure that like me, you've counseled them with a variation of these words. We do this because we want them to turn the other cheek, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

These simple yet powerful lessons which every politician has earnestly shared with his or her children, are fervently ignored when it comes to their own behavior.

Imagine how many undecided votes the candidate would attract if they began their convention with the promise that their party would henceforth (through to election day and beyond) act with respect and integrity? What if they would judge the other party only the way they wish to be judged, and seek to create bridges (even during the campaign) with all parties and candidates, for they know that once the votes are counted, all those elected are required to work together to serve the country.

They'd have my vote.

Divisiveness is difficult enough in good times, but in tough times it results in catastrophic dysfunction. We witnessed the invective in Congress and the White House over the last four years, and we have suffered because that made it impossible for them to accomplish anything.

Why can't we the electorate demand and expect civility? I have to believe the majority of American voters seek in their leaders a level of morality that at a minimum reflects what they were taught by their parents.

Religion is not supposed to influence politics but it does. There is no political risk greater than dismissing religious leaders or their opinions. Today, religion influences three issues - reproduction, homosexuality, and Israel.

Why such a narrow expression of religion??

Can we find a religious leader, a peer of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their brethren to advocate cooperation and respect? Can we help this voice become as powerful as those who care about abortion and gay marriage? Can we ensure that this voice is just as vigilant about holding government accountable?

It would be impossible for the Falwell/Dobson/Robertsons, the Democrats/Republicans, and even the left or right wing media to stand in opposition to a moral and effective government. Imagine if candidates had to condemn all forms of negative campaigning because they had to live up a moral standard?

America is a deeply religious state - over 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated, and every one of these religions espouses spirituality, community, and moral purpose. It took less than five years for the Tea Party to go from random disaffected pockets to a major political force. Why can't we create a pro-cooperation movement between now and the 2015 primaries?

Today religion in politics is an agent of divisiveness; whereas religion itself is a champion of community. It is up to us to transform the former into the latter.