Why Not 5 Minute Political Ads?

Once in a great while, a 30 second political ad on TV actually informs, or at least says something substantive that needs being said. But way more often I roll my eyes at the level they stoop to in their attempts to sway a voter, pound a point, or misleadingly smear an opponent. Remember those program length Ross Perot ads, where Mr Perot talked to the country, pointed to charts, and made his points? They may not have been quality journalism, but at least they attempted to engage the voter at a deeper level than the 30-second pitch.

Why can't we have something in between, lengthwise? It seems the average 30 minute sit-com has at least 5 minutes worth of ads in total - Why couldn't candidates buy the whole block and run a little information piece in a single mid-span interruption in the middle of a show? I suspect the networks wouldn't allow it, for fear that viewers would be lost to a competing show. But think how much more we could learn about the candidates, not just for president but for state and local offices as well. I think this should be a regular practice during election season. The average voter who is unwilling to read in-depth articles or listen to a Ross Perot style program might actually stick around to hear their President, Governor, or Congressperson explain their record, or a challenger explain why they would be a better choice.

Who owns those airwaves anyway? Oh yeah, we do. Wouldn't it be nice if it seemed like we did? [End of Post]

Electoral Reform

Campaign Finance Reform has gotten a lot of well-deserved attention in the last several years, and though cynics will tell you that corruption can't be stopped, I contend that McCain-Feingold is at least a step in the right direction. Sure people and money will find ways around any strictures, but that doesn't mean we should encourage corruption.

There are other types of reform though that have gotten much less attention, in spite of the fact that they could have widespread support. Two Democratic Congressmen, Brian Baird of Washington and Gene Green of Texas, have teamed up this week to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that would do away with the Electoral College and install our Presidents by direct popular vote. Now it's a shame that we need to amend the Constitution to implement a common sense procedure, but that is the most certain way to effect such a change, and really it should be popular. Thomas Jefferson was an outspoken opponent of the Electoral College from its inception. Many of the early arguments in its favor have been obviated by today's technology, so getting rid of it should be a slam dunk, but both parties have vested interests in the system, so it's an uphill battle in spite of clear popular appeal. No less than 700 previous attempts have been made to eliminate or modify it so far, to no avail. If this year's election brings us a mismatch between the popular vote winner and the Electoral College winner for the second time in as many elections, however, maybe the will to do away with it will finally be overwhelming.

Other forms of Electoral reform well worth adopting are Instant Runoff Voting, which would empower the electorate to support third party and independent candidates without "wasting" their vote, and a depoliticization of the drawing of Congressional District boundaries. That one is much tougher, but the intensely partisan and divisive House of Representatives of the current day owes its fangs to the abominable creation of safe districts. There's a reason that the Senate is consistently the more moderate body, but that's a discussion for another day.

Stepping Out of Our Perspective

Jonathan Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution offers an interesting juxtaposition of a theoretical parallel perspective to Cheney's recent comments about terrorism in Russia. Food for thought at the very least.

Hope is Not Prognostication

Returning home from the gathering where my favored gubernatorial candidate conceded defeat in a lopsided loss to another Democrat, I took heart from the words of Paul Loeb in the introduction of his latest book:

. . . as understandable as moments of doubt and apparent impotence may be, especially in a culture that too often rewards cynicism and mocks idealism, they aren't inevitable. If tackling critical common problems seems a fool's errand, it's only because we're looking at life through too narrow a lens. History shows that the proverbial rock can be rolled, if not to the top of the mountain, then at least to successive plateaus. And, more important, simply pushing the rock in the right direction is cause for celebration. History also shows that even seemingly miraculous advances are in fact the result of many people taking small steps together over a long period of time. For every Tutu, there have been thousands of anonymous men and women who were equally principled, equally resolute.

Loeb later quotes Vaclav Havel, "Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart."

Indeed as many await this election in fear, seeing potentially grave consequences ahead, true hope abides beyond the result and in spite of it. I see the work to be done as ongoing, regardless of which politicians grab the reins of government. I'll do what I can to affect the result, because I earnestly believe that is important, but I'll not be a slave to that result.

Local Interlude

Generally this site concerns itself with national or global issues, but tonight I'll be watching my state of Washington's primary returns come in at the headquarters of candidate Ron Sims. I support Sims for his advocacy of supplanting the state sales tax and business & occupation tax, with a progressively structured state income tax, which we don't currently have at all. It takes political courage to run for public office on a platform which creates a new tax, but the restructuring makes sense to this observer, and it will be interesting to see how the election goes.

I would consider Sims a long shot, but should he win the primary, Republicans will be salivating at the increased likelihood of a November pickup of a governorship in this Democratic leaning state. They'd do well to remember 1992 before they grow too confident, however, when a very liberal Congressman, Mike Lowry from Seattle, surprised the prognosticators by winning statewide. It should be a similar election, with a large turnout among voters disaffected with the first term of a Bush administration. [End of Post]

I Need Help Painting this Picture

I don't keep it a secret that I have a profound distrust of corporations. That doesn't mean that I don't ALSO recognize that corporations have provided society with riches unimaginable by cave people, and pretty astonishing for many of us even over the course of our lifetime. There are many things corporations can do that neither small groups of entrepreneurs, nor centrally controlled governments can manage very effectively. It would be foolish to federalize all large-scale production in the world. It is equally foolish to naively trust that just because capitalism has spawned industry which provides us with modern wonders, that we should just trust that corporations will naturally act for the greater good. Greed is real, always has been, and there has always been a balance between giving corporations the freedom to allow innovation and controlling the misbehavior of those within the system who would abuse the system to their own ends. More troubling still is a corporate culture which encourages an adversarial view toward ethical restraints and corrupts an industry as a whole to sacrifice the public good, the well-being of its own workers, or its consumers in order to increase the wealth for those at the top.

What is the truth?

I suspect as ever that the picture is mixed. Understanding the picture and demanding corporate accountability for providing independent researchers with accurate data necessary to evaluate industries in detail, is critically important. Corporate influence in politics works against accountability, and yet those of us who speak out against this influence are routinely labeled as radical anti-capitalist leftists. Seeking truth has nothing to do with ideology, and I think it is high time that ordinary citizens band together and demand the truth.

But we also need to accept responsibility for playing our role in seeking facts and educating others. It's a daunting task, though, and no one person can be an expert in every field. The process of discovery also tends to get one mired in details, which is not conducive to stepping back and seeing the whole picture.

I would like to start with a SPECULATIVE canvass.

Without naming particular industries or particular companies or particular excesses, I will present here a generic picture of the way things MIGHT be. My hope is that by creating a big picture of possibilities, truth gatherers have a place to position the truths they find in a larger context.

I may later expand this post to start my picture, or I may do it elsewhere, but I intend to paint a picture that covers the gamut of industries: from those where the entirety of the industry is corrupt and a danger to our world; to those where market forces have succeeded in reining in the worst excesses, but there is a lot of variability among the players; to those where regulations have hampered the industry's ability to act as effectively as it might otherwise. And naturally many industries in this picture will exhibit a mixture of these effects.

In later posts and further dialog, I am interested in exploring what corrective measures might realistically address industries where greed has run amok.

In all of this, I need help, and will appreciate pointers to organizations, studies, books, and articles which have made attempts at this sort of analysis.

The relationships between corporations and society, and between corporations and national governments play such a huge role in our world today that we ignore them at our own peril.

Tipping Points

Here is an article which has a ring of truth to it. It has long struck me that we ignore that which is either uncomfortable or difficult to understand, in favor of the less important issues with easier solutions. It's part of what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. [End of Post]

Footnotes worth sharing

When I speak of recognizing "good will behind disparate ideological masks", I don't mean vainly looking for good intentions among those whose malevolent methods are well established. Within the current administration and the Republican leadership of the House, I look at the most powerful forces who they wouldn't have dared put on display at the RNC as beyond any reasonable hope of redemption. MoveOn.org, who have been delivering me hope for the last several years, sent an email out to its membership this morning, enjoining us to call on the House Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the illegal activities of Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The footnotes within that email are worth sharing:
[1] A bribe was attempted while the Medicare bill was held open:
http://www.house.gov/nicksmith/chicago_suntimes_31127.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091787/
[2] The official summary of the formal complaint against DeLay:
http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/DeLay_complaint.pdf
[3] AP: Four on Ethics Panel Accepted Delay Money
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040715_2123.html
[4] Houston Chronicle: DeLay's national committee documents Enron
donation
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/enron/2681668
Several other articles detail DeLay's fundraising abuses:
Washington Post: DeLay's Corporate Fundraising Investigated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43219-2004Jul11.html
Dallas Morning News: As DeLay raises cash, critics raise questions
http://www.moveon.org/r?530 (registration required)
These editorials call for an outside counsel:
Miami Herald: Unethical ethics panel
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/editorial/9187328.htm?1c
Austin American-Statesman: Outside investigation of ethics charge
warranted
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/07/16delay.html (registration required)

A New Name

A lot of what I'm about is not being smug, so "Well, Duh!" just didn't make sense for the name of this site. At a party Sunday night, I was conversing with a progressive bemoaning the bleak state of corporate control of our political process, and while I agreed with much of his analysis, I argued against his grim outlook. I choose to find allies outside of my own political sphere, because progress is only possible through negotiation and principled compromise. That's why I focus so much on intent, and the need to recognize good will behind disparate ideological masks. I look at the small sample of people I know in the world, and see a veritable explosion of energy for positive change. Behind the scenes around the nation and around the world there is so much happening that we can only guess at. As Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The potential for disaster will always be with us, as for me, I'll hold fast to hope. [End of Post]

No Public School Left Standing?

The real goal of No Child Left Behind? This generated some interesting discussion over at WatchBlog, largely thanks to contributions from Shari.

We Feel Your Pain - Here's the Solution

Another commitment caused me to miss the President's address at the RNC on Thursday. Glutton for punishment that I am, I recorded it and finally listened to it last night. I've always contended that the man is far better than the average speaker at delivery, and of course talented speechwriters are hired for each and every one of them. Naturally a host of constituencies were found whose concerns could be expressed, with assurances that each will be addressed with compassion. There has been a lot of well-founded skepticism that the programs implied by these assurances can be paid for in the light of making the tax cuts permanent and continued military expenses. But I have just as much skepticism that the so-called solutions do anything but make the problems worse.

From where he began:

To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making tax relief permanent.

through:

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family friendly workplace.

what this observer hears is "things may not be the best for you right now, but by providing more money for corporations and the wealthy, business will improve and everybody will be lifted up." Trickle down theory is alive and well in spite of an ever increasing gap between the wealthy class and the middle class, and the increasing misery of the poor. The Republicans' ability to sell this story to those who are being disadvantaged by it never ceases to amaze me.

Jaw-droppingly Obvious!

Maybe I shouldn't do it. Spend all of my voice of reason / voice of calm capital in one sitting, that is. But AAAARRRGGGH! How can 50% of America think it's OK????

I can understand, really I earnestly can, how a SMALL MINORITY of the people can believe that America ought to assert its sole superpower status to create a global empire of world domination for the good of everyone.

I can understand, really I earnestly can, how a SMALL MINORITY of the people can believe that the magic of free market forces is almost sufficient . . . with a minimum assist from industry appointed regulators to give us corporations that satisfy our worldly needs and take care of the running of the planet.

I can understand, really I earnestly can, how a SMALL MINORITY of the people can believe that the ONE true faith that has brought them personal contentment and assures them of eternal bliss is sufficient guidance for our leaders to deal with all the complexities of the world today.

I can understand, really I earnestly can, how a SMALL MINORITY of the people can believe that bankrupting our government so that we're forced to privatize everything that isn't military, will improve everything by putting them in the hands of efficient corporations instead of the wasteful bureaucrats.

I can understand, really I earnestly can, how a SMALL MINORITY of the people can believe that most scientists and educators are part of a dangerous intellectual elite whose aim is to scare our citizenry with predictions of environmental doom and corrupt our children with libertine ideas.

I DON'T EVEN BEGRUDGE these minorities their beliefs. They are heartfelt and sincere; even pure and noble, though in my view frighteningly mistaken. But taken together, the minority that believes ALL of these things must be vanishingly small, and yet these are the voices that have the ear of the current administration and much of the leadership of the Republican party. For the most part they are not even hidden (check out the top three links in the "Links & Articles" section to the right), though other messages are emphasized.

I don't pretend that I'm excited about Kerry. He does waffle a bit, and he is uninspiring. I'd rather prefer the younger Kerry who testified in front of Congress and at least seemed passionate about his beliefs. But the older Kerry is more tempered, and he is, at least, reasonable. Why isn't it jaw-droppingly obvious what we should do come November?

. . . I understand the 10 or 15 percent. They should vote as they earnestly believe. But what's up with the other 35 to 40 percent? Don't they see? Hadn't we better tell them? There's only two months left. Maybe I've misjudged and no great harm will come from another four years of what we have now. But I'm not willing to sit on my hands and hope, just in case.

Thanks, Zell! The Fire Returns

Well, I was beginning to get that deer in the headlights feeling, what with McCain and Giuliani couching their putative admiration of our Commander in Chief in terms which the average American who doesn't know otherwise might find convincing. Even Laura did a convincing job of painting her husband in humanitarian tones that belie the persistent callousness that characterize the policies of this administration. It took a turncoat Democrat spouting vicious lies and distortions to reignite the fire in my belly to counter the 87 billion dollar lies, the mischaracterization of recklessness as strength, and the deceptive concealment of plans to privatize our national treasures such as parks and schools behind compassionate rhetoric. Mark Shields noted that Miller's speech was "red meat for the base", and indeed it was, but it was red meat for the progressive base as well. Grrrr! The gloves are off, here we go!

The Domestic Agenda

As I expected on the first night it’s been all 9/11-Iraq all-the-time at the RNC with nary a mention in the main speeches about the economy and domestic policy. This is obviously a good strategy for the Republicans as there is not much good to talk about at home. Frankly there’s not much good to talk about abroad either but it’s easier to lie about the war on “terror” or “terrorism” or whatever it’s called now.

The Republicans do indeed have a domestic agenda that the President mentioned with a new phrase, “Ownership Society.” . . . From the article The Tax Code by John Cassidy:

The President’s ownership initiative hasn’t featured prominently in the media coverage of the campaign, which, strictly from a news perspective, is understandable: he hasn’t announced many specific proposals to back up his talk. But in downplaying the Bush Administration’s economic agenda the media is missing one of the biggest domestic stories of the 2004 campaign. When the President pledges to create an “era of ownership,” he is not talking merely about encouraging people to buy their own homes and start small businesses. To conservative Republicans who understand his coded language, he is also talking about extending and expanding the tax cuts he introduced in his first term; he is talking about allowing wealthy Americans to shelter much of their income from the I.R.S.; about using the tax code to curtail the government’s role in health care and retirement saving; and, ultimately, about a vision that has entranced but eluded conservatives for decades: the abolition of the graduated income tax and its replacement with a levy that is simpler, flatter, and more favorable to rich people.

Work on achieving this ambitious program began with the tax cuts that Congress passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003, but the conservative economists who advise Bush and the right-wing institutes that support him have more in mind than consolidating their gains. Despite a gaping budget deficit, they are pressing the President to continue down a route that will reverse almost a century of American history. Since the personal income tax was introduced, in 1913, it has been based on two principles: the burden of taxation is distributed according to the ability to pay; and capital and labor carry their fair share. The Bush Administration appears set on undermining both of these principles

…

Rather than coming right out for a flat tax, the Harvard economists tend to use the less politically charged term “consumption tax.” Flat taxes and consumption taxes are closely related: both exempt saving and tax spending. Theoretically, it is possible to set up a progressive consumption tax, but most conservative economists favor a single rate set as low as possible; i.e. a flat tax. Such a system would penalize middle-class people, who spend nearly all the money they earn; a fact Hall and Rabushka, the originators of the flat tax, were straightforward about. In 1983, they wrote that a flat tax “would be a tremendous boon to the economic elite,” adding that “it is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people.”

All this is familiar from the Reagan Supply Side era. Note that you never hear the phrase “Supply Side” since it is now loaded with negative connotations. But the similarities are striking and I wrote about the Reagan supply policies in 1989 for the final paper for my Economics Minor at Colgate, The Reagan Plan in Retrospect: Supply-Side Assumptions vs. Economic Realities (3.3MB PDF).

It is reasonable to ask why the United States deviated so wildly from its economic path. Was it a true faith in the theoretical underpinnings of supply-side economics? Or…was supply-side theory used as rhetoric designed to dupe the American people into accepting a decreased government structure by causing massive budget deficits? One way or the other the results are now in.

The supply-side expectations of a tax cut which were described at the beginning of this paper turned out to be far from true. Personal savings decreased and labor supply did not add enough to the tax base to control a monumental government deficit.

. . . No one disputes that making our country safer from terrorist threats is important. But it’s not the only issue. What it is doing is providing a convenient screen while the radical branch of the Republican Party sets out to have the middle class pay for all government services.

Am I Too Gentle?

From the perspective of my more outspoken friends and colleagues, my writings here on the whole are pretty soft. Do I pull too many punches? Give too much credit to "the other side"? Watching Kerry, the DLC, and other Democrats give up so much ideological ground to Republicans has been maddeningly exasperating, and I don't want to be guilty of the same thing. Howard Dean was refreshing because he didn't mince words. That was misconstrued by some as being "far left", though anyone who looked at him honestly would see a centrist, who on economic issues was actually to the right of center.

For me it's important to be honest about my views, but also to acknowledge that other views are important. Nothing will be solved in this world if everyone screams their passions and nobody listens to views different from their own. Still it's cathartic to let it all out sometimes. Garrison Keillor, that mellifluous voice that has entertained middle America for the last two decades from Lake Wobegon, has done just that as he observed the upcoming election:

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy: the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

Similarly, Bill Moyers has spent years of his life building a reputation for reason and even-handedness, and in the last three years has been spending some of that capital on his PBS show NOW telling us what he really thinks, all the while retaining a respectful discourse with a myriad of voices across America and around the World. Reasoned people can disagree with their opinions, but to deny that they speak from a deep moral center would be blindness.

10 Partisan Myths

There was a nice discussion, thanks to Lance Finney, of Peter G Peterson's new book, Running On Empty : How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It over on WatchBlog several weeks ago, which I somehow missed when it was current. [End of Post]

The Power of a Personal Connection

Vice President Cheney, who many of us in the Democratic camp now see as one of the more intractable ideologues in the Administration, at least with respect to foreign policy, surprised many yesterday when he distanced himself from Bush's support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. "

Hmm! Forgive me if I suspect that the reason our leaders are so out of touch with regular folks is that there is an unnatural dearth of connection between them and, for example, American wage earners who punch a clock and struggle to feed their families, scientists who understand that global warming is a reality the world needs to reckon with, Iraqi civilians whose health is being compromised by the depleted uranium peppering their communities, families struggling with mentally ill relatives whose treatments are denied by insurers who stand to benefit from the stigma that mental illness is somehow the sufferer's fault, relatives of lifers in prison whose third strike, like their first two was a non-violent felony, and the list goes on.

If you fill your administration with friends and colleagues from the corporate boardroom, it's hardly any wonder that the needs you will relate to will be the needs of corporate America. In fact it seems that gaining access to this administration, or even to Bush's campaign appearances, requires one to be fully vetted as not belonging to the class of individuals that may cause discomfort. It's as if the Administration seems to realize at a subconscious level that exposure to these sorts might cause their ideologies to fall like a house of cards. Dissenters may be dangerous subversives and therefore must be seen as a security risk.

But Cheney's daughter is gay, so he 'get's it' on that issue. How sweet.

"The Country Will Be Lost!"

Every election cycle there are those who predict doom and gloom should the country elect the "wrong" President. Never in my lifetime though, have so many been so earnest in their belief that the "wrong" result in November bodes terrible ill for our nation and our world. It may be that the extent of the concern is overblown, but I am sure from my conversations with people on both sides of the fence that the concern is genuine and heartfelt.

Though I attempt to observe American politics phenomenologically, I am also a participant and actor and feeler in the political process. As a feeler, I understand at a personal level the urgency driven by the fear of what a Republican victory could mean. Visions of an encroaching Big Brother, further sell-out to big corporate interests, and megalomaniacal plans for world domination laid out by the blueprint of the Project for a New American Century, drive me and others to a concern that we may pass a point of no return in which dissenting voices are silenced and the great American Experiment will be lost. For my own part, I see that as a plausible concern, but by no means a foregone conclusion should Bush win reelection. Regardless of November's result, I will not give up hope for a better world.

The concerns of the right are just as vivid, whether they see a moral collapse or an economic one, or an unwillingness to stand up militarily if necessary to very real threats from outside our borders. The craziness of the world today coupled with the potential for technological destruction can feed a palpable fear regardless of one's point of view.

So the concerns are real and exist of their own accord, but there is political advantage to be gained by stoking those fears, especially when there is a sense that one is behind. Whether this is seen as shining a light on the truth or demagoguery is largely a matter of perspective. When MoveOn.org ran their ad campaign at the end of last year, and solicited our contributions to pay for them, those of us who participated felt we were exposing truths about Bush & Co. that the mainstream media was too timid (or too owned) to report on. Now that Kerry appears to have gained a slight upper hand, it is the Bush campaign which is selling the idea that Kerry isn't willing to stand up to the forces of terrorism, and would make military decisions based on political expediency. Of course it is very convenient for the Bush campaign that as a Senator, Kerry is constrained to an up/down choice on any bill. If, for instance, the Democratic rider, which would have funded the $87 billion military appropriations bill, had not failed due to the threat of a presidential veto, then indeed Kerry would have voted for the appropriations.

In evaluating the political claims of a campaign or its supporters, it's important to see them in context, seek opposing viewpoints, and especially to seek the views of those without a vested interest in the cause. FactCheck is a website I recommend which calls out the deceptions of both campaigns. It's also wise to avoid guilt or innocence by association. If a claim is debunked, it does not mean that all similar claims are untrue, nor does it mean that causes or candidates supported by those who made the faulty claim are culpable. In looking at the current Presidential campaign, I see politicians, all of whom play politics with facts, and I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. I also tend to dismiss claims that suggest that one or the other candidate is primarily inspired by an evil plan for the future of our country. They are after all human beings with faults and merits like anyone else. From my perspective, however, the preponderance of evidence points to the current administration being guided by precepts and advisors whose primary agendas are at variance with many of the values I hold closest. While I may not be especially convinced of the forthrightness or convictions of Kerry, his campaign's deceptions strike me as fundamentally and consistently less egregious than those the President's campaign is willing to stoop to, such as those used to justify the war with Iraq. We would be fools to expect to have saints as candidates for President in this age of media sound bites and influence peddling, but I think we can expect better than the current leadership. I have come to my views earnestly by examining evidence, relying on my own values, and on my gut, but that doesn't preclude me from respecting those who have reached differing conclusions.

Many of us tend to move in circles which reinforce our own predilections. This has a tendency to insulate us from reasoned opinions which run counter to our own. It makes it all too easy to generalize about those who disagree with us, without thinking of them as independent thinkers who may actually share many of our own values. My own circumstances tend to create this insulation for me, and it takes effort on my part to "deinsulate" myself. Joining WatchBlog as an editor was one such effort, but online interaction is not enough--I need personal contact as well to nurture respect for a diversity of opinion. I have joined a conversation cafe locally, only to find that its membership is currently seriously lacking in conservative opinions. Their rules and principles are sound, however, and I would encourage others to seek this type of interaction. A recent cross-country trip to visit in-laws put me in touch with intelligent thinkers of various political opinions. I know that it is healthy and energizing for me to engage in conversations with serious Republicans and Libertarians as well as fellow Democrats. It may be exhausting to do so all the time, but insulation is surely unhealthy.

In conclusion, I certainly can't claim to know whether Bush's reelection would truly threaten American democracy on a long term basis--I certainly hope not, and I'm very confident that the right will remain strong as an opposing force even if Kerry wins and the Democrats take both houses of Congress. But I would advise my readers, when you feel hysteria beginning to overtake you, take a deep breath, remain calm, and be willing to speak your truth to many audiences, and be willing to truly listen to those of differing opinions who argue with reason and in good faith.

Summarizing the case for deception

I've read a fair amount of material defending the choice to go to war in Iraq, from the jingoistically absurd, to well-reasoned opinion pieces on the necessity for bold action. Through it all, though, I've been appalled by the willingness of so many, especially in the mainstream media, to accept with only superficial questioning what appeared to me to be such transparent deceptions employed by this administration in making the case for war. It's always seemed that the only defense ultimately, is one that claims the stakes are so high and the cause so necessary that deception was necessary, because it was the only practical means to a necessary end. All claims that they really did believe all their assertions, and that there really wasn't any deception, struck me as unbelievable, but it wasn't trivial to explain just why that was so. I was recently pointed to an article which very nicely summarizes the case that willful deception has been the ongoing modus operandi of Bush and Company from the outset. [End of Post]

Stating one's truth

A friend from my college days who shares my disdain for the policies of the Bush administration emailed me recently expressing general vexation with blogs ("I'm sick of blogs. Really, really sick of them.") He even went so far as to advise me to shut mine down. I suppose it's easy enough to see the whole phenomenon as a fad, in which blowhards of every description jump in to blow their horn, promote their opinion, and often develop a sense of obligation to stay current, offer opinions on every major issue, and compete to scoop others on the latest development. It also can be seen as an insular activity, in which we bloggers build our own castles in lieu of actively seeking relation with the larger world. Indeed the vast majority of blogs never attain any kind of significant readership, so what's the point really?

Personally I've always been disinclined to dismiss any particular medium a priori, preferring to judge particular instances on their own merit. Simply put, this blog offered me a way to "state my truth" at essentially no cost other than the investment of time. If proselytization is my primary goal, I would do better to write letters to the editor or my representatives, become involved in local politics and issue groups, and make contributions to the causes of my choice. None of those avenues are closed to me, though, just because I'm 'blogging'; so for the moment anyway, I will keep publishing, albeit in fits and starts as life's other demands compete for my time.

Since it is important to me to capture my beliefs, perspectives, and opinions, even if only for my own sake, then I don't see this as a waste of time. I'm simply following through on something I've long intended to do, since way before the first web log had ever been written. Exposing this to public scrutiny helps to keep me honest and think things through, allows for the possibility of benefiting from the perspectives of others who read what I write, and there is always the hope, vainglorious as it may be, that I've got ideas of worth to offer the world, and that someone, somewhere, someday may be inspired by me to act in a powerful new way. Maybe it will be me, and at that time I will shut down this blog. As David Bowie sang, "Time may change me, but you can't trace time."