Context and Ohio Democrats

Ohio. Something of a disappointing outlier in an election where Democrats did well in neighbors Michigan and Pennsylvania, in addition to the nation as a whole. So for about a week we have been gradually starting a conversation about what this means, and what if anything is to be done.

Here’s the entire conversation for Democrats IMO: This is political party strength in Ohio since 1978, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Democrats in blue

As best I can judge, Ohio Democrats have not had a useful statewide organization since the mid-1980s, at which time presumably the party was coasting toward its early 1990s capsizing.

Since then?

Read More →

Post-Election Thoughts Nov. 2018

The Economist examined the question of whether or not America is “ungovernable” nearly nine years ago. At the time they concluded no, and blamed Barack Obama. By four years ago, their tut-tutting confidence had slipped a bit. I have documented that slide before.

Another cycle of presidential and midterm elections has now passed. I don’t know what The Economist may have to say at the moment; I don’t read the site regularly now that it’s tightly paywalled.

I, however, am left with a stronger than ever sense that America is ungovernable, at any rate in the sense of a capacity to organize at large scale and lead a substantive program of reform.

What is the point of any of the shouting, struggling, attempted organizing and counter-organizing, etc., etc.? I realize that things take time, but what has been the point of anything during the past 20 years in American politics?

In the 1990s, I can perceive the entrenchment of a neoliberal program, in broad terms. I may not approve of it, but I can at least identify a possible program of reform which (starting some time earlier) was still viable across multiple elections.

Since then…?

Read More →

Post-election status

Feeling kind of like the Giving Tree at the end of the story.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/e5/cb/dfe5cb680aa8032de81bce0519e8f8b9.jpg

Profile writing

I’m writing, these days, but it doesn’t involve much fun research or exploration. Much of what I write is for political campaigns and causes. I write most entries for state representative candidate Mike Skindell’s blog, for example.

I have a list of subjects that I have wanted to look into, when time and energy permits, but so far it’s still just a list. Either time or energy have been wanting at most points this year.

Recently, though, inspiration was somehow enough to profile a complete stranger in a satisfying little human-interest article for the local newspaper. It should appear in the printed Lakewood Observer on Wednesday.

Jamie Garrett is a server at Deagan’s Kitchen, an expecting mother, and an aspiring forensics student.

The fact that she’s missing most of one arm is a fact of life, but it doesn’t define her identity.

You can read the rest online also.

Aversion to sitting in front

It fascinates me that, at least in many situations, people seem extremely averse to sitting at the front of a room.

This only seems explicable to me as a conditioned behavior, acquired during school years when they and their peers wanted to sit as far as possible from the front of the classroom, in order to evade the teacher calling on them.

If I’m correct, then this behavior’s persistence throughout adulthood is confounding in multiple ways.

  1. Even in school, did it actually succeed? I wonder. I suspect that teachers might say no, of course not, I’m just as likely to call on a student in the back of the room as one sitting up front. Statistical analysis might reveal otherwise—but I don’t know, perhaps it would not.
  2. At all events, it does not really make sense to continue this behavior as adults. Since graduating college, I may have been in a few situations where a presenter called upon members of the audience who weren’t volunteering for interaction. But these have been vanishingly rare. It doesn’t really happen. There is no need to continue hiding in the back of the room!
  3. Yet people do this even when they are at meetings voluntarily—and presumably wanted to hear at least some of the program. It happens even at meetings when there are nearly endless questions for the speaker, presumably reversing the underlying logic of seating and making the front of the room the first place to fill up.

So many people spend their lives trying to sit as close to the back of the room as possible, though. Does anyone besides me even think about it? Is it just entirely subconscious? What is the deal?

The senator from truthiness

As of late August 2018, American politics has become so debased that people fall over themselves praising the integrity, civility and honor of someone who:

  1. attempted to bring an aggressively know-nothing, say-anything internet troll into the White House before deciding to occasionally criticize another one who actually made it there;
  2. made much fuss about the senate and “regular order” before voting to approve a massive betrayal of serious policymaking;
  3. chuckled at his own “joke” of singing “bomb bomb, bomb bomb-Iran” in response to a serious question about policy.

This isn’t really a record of decency or any of those other things; it’s a record of “decenciness.” As with “truthiness,” it provokes an emotional feeling of genuineness, which large numbers of people happily embrace as being just as good as a substantive, reasoned case, if not better.

Whither Brexit

Answer… it’s ongoing.

Hard to believe two years have passed since the first big shock result of 2016. Especially since little seems to have happened, in this case.

The main reason I feel like revisiting this topic is its useful lessons for national plebiscites, a concept which has been on my mind lately.

It’s increasingly tempting to believe that America’s national politics might benefit from some element of direct democracy. The reasons are mostly variations on the theme of current practices not working very well…

Comparing surveys on issues, and the outcome of votes for elected officials, it seems like there is definitely a disparity, and seems to me like people are less bad at choosing broad policies than they are at choosing leaders to empower. Both my own observations and some studies suggest that contests for elected office have devolved into mindless seesaws of partisan intensity, whereas facts and argument have at least some chance in initiative and referendum campaigns. On certain issues, meanwhile, ideas seem to have hardened and yet there is no apparent hope of settling e.g. the issue of abortion, because on this issue there is no real overlap between the two parties between which government is, over time, divided in America.

I believe that there are issues in which resort to a nationwide plebiscite would offer some hope of an America that is less ungovernable.

Mainly because, at this point, national politics are basically a kind of bastardized pseudo-direct-democracy anyway. In practice, we elect people to make decisions… in reality, ideological party “sorting” is now substantial, and elections are at least as much arguments about known issues as they are about trying to select wise and honorable people to deal with undefined “new business.” At some point, it seems like we need either a better mechanism for resolving long-term disputes… or else we need to admit that we’re in a civil war and respond accordingly.

Plebiscites seem like a possible solution. Yet even setting aside the inevitable constitutional roadblock, just for discussion’s sake, there are reasons for concern. I think the story of Brexit demonstrates some interesting ones besides the obvious.

Read More →

Clarity on conservatism

Early this year, I read this remark from occasionally interesting neocon David Frum:

“Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

It has stuck with me, since, mainly for the implication which he goes on to make explicit: “The stability of American society depends on conservatives’ ability to find a way forward from the Trump dead end, toward a conservatism that cannot only win elections but also govern responsibly…”

That’s very persuasive, and very troubling since so-called conservatives seem to be packing themselves into that dead end, gleefully elevating “owning the libs” over governing responsibly.

This morning, though, I had a moment of clarity: no.

Conservatives may always be with us. But if they reject democracy, then they become illegitimate. Odds are very good that, in a nation of democratic institutions, they will also become criminals. At which point they should be prosecuted, convicted and placed in time out.

Simple.

Read More →

Iron Man & the “Camelot Trilogy”

Let’s explore some more old, odd and/or obscure comics.

Even though published by Marvel and featuring two of its best known characters, I believe that various parts of the Iron Man “Camelot Trilogy” meet all three criteria.

The publication history alone supplies some novelty:

  • Part One, Iron Man (volume I) Issues 149-150. 1981.
  • Part Two, Iron Man (volume I) Issues 249-250. 1989.
  • Part Three, Iron Man: Legacy of Doom 4-issue limited series. 2008.

No surprise, this was never planned as a trilogy, or even a story that would extend beyond the original two-parter in 1981. I believe it was only ever referred to as a trilogy within the past decade, when Marvel approved publication of a third installment in the form of its own, standalone four-issue serial almost 20 years after part two. (I presume the company was simply flooding stores with Iron Man projects, in hopes of capturing some halo sales from the character’s feature film.)

Cover of Iron Man (vol. I) #150

The beginning of a story three decades (or 15 centuries) in the making

Granted that I like this story. I enjoy the characters, it’s a work (or works) of good basic craft; it isn’t terribly deep but does a good job of what it aspires to do.

But the gradual expansion from a two-issue story fascinates me.

Read More →

Elite decline

This past week, I saw the phrase “elite decline” on Twitter, in these comments on Amy Chua’s testimonial for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and how she basically ratted on her own conflict of interest:

Just two days later, I happened upon another remarkably similar example:

Set aside all the other baggage accompanying this particular disgrace and with Mr. Musk in general. Set aside also his claim to “humanitarian” reasons. Here is a very rich person explaining that he gives money to politicians to buy himself priority access which the rest of us don’t get. He apparently did not consider this anything to be ashamed of.

Read More →