post-election thoughts

~on.

as we all know by now, obama won. so, what does this mean for us? well, it seems, or at least i am hopeful that it seems, that we are embarking on a new phase of liberalism. the conservative backlash to the era of FDR, truman, kennedy, and johnson has perhaps run its course and the world the liberals now inherit is the direct result of deregulation, free market excess, and the culture wars. these things aside, i don't see that what obama has inherited is any worse than what FDR inherited from hoover - in fact, bush could very aptly be described as hoover-esque (and i'm sure his presidential library will be just as dreary). my anti-conservatism aside, what will come to define this new liberalism, if that is in fact what this is. the new yorker has a good spread on just this.

Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. The Journal’s nightmare scenario of America under President Obama and a Democratic Congress included health care for all, a green revolution, expanded voting rights, due process for terror suspects, more powerful unions, financial regulation, and a shift of the tax burden upward. That idea is ascendant in 2008 because it answers the times. These political circumstances, even more than the election of the first black American to the highest office, make Obama’s victory historic.

indeed, this seems like the conservatives' nightmare, but it does reveal that the policies carried out from regan to bush and bush, jr. have waned in enthusiasm among the general public. curiously as well, this election could not focus on the social issues that had been the bread and butter of neocon ideology in the bush "wins."

on a slight tangential note, there is certainly unrest among some, which seems particularly directed at the media. a forthcoming documentary is set to expose how the media won the election for obama. (see also). i will not profess that there was not, in fact, a media bias; however, i will suggest that people are only willing to cry foul when their particular ideology is not the one carrying the day in the media. our news outlets are, indelibly, the fountainhead of ideology: turn on, tune in, and get your daily dose of what people with more money than you think you should think. it astonishes me that people are just now like wtf? but better late than never, as they say. again though, the real issue here is that conservatives are blaming the media because it was not biased in their favor. if it had been, then the liberals would be crying wolf. as long as the media is owned by anyone other than the people, there will be no such thing as objective news coverage ... and even then it might fail still. in a comment thread from the western standard, i found a "libertarian" view of interest as well:

I don't know of any libertarians that are suggesting the state should break up the media. And I don't at all suggest that anything involving the law or the government should be done to the news media.

The criticism, it seems to me, is that the media is failing in providing unbiased news.

Maybe we should reject that vision of the journalist. Maybe, instead, we should embrace a vision that includes open and honest expression of bias (like we do here. We love liberty. Our news stories are from a pro-liberty perspective, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a call to keep the government out of it. It is not a call for silencing critics. I think it's perfectly all right for Republicans to express their criticism, to boycott, to write letters, and so on. All of that is consistent with free speech.

And they can, legally, print whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't mean that I have to endorse what they write, or approve of it. Just as I can't silence them for putting out pro-Obama news, they can't silence me in pointing that out and saying "shame on you" (or an equivalent).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 18-Nov-08 5:23:51 PM

we have freedom of the press, but nowhere does it state that the free press must be unbiased. there is bias and ideology in every aspect of our culture; it is up to the observer/listener to be objective in making decisions and judgments about that bias. bias, in the parlance of our times, is simply double-speak for "does not agree with me." and to that i simply say: who the fuck cares? most people do not agree, and even if they do, it's certainly not all the time. having a plurality of views encourages discourse, debate, and perhaps, if the demarcations are not so deep, consensus. because i greatly doubt that truth is something knowable other than in science (but even there, truths seem to dissolve after time).

this all leaves us squarely in the realm of interpretation, and there were two opposing interpretations of how the result of this election came to pass. c. 46% of the country interpreted the current republican ideology as the best: the best to solve a financial crisis, the best to "win" a war, and the best to protect american nationalism. contrarily, c. 53% of the nation cast an opposing interpretation, one predicated upon government working for the people, ending poorly conceived conflicts, and believing in a different "american dream." neither has truth on its side. each only has an ideology and an interpretation. we can only hope for transparency about what that ideology is and whom it serves, so that if we find ourselves on the ass end of the situation, we can revise our interpretations and try again.

~off, and back to the underground.

the biden comments and more

~on~

so, as i was watching cnn last night, i was perplexed about what joe biden could possibly mean when he stated that obama would face an "international crisis" in the first six months. now, the basic principle of what he said seems to be correct. every president has faced some sort of crisis early in their first year. the manner in which he stated this view was, er, not so good. i grimaced because it's another talking point for the GOP and mccain/palin, and one that falls well within their purview - foreign affairs.

i like biden, so please do not misunderstand, but i do fail to see the point in broaching this subject in such a way with only two weeks until the election. in the politico arena, i think the view for why biden's comment is not a gaffe, per se, is clearly elucidated. perhaps, one of the better responses is from andrei cherny, where he points out that the essential political gaffe here is that biden told the truth. the implication the GOP is going to run with on biden's comment though is that obama will not be able to handle this international crisis, which is a patent absurdity, but one of the many absurdities that mccain/palin will be able to get to stick with some voters. whether the many undecided voters are influenced by such rhetoric is, in my opinion, uncertain, but it will definitely get the conservative base going (again).

on the subject of the vp candidates, the RNC announced yesterday that they have spent $150k on palin's outfits during the course of the campaign. the figures are since the end of august/beginning of september, which means they have spent about $2800/day on making palin look "acceptable" to the american public. i have a few issues on this point. first, mccain/palin are running on a platform of decreased spending and budget reform. yet, $2800 on clothes does not seem like anything near spending reform; in fact, i would call it wasteful. when asked to comment, an RNC representative stated:

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

tracey, in case you have been living in a fucking bubble, one of the issues facing the country right now is how we spend our money.

my other issue with this is more along the lines of having my curiosity piqued. palin is only the second woman to be attached to a major party presidential ticket, and one thing (you can look to hillary clinton on this, too) is that the way women appear to the country is very important. there are certain do's and don'ts, which have often (perhaps until palin) tended to emphasis a lack of femininity. so, i wonder what the calculated image for palin is. they have definitely emphasized her femininity, but to what extent? she dresses powerfully, and has apparently been a topic in fashion magazines, but do "soccer moms" shop at saks fifth avenue and neiman marcus? most, i suspect, shop at the perennial middle-class favorites: walmart, target, kohls, and penny's. the image discrepancy is obvious, but i think it still begs the question: how are the republicans trying to make her appear to the public? what is the ur-presidential woman in the republican model?

also, with 13 days to go, the polls seem to suggest that despite the pundits' views that the polls had been tightening, they are actually widening. RCP's national poll average now shows obama 50.6/mccain 43.0, which amounts to one of the bigger leads obama has had in the poll averages. as david gergen (one of my favorites) stated last night on AC360, "the big story tonight is that after 2-3 days in a row of talking about tightening polls, they're now widening." whatever momentum mccain gained out of the last debate appears to have dissipated, and he now relies on changing pennsylvania red, where according to poll averages, obama has an 11.4 point lead. though obama's support has, in fact diminished slightly in PA over the last week, mccain has not gained anything. until mccain starts showing a significant (or any gain) in PA, i don't think it's in any danger of being turned red.

~off, and back to the underground.

in response to obama's wealth redistribution critics

~on~

why would america be against wealth redistribution, per se? thanks to the dot com boom and the increasing corporatization of america, the income disparity is staggering. 1% of the country owns 38% of the nation's wealth, and the top 20% of the country holds 83% of the total household wealth, whereas 60% of the nation holds less than 6% of the total wealth, with 12% of the country living below the poverty line (mantsios). you could also cite a graph i found on the ratio of ceo pay to the federal minimum wage: 821:1 ... so 821 times the minimum wage as of 2005 (5.15), which makes the the equivalent hourly wage of a ceo over $4,200/hour. i'm sure that they've "earned" it, but such a great disparity in income distribution in this, the most affluent, country is an absolute affront to even american ideals.

furthermore, middle class tax cuts while raising taxes on those who make more than 250K/year, i would argue, is not income redistribution. [btw, the percent of the population who make more than that magic number is 1.5%, or 1,699 households. that's it.] if you think about it, the 95% of americans who would benefit under obama's tax plan largely only draw income from a job - or labor in some form; whereas, the 5% of americans who would see tax increases don't work jobs, per se, but rather draw income from investments and assets (stocks, bonds, property ownership, production, and distribution). to enhance this, you can also add that 66% of those who make $100K or more a year have inherited assets. (which to me suggests that they didn't "work" for their money, as is so often the argument the wealthy level against tax-based income redistribution) so, they largely either sit on or invest their wealth in things that mature, rather than having that as income and needing it to pay bills, send kids to school, buy food, pay rent, etc. at this point in the game, the majority of americans need the majority of their income, so lowering their taxes makes sense.

as for the top 1.5% of america, i think that their investments can be curtailed a little. obama is looking to stimulate the economy through middle class tax cuts and energy sector job creation - which is (at least according to pure capitalism) what that 1.5% should have been investing in in order for it to "trickle down." they are not, and have not, been holding up their side of the economy, and the majority of us (the workers) are suffering as a result. so, obama proposes to invest (as the wealthy should have been doing) in securing america's energy future, and creating new, non-exportable jobs. more money for the struggling middle class and a new energy-based sector of the economy opening and creating jobs seems like a sound formula to me.

i'll leave you with this: the income gap between rich and poor in the US, measured as the total income held by the wealthiest 20% of the population versus the poorest 20% of the population, is approximately 11:1 ... cf: nyt

~off.