It's almost December and we're already surrounded by holiday sensory experiences. Christmas lights adorn houses (including ours), the aroma of pine trees and hot cocoa is in the air, and Fox and Friends are raving about holiday trees. Yes, every year Faux News and its allies beat the drum rolls of the War on Christmas, wherein liberal atheist socialists seek out to destroy Christianity by saying "Happy Holidays" to you. It's a load of garbage not worthy of a full blog post (though at some point I do plan to address the myth of Christian persecution). What irks me is that these same people seem to have no qualm with the overwhelming crush of consumerism that now taints the Christmas season. It now threatens to ruin a holiday that every American regardless of creed can celebrate, and that is sad.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that Black Friday can be a bit fun. But that's just it - it's supposed to be Friday. I never got up at 4 AM to hit Best Buy, but I've gone on numerous shopping experiences later in the day. A once-a-year orgy in capitalism isn't so bad. If people want to fight over mediocre TVs at Wal-Mart, well, that's the free market I suppose. But beginning last year Wal-Mart and a few other stores started their Black Friday deals...on Thursday. And where Wal-Mart goes, so will most others. This year many stores opened at 8 PM, with almost all the rest following at midnight. And I can't really blame them, because the people were there to make it a success. Faced with ever-increasing online competition, these big box retailers have become experts at creating artificial demand, and as long as people are gullible enough to go for it, Black Thursday looks to be here to stay.
The way this cuts into the actual holiday of Thanksgiving upsets me. If people are hell-bent at hitting the stores at 8, they have to go earlier, effectively cutting their holiday in half. More and more people have to spend the holiday away from their family to work. I am defensive of Thanksgiving because it should be a holiday that all Americans can get behind. Yes, it has some controversial origins, what with the mass slaughter of native peoples and all. However, I think that can be divorced from the fundamental idea of breaking bread and giving thanks with your fellow man, regardless of cultural identity. It is a day to relax, eat good food, and spend quality time with family and friends. There's no stress of gift shopping. It can be religious but only if you want it to be, and even then isn't limited to a specific religion. That's something Christmas can never claim (pagan origins beside the point.)
So, as you prepare for the holidays this year, pour one out for Thanksgiving. Hopefully it will remain a great American holiday, but only if we are collectively willing to hold off the Christmas tsunami one more day.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Why "Progressive" and Not "Liberal"
Political labels are kinda stupid. I reject the notion that you can decipher exactly what somebody thinks on every issue by slapping them with a one-word adjective. The world's more complicated and nuanced than that, and rigid adherence to label dogma interferes with our ability to have serious discussions and actually reach workable solutions and compromises. However, I won't deny labels' usefulness in at least getting a general idea of someone's worldview. While I wouldn't shudder at being called a liberal, I do prefer the term progressive for both myself and this blog. Here's a few reasons why.
1. Alliteration. Sounds better than Lazy Liberal, Lost Liberal, or Loony Liberal.
2. Conservatives have waged a war against "liberal" for 30 years, effectively turning it into a dirty word. Sad and unfair but true. They have turned "liberal" into a synonym for godless, American-hating, government-controlling-everything socialist. Rarely will you see a self-proclaimed liberal on mainstream media other than MSNBC. Fewer than 30% of American people self-identify as liberals. However, here's the kicker - if you asked the same people questions regarding specific policies free of political labels, a majority of them would express support for liberal-leaning policies. So, at this point in time, emblazoning yourself with a scarlet letter L cuts you off from a potentially receptive audience. Again, that's totally unfair, but it's especially important for me as I'm trying to reach an audience - the good folk of the Great Plains - who may be turned off by supposedly loony liberals. There are good liberals out there striving to reclaim their title from the pit of political blasphemy. I leave it to them to fight the good fight; my attention must go elsewhere.
3. In its modern American usage, "liberal" is ambiguous and slightly inaccurate in both a historical and international sense. The first liberals were Enlightenment philosophers who fought back against the autocratic rulers of their day, monarchs defended by traditional conservatives like Edmund Burke. These classical liberals included many of our Founding Fathers. This interpretation of liberal has remained more consistent through time in much of Europe. In Germany today, the Free Democrats are also known as "the Liberals" and are that country's closest thing to a Libertarian Party. There are also other uses of "liberalism" that may not have much to do with American domestic politics, such as the realist vs. liberal schools of international relations. So calling yourself a liberal can be confusing to an international audience, and as someone who cares about such things, I prefer to be a bit more descriptive.
4. Who are the true conservatives in America today? I belong to the side that wants to preserve the policies of the New Deal and the Progressive Era, although reform is always possible. I would agree with traditional conservatives like Otto von Bismarck that the state has a role in "promoting the general welfare" of society in order to "ensure domestic tranquility." Today's "conservatives" want to roll us back to the Gilded Age of massive inequality and extremely limited government intervention.
5. I take a lot of inspiration from the Progressive Era and its icons. In the early 1900s men and women of both parties began to strike back at the robber barons of the Gilded Age and dared to dream that life should be better for all Americans; that together we could move forward as a society. Theodore Roosevelt was labeled a traitor to his class for supporting government regulations and nationalization of federal lands. William Jennings Bryan roused populist sentiment across the Great Plains as a personage almost unheard of today - a fundamentalist Christian leftist. Woodrow Wilson, idealist to a fault, attempted almost beyond reason to peacefully make the world safe for democracy. I don't agree with everything these leaders did or believed, but I accept my inspirations warts and all, rather than dividing political figures into saints and supervillains.
6. I want to preserve our institutions, but I also want to move forward. Society can always improve and make progress. We have indeed made a lot of progress in American history, much of it fraught with turmoil. We abolished slavery. We gave women the vote. We established civil rights for all. We made the workplace safe and fair and sent children to school instead of a factory. We created a system so people won't have to needlessly suffer in their golden years. We defeated fascism and communism. We created the greatest economy the world has ever seen. We put a man on the freaking moon. All of this was accomplished by working together as a society towards a common goal. That is some impressive progress. But we can and must always do better. That is why I am a Progressive.
1. Alliteration. Sounds better than Lazy Liberal, Lost Liberal, or Loony Liberal.
2. Conservatives have waged a war against "liberal" for 30 years, effectively turning it into a dirty word. Sad and unfair but true. They have turned "liberal" into a synonym for godless, American-hating, government-controlling-everything socialist. Rarely will you see a self-proclaimed liberal on mainstream media other than MSNBC. Fewer than 30% of American people self-identify as liberals. However, here's the kicker - if you asked the same people questions regarding specific policies free of political labels, a majority of them would express support for liberal-leaning policies. So, at this point in time, emblazoning yourself with a scarlet letter L cuts you off from a potentially receptive audience. Again, that's totally unfair, but it's especially important for me as I'm trying to reach an audience - the good folk of the Great Plains - who may be turned off by supposedly loony liberals. There are good liberals out there striving to reclaim their title from the pit of political blasphemy. I leave it to them to fight the good fight; my attention must go elsewhere.
3. In its modern American usage, "liberal" is ambiguous and slightly inaccurate in both a historical and international sense. The first liberals were Enlightenment philosophers who fought back against the autocratic rulers of their day, monarchs defended by traditional conservatives like Edmund Burke. These classical liberals included many of our Founding Fathers. This interpretation of liberal has remained more consistent through time in much of Europe. In Germany today, the Free Democrats are also known as "the Liberals" and are that country's closest thing to a Libertarian Party. There are also other uses of "liberalism" that may not have much to do with American domestic politics, such as the realist vs. liberal schools of international relations. So calling yourself a liberal can be confusing to an international audience, and as someone who cares about such things, I prefer to be a bit more descriptive.
4. Who are the true conservatives in America today? I belong to the side that wants to preserve the policies of the New Deal and the Progressive Era, although reform is always possible. I would agree with traditional conservatives like Otto von Bismarck that the state has a role in "promoting the general welfare" of society in order to "ensure domestic tranquility." Today's "conservatives" want to roll us back to the Gilded Age of massive inequality and extremely limited government intervention.
5. I take a lot of inspiration from the Progressive Era and its icons. In the early 1900s men and women of both parties began to strike back at the robber barons of the Gilded Age and dared to dream that life should be better for all Americans; that together we could move forward as a society. Theodore Roosevelt was labeled a traitor to his class for supporting government regulations and nationalization of federal lands. William Jennings Bryan roused populist sentiment across the Great Plains as a personage almost unheard of today - a fundamentalist Christian leftist. Woodrow Wilson, idealist to a fault, attempted almost beyond reason to peacefully make the world safe for democracy. I don't agree with everything these leaders did or believed, but I accept my inspirations warts and all, rather than dividing political figures into saints and supervillains.
6. I want to preserve our institutions, but I also want to move forward. Society can always improve and make progress. We have indeed made a lot of progress in American history, much of it fraught with turmoil. We abolished slavery. We gave women the vote. We established civil rights for all. We made the workplace safe and fair and sent children to school instead of a factory. We created a system so people won't have to needlessly suffer in their golden years. We defeated fascism and communism. We created the greatest economy the world has ever seen. We put a man on the freaking moon. All of this was accomplished by working together as a society towards a common goal. That is some impressive progress. But we can and must always do better. That is why I am a Progressive.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Bill O'Reilly's Mythical "Traditional America"
Bill O'Reilly really raised my ire last week when he declared that "traditional America is over" because young women, Hispanics, and African-Americans helped propel President Obama to victory (meaning: these people, in his opinion, don't want to work and want free birth control, therefore aren't real Americans.) He explicitly lamented that America no longer looks like Leave it to Beaver. Thus continues the Right's propensity to mourn the loss of a "traditional America" that never really existed (I never watched it, but pretty sure that Wally and the Beave are fictional characters). But, in fairness, if conservatives think America should return to the 1950s, let's take a look at some of the real-life hallmarks of that decade, both positive and negative:
Positives
Both parties generally accepted that the New Deal was here to stay. In a letter to his brother, President Eisenhower wrote: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. ... Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Now the GOP seems to think even the Progressive Era reforms might be a bit much.
President Eisenhower knew that government investment in infrastructure could help the economy. He launched the construction of the interstate highway system which helped fuel the postwar economic boom.
Union employment was at an all-time high. And it didn't manage to cripple businesses and the economy. In fact...
The American middle class was in true ascension. The policies and practices above directly contributed to it, and median incomes rose steadily into the 1970s. It was possible for a single breadwinner to provide for a family. Then those who believe in trickle-down voodoo economics got control of government, and median income hasn't risen much (adjusted for inflation) since.
Negatives
Segregation and racism were institutionalized in the South and implicit in the North. Still working on the implicit part.
Women were widely discriminated against in the workplace. Better if they just stayed in the kitchen. We've made progress, though equal pay remains elusive.
Millions of people had serious qualms voting for JFK because he was Catholic. You'd think someone with the name of O'Reilly would be a little more cognizant of groups that were once ostracized as not part of "traditional America."
If you dared speak out against American foreign policy you were labeled a weak Communist sympathizer. Wait, this sounds familiar...
So there you have it. I'll take the positives and stay in real America. O'Reilly can have the negatives and join the secessionists in real, "traditional" America.
Positives
Both parties generally accepted that the New Deal was here to stay. In a letter to his brother, President Eisenhower wrote: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. ... Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Now the GOP seems to think even the Progressive Era reforms might be a bit much.
President Eisenhower knew that government investment in infrastructure could help the economy. He launched the construction of the interstate highway system which helped fuel the postwar economic boom.
Union employment was at an all-time high. And it didn't manage to cripple businesses and the economy. In fact...
The American middle class was in true ascension. The policies and practices above directly contributed to it, and median incomes rose steadily into the 1970s. It was possible for a single breadwinner to provide for a family. Then those who believe in trickle-down voodoo economics got control of government, and median income hasn't risen much (adjusted for inflation) since.
Negatives
Segregation and racism were institutionalized in the South and implicit in the North. Still working on the implicit part.
Women were widely discriminated against in the workplace. Better if they just stayed in the kitchen. We've made progress, though equal pay remains elusive.
Millions of people had serious qualms voting for JFK because he was Catholic. You'd think someone with the name of O'Reilly would be a little more cognizant of groups that were once ostracized as not part of "traditional America."
If you dared speak out against American foreign policy you were labeled a weak Communist sympathizer. Wait, this sounds familiar...
So there you have it. I'll take the positives and stay in real America. O'Reilly can have the negatives and join the secessionists in real, "traditional" America.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Holier-Than-Thou Liberals Tick Me Off
Alright, time to dog on my own side a bit. The other day I read an article on a lefty blog about a Denny's franchise owner taking out the election's results on his employees and customers. What really caught my attention were several of the comments posted to the article, basically trashing all chain restaurants and saying people that eat there deserve what they get. I'm not a Denny's fan, but these are dangerous, stupid assumptions to make that play into the conservative portrayal of elite liberals. (One commenter did, however, post a very snarky and effective counter.)
In recent decades movement conservatives have loved to portray liberals as latte-sipping, Euro car-driving, tofu-eating urban elites who have no concern for the lives and values of "real," mostly red-state Americans. (And conveniently ignore conservative elites who behave in much the same way.) Of course this is a massive generalization, but it is arguably a key component of their connection with rural white voters. So it really discourages me to see liberals playing into that stereotype. Sure, you can drive your hybrid to the local co-op for the latest organic hummus sale while alternately blasting Philip and Ira Glass. But don't turn up your nose at the people eating at Applebees on the way.
Not every NASCAR fan is a racist redneck. Not every hunter is a gun-nut militia member. Not every Wal-Mart shopper is a backwoods hick. I dare say that millions of people who do all of these things - and even grabbed a bite at Taco Bell in between - voted for President Obama. I know many myself. To have such a haughty attitude towards these Americans is stupid and only serves to drive them into the welcoming arms of Rush Limbaugh.
I firmly believe that rural white voters can be won over by progressives - see my post on the Sixth Great Lake for evidence that it's true. Conservative politicians and - especially nowadays - conservative media have spent decades persuading these groups to vote against their own economic interests by employing wedge issues such as abortion and gun control. (For more on this, read the excellent book What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank.) That tide might just be turning a bit. If Iowa can allow gay marriage, Minnesota can refuse to ban it, and Colorado can legalize marijuana, such wedge issues may be losing their effectiveness. For progressives to fail to seize this opportunity out of disdain for where these voters choose to spend their time and money would be a colossal mistake.
No matter how brightly red Kansas may shine, I will always identify myself as a proud Kansan. The state has a fairly progressive and populist tradition that has really only been hijacked since the early 90s - and since then we twice elected a woman Democrat governor. It's a long-term fight, but I believe the tide can turn. My small-town Midwestern heritage makes such an assertion possible.
In recent decades movement conservatives have loved to portray liberals as latte-sipping, Euro car-driving, tofu-eating urban elites who have no concern for the lives and values of "real," mostly red-state Americans. (And conveniently ignore conservative elites who behave in much the same way.) Of course this is a massive generalization, but it is arguably a key component of their connection with rural white voters. So it really discourages me to see liberals playing into that stereotype. Sure, you can drive your hybrid to the local co-op for the latest organic hummus sale while alternately blasting Philip and Ira Glass. But don't turn up your nose at the people eating at Applebees on the way.
Not every NASCAR fan is a racist redneck. Not every hunter is a gun-nut militia member. Not every Wal-Mart shopper is a backwoods hick. I dare say that millions of people who do all of these things - and even grabbed a bite at Taco Bell in between - voted for President Obama. I know many myself. To have such a haughty attitude towards these Americans is stupid and only serves to drive them into the welcoming arms of Rush Limbaugh.
I firmly believe that rural white voters can be won over by progressives - see my post on the Sixth Great Lake for evidence that it's true. Conservative politicians and - especially nowadays - conservative media have spent decades persuading these groups to vote against their own economic interests by employing wedge issues such as abortion and gun control. (For more on this, read the excellent book What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank.) That tide might just be turning a bit. If Iowa can allow gay marriage, Minnesota can refuse to ban it, and Colorado can legalize marijuana, such wedge issues may be losing their effectiveness. For progressives to fail to seize this opportunity out of disdain for where these voters choose to spend their time and money would be a colossal mistake.
No matter how brightly red Kansas may shine, I will always identify myself as a proud Kansan. The state has a fairly progressive and populist tradition that has really only been hijacked since the early 90s - and since then we twice elected a woman Democrat governor. It's a long-term fight, but I believe the tide can turn. My small-town Midwestern heritage makes such an assertion possible.
Fiscal Cliffs Notes
Please pardon the punny title but I don't think I had seen it used before and couldn't resist grabbing the low-hanging fruit. A commenter asked for my thoughts on the "fiscal cliff" situation. I'm happy to oblige, though as I noted this issue falls into the "extremely boring but pretty important" area, so I'll try to make it at least somewhat bearable.
First, I'm with others who don't really like the term "fiscal cliff" because it's a bit misleading. It sounds like if we go off the cliff we'll be heading into massive deficits and reckless spending, when actually the opposite is true. A little background: in the summer of 2011 Congressional Republicans manufactured a crisis by refusing to raise the debt ceiling - the total amount of money Congress can borrow to finance the government. (The apolitical credit rating agencies specifically blamed the Congress GOP when they lowered the US government's credit rating.) They raised a big fuss about the mounting debt, excessive spending, etc. - basically what the Tea Party has been complaining about since January 21, 2009.
A brief aside - this brings to light what I consider is perhaps the biggest hypocrisy in modern American politics: Republicans are only "fiscal conservatives" when they don't occupy the White House. Clinton left government with a budget surplus and on track to totally pay off the debt in 10 years. Now, that may not have happened no matter who won in 2000, but it's undeniable that Bush immediately decided to spend that surplus on massive tax cuts and foreign adventurism. It started us down the path where we currently find ourselves, and Obama's biggest contribution to the debt was the stimulus package that was required in 2009 to spur the economy after the economic crisis partially brought on by Bush administration policies. Now, at least, the deficit isn't getting hugely bigger every year. Instead of acknowledging these facts, Republicans cry about every cent the government now spends, and Chris Christie notes at the RNC that "it doesn't matter how we got here." Do I believe that spending could be curtailed in some areas and made more efficient in others? Absolutely. But this is ridiculous.
Anyway, back to the story. Rather than addressing the problem on a permanent basis, Congress did what it does best - kicked the can down the road. An agreement to raise the debt ceiling was reached, and "triggers" were put into place that would take effect on January 1, 2013 if a permanent debt solution wasn't reached by then. On the one side, the Bush tax cuts for everyone would expire. On the other side, massive cuts in defense spending and other areas would occur. The idea was that nobody likes these solutions so it would urge both sides to reach a compromise in time to avert these triggers. A pretty stupid game of political chicken. If these actions did happen, however, the effect on the budget deficit would be greatly positive - much more revenue from the tax increases and much less expenditures from the spending cuts. It should be the budget hawks' dream come true. And yet almost no one wants it to happen.
Why? No one on the Right wants to admit it, but as economist Paul Krugman pointed out, the looming, potential effects of going off the cliff (a possible 2nd recession) basically prove that Keynesian economics is correct. Just about the worst thing to do to a weak economy is to raise taxes on everyone and significantly reduce government spending. In the past few years such "austerity measures" (at least in terms of reductions) have been implemented in European countries with more center-right governments, to mostly disastrous results. People need to have increased buying power in a weak economy to drive demand, and this is especially true for the poor and middle class, which far outnumber the rich. And decades of fiscal policy have shown that carefully managed government investment in the economy can have positive effects. Conservatives certainly have no problems accepting this with regards to the defense industry; it is time they acknowledge it in other areas too.
So what to do? President Obama very clearly ran on a platform of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those who earn above $250,000 and keeping them for everyone else. This is a sensible move that I think will be non-negotiable as even Republicans are coming to see its inevitability. Returning tax levels on the rich to 1990s levels won't destroy the economy (remember horrible the economy was then?), and they will still be much lower than they were during the postwar economic boom. Of course, this won't be enough by itself to solve the debt problem. Ideally, we would have large-scale tax reform combined with responsible spending cuts. I would argue that defense should be cut at least somewhat as we bring troops home from Afghanistan to focus on, in Obama's words, "nation-building at home," but that may be wishful thinking. What we will probably get is the tax increase on the rich matched with some token cuts (I highly doubt the Democrats would cave on cuts to entitlement programs) that will just necessitate revisiting the issue in a year or two. Not great, but better than nothing. The law of business cycles dictates that eventually the economy will fully turn around and we will reach a much more appropriate time to address the debt on a permanent basis. Hopefully Congressional leaders and whoever the President is then will learn from the mistakes of the past and work towards a real solution, rather than express rage at deficits that their own side very much played a part in creating.
First, I'm with others who don't really like the term "fiscal cliff" because it's a bit misleading. It sounds like if we go off the cliff we'll be heading into massive deficits and reckless spending, when actually the opposite is true. A little background: in the summer of 2011 Congressional Republicans manufactured a crisis by refusing to raise the debt ceiling - the total amount of money Congress can borrow to finance the government. (The apolitical credit rating agencies specifically blamed the Congress GOP when they lowered the US government's credit rating.) They raised a big fuss about the mounting debt, excessive spending, etc. - basically what the Tea Party has been complaining about since January 21, 2009.
A brief aside - this brings to light what I consider is perhaps the biggest hypocrisy in modern American politics: Republicans are only "fiscal conservatives" when they don't occupy the White House. Clinton left government with a budget surplus and on track to totally pay off the debt in 10 years. Now, that may not have happened no matter who won in 2000, but it's undeniable that Bush immediately decided to spend that surplus on massive tax cuts and foreign adventurism. It started us down the path where we currently find ourselves, and Obama's biggest contribution to the debt was the stimulus package that was required in 2009 to spur the economy after the economic crisis partially brought on by Bush administration policies. Now, at least, the deficit isn't getting hugely bigger every year. Instead of acknowledging these facts, Republicans cry about every cent the government now spends, and Chris Christie notes at the RNC that "it doesn't matter how we got here." Do I believe that spending could be curtailed in some areas and made more efficient in others? Absolutely. But this is ridiculous.
Anyway, back to the story. Rather than addressing the problem on a permanent basis, Congress did what it does best - kicked the can down the road. An agreement to raise the debt ceiling was reached, and "triggers" were put into place that would take effect on January 1, 2013 if a permanent debt solution wasn't reached by then. On the one side, the Bush tax cuts for everyone would expire. On the other side, massive cuts in defense spending and other areas would occur. The idea was that nobody likes these solutions so it would urge both sides to reach a compromise in time to avert these triggers. A pretty stupid game of political chicken. If these actions did happen, however, the effect on the budget deficit would be greatly positive - much more revenue from the tax increases and much less expenditures from the spending cuts. It should be the budget hawks' dream come true. And yet almost no one wants it to happen.
Why? No one on the Right wants to admit it, but as economist Paul Krugman pointed out, the looming, potential effects of going off the cliff (a possible 2nd recession) basically prove that Keynesian economics is correct. Just about the worst thing to do to a weak economy is to raise taxes on everyone and significantly reduce government spending. In the past few years such "austerity measures" (at least in terms of reductions) have been implemented in European countries with more center-right governments, to mostly disastrous results. People need to have increased buying power in a weak economy to drive demand, and this is especially true for the poor and middle class, which far outnumber the rich. And decades of fiscal policy have shown that carefully managed government investment in the economy can have positive effects. Conservatives certainly have no problems accepting this with regards to the defense industry; it is time they acknowledge it in other areas too.
So what to do? President Obama very clearly ran on a platform of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those who earn above $250,000 and keeping them for everyone else. This is a sensible move that I think will be non-negotiable as even Republicans are coming to see its inevitability. Returning tax levels on the rich to 1990s levels won't destroy the economy (remember horrible the economy was then?), and they will still be much lower than they were during the postwar economic boom. Of course, this won't be enough by itself to solve the debt problem. Ideally, we would have large-scale tax reform combined with responsible spending cuts. I would argue that defense should be cut at least somewhat as we bring troops home from Afghanistan to focus on, in Obama's words, "nation-building at home," but that may be wishful thinking. What we will probably get is the tax increase on the rich matched with some token cuts (I highly doubt the Democrats would cave on cuts to entitlement programs) that will just necessitate revisiting the issue in a year or two. Not great, but better than nothing. The law of business cycles dictates that eventually the economy will fully turn around and we will reach a much more appropriate time to address the debt on a permanent basis. Hopefully Congressional leaders and whoever the President is then will learn from the mistakes of the past and work towards a real solution, rather than express rage at deficits that their own side very much played a part in creating.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Most Diverse Congress Ever
A quick thanks to ThinkProgress for putting together this look at the new faces in the incoming 113th Congress. The Founding Fathers may have been a bunch of old white mostly rich guys, but I hope they'd be proud with how far we've come from their model to a more truly democratic representation of America. Always more work to do, of course. But we're headed in the right direction. Oh, and the Congress members born in the 1980s officially make me feel old and unaccomplished.
The Sixth Great Lake
Alright, I know I said my last post was my "final thoughts" on the election, but this one is more about electoral demographics in general. Much has been said on the GOP's need to reach out to minority voters if they hope to stay relevant in the face of America's changing demography. That's certainly true, but I want to take a moment to focus on what I think is an interesting area of the electoral map. Take a look at this breakdown of the Presidential race by county:
We know that the red Romney areas far surpass the blue Obama areas because Obama voters tend to be more urban than rural, and large swaths of red states are empty land. If anything this map reveals just how much demographics play a part in electoral politics - you can easily pick out heavily Hispanic areas in the Southwest and the "Black Belt" that runs from Memphis and the Lower Mississippi all the way through Virginia.
For me, however, the most interesting part of the map is the blue lake west of Chicago. It includes areas of four states - Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. It contains no major cities, being bounded on its edges by Madison, Minneapolis, and Des Moines. It is mostly farm country. It is mostly white. And it clearly voted for Obama.
What gives? I've been through that area many times. It's a nice section of the Upper Midwest, not that exciting and certainly not that different than the areas surrounding it. What separates it from, say, the Red Sea in between Kansas City and Denver? Again, both are rural areas, settled mostly by white European stock from various countries. They're church-going folk of many denominations - Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, you name it. The crops may vary a little, but farming is the dominant industry. There are few factories and union workers. So why the stark difference in voting preferences?
This is just me spitballing - throwing out a few ideas. I'm not going to dive into thorough research and analysis, though it might be worth it for the Democrats to do so - they may also have something to learn about expanding their traditional base. First, the Blue Lake is corn country, and corn country is ethanol country. Obama's been generally supportive of ethanol, and I'm sure he makes that known when he swings through Iowa and Wisconsin. Second, speaking of Iowa, Obama has paid it a great deal of attention ever since he began running in the 2008 primaries. That may help to explain Iowans' continued affection, though in the end Obama still had to win their votes.
My last idea goes back to demographics. I know that quite a few settlers of the Upper Midwest were Yankee emigrants from New England - the only other largely white region that Obama clearly dominated. Perhaps there is some lasting influence there? Of course, that doesn't really explain the many counties in Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere that went red. I'm certainly open to other suggested explanations for the Blue Lake of the Midwest. Please feel free to leave them in the comments.
For me, however, the most interesting part of the map is the blue lake west of Chicago. It includes areas of four states - Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. It contains no major cities, being bounded on its edges by Madison, Minneapolis, and Des Moines. It is mostly farm country. It is mostly white. And it clearly voted for Obama.
What gives? I've been through that area many times. It's a nice section of the Upper Midwest, not that exciting and certainly not that different than the areas surrounding it. What separates it from, say, the Red Sea in between Kansas City and Denver? Again, both are rural areas, settled mostly by white European stock from various countries. They're church-going folk of many denominations - Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, you name it. The crops may vary a little, but farming is the dominant industry. There are few factories and union workers. So why the stark difference in voting preferences?
This is just me spitballing - throwing out a few ideas. I'm not going to dive into thorough research and analysis, though it might be worth it for the Democrats to do so - they may also have something to learn about expanding their traditional base. First, the Blue Lake is corn country, and corn country is ethanol country. Obama's been generally supportive of ethanol, and I'm sure he makes that known when he swings through Iowa and Wisconsin. Second, speaking of Iowa, Obama has paid it a great deal of attention ever since he began running in the 2008 primaries. That may help to explain Iowans' continued affection, though in the end Obama still had to win their votes.
My last idea goes back to demographics. I know that quite a few settlers of the Upper Midwest were Yankee emigrants from New England - the only other largely white region that Obama clearly dominated. Perhaps there is some lasting influence there? Of course, that doesn't really explain the many counties in Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere that went red. I'm certainly open to other suggested explanations for the Blue Lake of the Midwest. Please feel free to leave them in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)