After a vicious campaign that ended in a rancorous decision by the House of Representatives, Thomas Jefferson's inauguration was anti-climactic. He chose to take a tone of reconciliation, wishing to tamp down some of the conflict that was bubbling under the surface of the United States. The switchover from the Federalist administration of Adams to the Republican one of Jefferson was peaceful, if not exactly amicable. No matter how dire the situation, or how little each party liked the other, this transition set a precedent which has still endured.
However, that didn't mean partisanship went away. The Federalist party was still a going concern, and it definitely had differences with the Jeffersonians. All through the Jefferson administration they would push back against Jefferson, with limited success. This was in large part due to the lack of power they had, as the Republicans controlled majorities in both the Senate and the House. In addition, the party suffered from a lack of solid leadership, with Adams retired and Hamilton disgraced (and in 1804 killed in the famous duel with Aaron Burr). As it was until the 17th Amendment, the Senate was selected by state legislatures, so the dominance of this chamber by the Republicans showed how the states were also controlled by the followers of Jefferson, at least outside of New England.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Politics in the United States of America: The Birth of Partisanship (1789-1800)
The United States was officially declared independent by the 2nd Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This independence became a settled fact after the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783) by the United Kingdom and the United States. However, our current governmental system was not yet in place during either of these times.
For the first 13 years of the United States of America, the government was under the Articles of Confederacy. It created an incredibly weak central government, reserving most powers to the 13 states that were a part of it. The national government had no ability to raise funds directly, and most important matters could be vetoed by a single state. To say it didn't really work is an understatement.
For the first 13 years of the United States of America, the government was under the Articles of Confederacy. It created an incredibly weak central government, reserving most powers to the 13 states that were a part of it. The national government had no ability to raise funds directly, and most important matters could be vetoed by a single state. To say it didn't really work is an understatement.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Politics in the United States of America: An Introduction
There are very few times in American history that have been as divided as we are now. Red states or blue states, liberals or conservatives, authoritarians or libertarians, there seems at time to almost be two nations within one, two systems of politics and "realities". How did we get here, and how do we get out? Or can we even get out of it at this point?
These are all questions I hope to answer as I write on this blog. Look, I know blogs are old fashioned, at least relative to other forms of "content" on today's Internet. But this is a much better format to get these thoughts out then polluting up people's timeline on Facebook, or creating a god-awful /500 tweet thread on Twitter that would chase away the few remaining followers. A big reason for doing this is to regularly write, to get rid of some of those thoughts swimming in my head and dragging me down. It's a way to explore our past, present, and future, while also blowing off steam about the terrible crisis we are fast approaching.
I hope you reading this will get some use out of this, and welcome discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not denying any bias, but instead am honest that my approach is most definitely from a standpoint that sits on the left of the political spectrum. I welcome disagreement and arguments from you who are not, but stale talking points will likely be ignored, and nonsense will be answered with absurdity. Particularly when dealing with historical facts, I feel confident that the information I'm sharing reflects what happened as best as can be told, but if I'm clearly pulling from some apocrypha (and there's plenty of that in our "known" American history to go around) please let me know.
These posts will have a fairly linear trajectory, and will comprise three parts. Part One will be a series of posts detailing how we got here. For the first thirty-five years of the Constitutional United States of America (1789-1824) there won't be separate posts for the two main parties, but once things get going with the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, posts will be split between different phases of the Democratic party, and its two main opponents. Third parties will be explored as well, although only within the context of the eras discussed for the other two parties. While worthy of their own exploration, third parties really only play a small role in our current situation.
Part Two will discuss the situation we currently face. This includes the global situation, and the United States current role in it. It also includes the Federal government, and the governments of our states. Finally, it includes the obstacles and threats facing the Democratic Party (and to an extent, the almost insurmountable task before Republicans who are sick of the current state of their party have before them) as we look towards the 2018 midterms, an election that is arguably one of the most crucial elections in our nation's history.
Part Three will go beyond 2018. I'll be looking at 2020, yes, but more in a bigger picture sense of how to truly move past this awful situation we currently are in. In addition, I'll also discuss how we can prevent this dangerous situation from happening again.
The next post will be kicking off part one with the establishment of the Constitution, the election of Washington, and the beginning of our partisan political system.
These are all questions I hope to answer as I write on this blog. Look, I know blogs are old fashioned, at least relative to other forms of "content" on today's Internet. But this is a much better format to get these thoughts out then polluting up people's timeline on Facebook, or creating a god-awful /500 tweet thread on Twitter that would chase away the few remaining followers. A big reason for doing this is to regularly write, to get rid of some of those thoughts swimming in my head and dragging me down. It's a way to explore our past, present, and future, while also blowing off steam about the terrible crisis we are fast approaching.
I hope you reading this will get some use out of this, and welcome discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not denying any bias, but instead am honest that my approach is most definitely from a standpoint that sits on the left of the political spectrum. I welcome disagreement and arguments from you who are not, but stale talking points will likely be ignored, and nonsense will be answered with absurdity. Particularly when dealing with historical facts, I feel confident that the information I'm sharing reflects what happened as best as can be told, but if I'm clearly pulling from some apocrypha (and there's plenty of that in our "known" American history to go around) please let me know.
These posts will have a fairly linear trajectory, and will comprise three parts. Part One will be a series of posts detailing how we got here. For the first thirty-five years of the Constitutional United States of America (1789-1824) there won't be separate posts for the two main parties, but once things get going with the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, posts will be split between different phases of the Democratic party, and its two main opponents. Third parties will be explored as well, although only within the context of the eras discussed for the other two parties. While worthy of their own exploration, third parties really only play a small role in our current situation.
Part Two will discuss the situation we currently face. This includes the global situation, and the United States current role in it. It also includes the Federal government, and the governments of our states. Finally, it includes the obstacles and threats facing the Democratic Party (and to an extent, the almost insurmountable task before Republicans who are sick of the current state of their party have before them) as we look towards the 2018 midterms, an election that is arguably one of the most crucial elections in our nation's history.
Part Three will go beyond 2018. I'll be looking at 2020, yes, but more in a bigger picture sense of how to truly move past this awful situation we currently are in. In addition, I'll also discuss how we can prevent this dangerous situation from happening again.
The next post will be kicking off part one with the establishment of the Constitution, the election of Washington, and the beginning of our partisan political system.
Friday, January 27, 2017
On President #45's Reprehensible Executive Order Regarding Syrian Refugees
 |
| The MS St. Louis |
Stopping the acceptance of Syrian war refugees, even for a relatively small amount of time is the wrong thing to do, and I'm ashamed of my President and my country for doing it.
This is not who we should be. It certainly is in line with how we've acted a lot of the times in our past (for an example see the tragedy of the jewish refugees on the MS St. Louis). However, even still, we've often been the refuge of last resort for many displaced peoples and those who were on the losing side of conflicts in their country. Each time we've done so, these communities of refugees, rather than being dangerous and destabilizing, have made our country stronger. Somalis in Minnesota, Bosnians in St. Louis, Vietnamese in California, even Irish and Germans political refugees from the failed revolutions and rebellions of 1848. They all have made this country a more vibrant, better place, and them and their descendants are the very essence of America, at least the promise and potential of us.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
On the Election of...ugh...really?
 |
| White house is so small and lacks gold plating. Sad. |
Well, 47% of America, you finally did it. After President Bush led our country to the cliff's edge of economic ruin, Barack Obama and his administration sucked it up, got us back on the road, and had us going the right way, albeit slower than we'd like in many places. And now, when you had the chance to keep going in that right direction, you decided instead to throw caution in the wind and swerve right off towards another cliff, this time one hanging over a terrible whirlpool of white supremacy, anti-semitism, international pariah status, and possibly worse.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Where I Pivot away from the Primaries, and Towards the General Election
Putting it out there right now: Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic party for the 2016 Presidential race.
Look, I know the Sanders camp is still beating the drums and saying it's still feasible for them to win. "Wait 'til New York, Bernie's a native."
"California, folks, that's the place you oughta be. Bernie will win there."
"Don't forget Montana and Idaho. Bernie will do great there!"
Nope. Uh-unh. And true, but those states have like six delegates. It's not enough. The math is just not there. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a) Just not ready to face the facts or b) is willfully lying in the pursuit of their own interests. If you're the latter, well, you won't be convinced by me because you're lying. But if you're the former, perhaps you can be convinced.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Another Super Tuesday in the Books
Now that the day of multiple contests is in the book, we have a clearer picture of how this year's Presidential campaign is going to shake out. In short, unless you are a fan of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, things aren't looking so good.
The Democrats are first, and the result shows how far Bernie Sanders campaign has come. Unfortunately, it also shows that time has run out for Sanders to find a viable path to the nomination. A year ago it would have been unimaginable Sanders would have beaten Clinton in one state, let alone winning five separate contests (counting his previous victory in New Hampshire). It's a real achievement his campaign has made it this far and racked up as many delegates as it had.
The Democrats are first, and the result shows how far Bernie Sanders campaign has come. Unfortunately, it also shows that time has run out for Sanders to find a viable path to the nomination. A year ago it would have been unimaginable Sanders would have beaten Clinton in one state, let alone winning five separate contests (counting his previous victory in New Hampshire). It's a real achievement his campaign has made it this far and racked up as many delegates as it had.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
A "Few" Words on the 2016 Democratic Primary and a Push for a New Left
If you read through this blog's history, you'll see that I was definitely not a supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008. I was rooting for Obama to run for President from the day I listened to his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I was elated when he won both the nomination and election. It's been a tough seven (going on eight) years, with plenty of successes, but plenty of disappointments as well. All in all, however, I am happy with the President, and feel that he has restored a modicum of competence to an office that was a disaster in the hands of George W. Bush.
I also think it's crucial that a Democrat gets to follow an outgoing Democrat in office, the first since Truman replaced Roosevelt in 1945. Doing so will better entrench the gains we've made over the Obama administration, plus it's imperative that any Supreme Court vacancies go to jurists who aren't of the Rehnquist/Scalia/Roberts/Alito mold. It's unlikely that Congress and the President will work together, provided the President is a Democrat. As such, it will take ingenuity and strength to solve many of our outstanding issues in a way that won't require Congressional legislation.
I also think it's crucial that a Democrat gets to follow an outgoing Democrat in office, the first since Truman replaced Roosevelt in 1945. Doing so will better entrench the gains we've made over the Obama administration, plus it's imperative that any Supreme Court vacancies go to jurists who aren't of the Rehnquist/Scalia/Roberts/Alito mold. It's unlikely that Congress and the President will work together, provided the President is a Democrat. As such, it will take ingenuity and strength to solve many of our outstanding issues in a way that won't require Congressional legislation.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Ugh: The 2014 Midterms
So I'm sitting here in a hotel room (so I have cable for the election) sipping whiskey and just generally trying to process the ass-whupping the Democrats took this midterm election. Yep, there's no denying this was a bad defeat. Forget purple states like Iowa, Colorado, and Florida, all of which Democrats lost key Senate or Governor's races. The Democrats lost governor's seats in reliably Democratic Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
It was a pretty bad night for the men (and women) in blue. The Senate is now in the hands of Mitch McConnell, the Republicans padded their lead in the House, and they continue to control a distressing number of governor's mansions and state legislatures. Of the three stooges (Walker, Scott, and LePage) I was hoping would be shown the door, all three were reelected. Nope, not a fun night.
It was a pretty bad night for the men (and women) in blue. The Senate is now in the hands of Mitch McConnell, the Republicans padded their lead in the House, and they continue to control a distressing number of governor's mansions and state legislatures. Of the three stooges (Walker, Scott, and LePage) I was hoping would be shown the door, all three were reelected. Nope, not a fun night.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Democratic National Convention: Day Two Recap
After two nights of both conventions being down, the score is:
Democrats: 2
Republicans: 0
And if you broke down the scores it isn't even close. Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton came out and made great cases for why the Democrats should not only retain the White House, but gain back control of Congress. Just watch their speeches for yourself
Here's the future junior senator from Masschusetts:
And here's Bill Clinton's hell of a speech:
Tonight Barack Obama will accept the nomination as Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Obviously his speech will be the most anticipated, but there are several other speakers to look forward to, such as Vice President Joe Biden and the always fun Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.
As always, we'll be keeping up with the convention on twitter.
Democrats: 2
Republicans: 0
And if you broke down the scores it isn't even close. Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton came out and made great cases for why the Democrats should not only retain the White House, but gain back control of Congress. Just watch their speeches for yourself
Here's the future junior senator from Masschusetts:
And here's Bill Clinton's hell of a speech:
Tonight Barack Obama will accept the nomination as Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Obviously his speech will be the most anticipated, but there are several other speakers to look forward to, such as Vice President Joe Biden and the always fun Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.
As always, we'll be keeping up with the convention on twitter.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Democratic National Convention: Day One Recap
The first day of the Democratic National Convention was a good start, as there were many good speeches and a great tone in general. Compared to the RNC, which felt like a halfhearted meeting at a country club, the DNC was much looser, much smoother, and a much better representation of the United States as a whole.
If the day had any sort of theme, it was that the Democratic party is proud of Obamacare. Although two years late, it appears the party has finally gotten around to figuring out how to sell what is a complicated, flawed, but ultimately very beneficial piece of legislation.
Unlike the RNC, the speakers at the DNC actually seemed enthusiastic about supporting their candidate. They spent much more of their time speaking about President Obama and what he can do if re-elected, rather than blathering on about themselves. There were many great speeches from earlier in the night, such as former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and NARAL President Nancy Keenan. Even Harry Reid's speech was effective, if not quite the barnburner as later ones would be.
However, the best speeches by far were the last two. The keynote speaker was San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. His speech reminded us of Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC in Boston. Be watching for his name, as he is clearly going to be a major player in the Democratic party of the future. Unlike
If his speech was the last speech night, it would have been an unqualified success. However, Castro's speech was just a warm up for First Lady Michelle Obama. After such a successful night of speeches, the pressure was on her to deliver.
And deliver she did. It was a speech by a woman that clearly loves her husband, her President, and her country. It rebuked every thing the RNC tried to say about Democrats and President Obama, and did it all without being mean or without directly attacking Mitt Romney. In essence, it made a most compelling case for the President's reelection.
So now the bar is set for former President Bill Clinton and current President Barack Obama. Given their track record, I think they'll both do alright. We'll have to see if that is true.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Happy Labor Day (and a few words about the Conventions)
We here at August Prairie wish all of you a happy Labor Day. Please think about all the labor movement in America has brought us, from the two day weekend to the forty hour work week. And of course, for some, dental plans.
We know we never provided a recap of Day Four of the RNC, but we didn't get to see any of it, and frankly what is there to say about Romney's speech? It was dull, it was bland, and it was unremarkable. It was also overshadowed by an angry old man yelling at an invisible man. All in all, a fitting symbol for today's Republican party. Yep, the GOP is now nothing but Mr. Burns, Rev. Lovejoy, that crazy gun shooting Texan, and Grandpa Simpson. I think even Sideshow Bob would blanch at the current state of the Republican party (not that we want him and his monstrous feet on our side).
Stay tuned tomorrow for our coverage of the Democratic National Convention, where we promise less cries of BULLSHIT will probably be heard. Even if those may be deserved at times.
Until then, enjoy this song from one of the greatest episodes of The Simpsons. Oh, and a bit of "Classical Gas" as well.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention: Day Three Recap
Three (well, two) days down, one day left to go. The big day, the one where we finally get the "tall, somewhat charming" fellow that is the GOP nominee for President. I'm guessing for his senior staff, it couldn't be a day too soon, considering how Ryan and Christie did their best to overshadow him.
However, that recap is for tomorrow. Today is about yesterday, which was all about "We Can Change That".
(Paul Ryan tells another lie about Barack Obama and Medicare)
Hmm, it appears we were interrupted by Paul Ryan. Let's hope that doesn't happen again. Anyways, night three of the convention was a showcase for some senators, a few more governors (former and current), and two really annoying Attorneys General from Florida and Georgia. With Senator John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain and former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice speaking, it was also a night for neoconning it up in regards to Foreign Affairs. They also finally recognized that the Bushes existed, with a short tribute video that we unfortunately missed. For a second there I thought the GOP had forgotten that there was a President from their party in office between Clinton and Obama. It appears they've still forgotten about NCLB, Cutting taxes while fighting two wars, and creating Medicare Part D, as well as turning those Clinton surpluses into deficits. You gotta feel sorry for the poor saps, don't ya?
(Paul Ryan blames the 30 Year War on Barack Obama, despite the fact that it started centuries before he was President)
Ugh, will he quit that? We're getting tired of all the interruptions, even more so because they are so damn full of lies. Well, where were we? Oh yeah, we were talking about Foreign Affairs night at the GOP. Condi Rice appears to be fairly intelligent, and I doubt she believes most of the crap her party spews. Were we facing a world of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations, she probably would be an excellent foreign affairs specialist. But like a lot of her peers in that field, they were trained for a world with the USSR, and just can't handle that it is gone. They can't work without that black hat to glare at. As we saw in Iraq and may yet see in Iran and/or Syria, this confusion and angst has caused us great problems. But hey, the speech was entertaining and probably the least offensive thing spewed forth by a professional political figure at the convention.
(Paul Ryan takes what was Republican obstruction over the debt ceiling, and blames it on President Obama)
GORRAMIT, PAUL RYAN! WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING US WITH THIS DRIVEL. CLEARLY IT WAS YOU AND YOUR ILK IN THE HOUSE THAT CAUSED OUR CREDIT RATING TO BE LOWERED. THE AGENCY EVEN SAID OBSTRUCTIONISM WAS THE SOURCE. AUGGHGHGHGHGARGLEBARGLEFOOFERAWBlahagoighewagpvhapgewgeagphewpgoewuepw9
-----------
(SIGH)
OK, we're better now. We've muted any way Paul Ryan could interrupt us, and we've triple locked the doors, so he won't try to come in and interrupt as well. Now back to the coverage. Man, wasn't Pawlenty and Portman both boring and disingenuous. A real winning combination there, ain't it. And of course there was also Mike Huckabee, and the birther Attorney General from Georgia, and that governor of New Mexico who balanced her budget without raising taxes (in part with Federal monies, but she forgot to mention that). I'm sure she's working real hard to get that blue meth off of the streets of Albuquerque.
And now on to the centerpiece of the night, the speech by Paul Rya-
(Paul Ryan tells same lie about Barack Obama and Medicare from before)
GAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHSCREWCRSERPWWTWEPGUWPEWPTWPEOSPCREWPUPWPREWPUPSFPFPUPGWDJFPWEOUPWEOJGFPLGDPOGUWEPOUEPOR42FGPWOEWEU$#$$PGPDJGPWOUPTOEWUJVMppgoaugpoeuepwotapotewuoagpagaowtepwpagmagowewepwea
OK, enough of this crap, that's all for this recap. See you tomorrow for the recap of Mitt Romney's speech. I'm sure Chris Matthews will love it, then five minutes later hate it.
However, that recap is for tomorrow. Today is about yesterday, which was all about "We Can Change That".
(Paul Ryan tells another lie about Barack Obama and Medicare)
Hmm, it appears we were interrupted by Paul Ryan. Let's hope that doesn't happen again. Anyways, night three of the convention was a showcase for some senators, a few more governors (former and current), and two really annoying Attorneys General from Florida and Georgia. With Senator John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain and former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice speaking, it was also a night for neoconning it up in regards to Foreign Affairs. They also finally recognized that the Bushes existed, with a short tribute video that we unfortunately missed. For a second there I thought the GOP had forgotten that there was a President from their party in office between Clinton and Obama. It appears they've still forgotten about NCLB, Cutting taxes while fighting two wars, and creating Medicare Part D, as well as turning those Clinton surpluses into deficits. You gotta feel sorry for the poor saps, don't ya?
(Paul Ryan blames the 30 Year War on Barack Obama, despite the fact that it started centuries before he was President)
Ugh, will he quit that? We're getting tired of all the interruptions, even more so because they are so damn full of lies. Well, where were we? Oh yeah, we were talking about Foreign Affairs night at the GOP. Condi Rice appears to be fairly intelligent, and I doubt she believes most of the crap her party spews. Were we facing a world of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations, she probably would be an excellent foreign affairs specialist. But like a lot of her peers in that field, they were trained for a world with the USSR, and just can't handle that it is gone. They can't work without that black hat to glare at. As we saw in Iraq and may yet see in Iran and/or Syria, this confusion and angst has caused us great problems. But hey, the speech was entertaining and probably the least offensive thing spewed forth by a professional political figure at the convention.
(Paul Ryan takes what was Republican obstruction over the debt ceiling, and blames it on President Obama)
GORRAMIT, PAUL RYAN! WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING US WITH THIS DRIVEL. CLEARLY IT WAS YOU AND YOUR ILK IN THE HOUSE THAT CAUSED OUR CREDIT RATING TO BE LOWERED. THE AGENCY EVEN SAID OBSTRUCTIONISM WAS THE SOURCE. AUGGHGHGHGHGARGLEBARGLEFOOFERAWBlahagoighewagpvhapgewgeagphewpgoewuepw9
-----------
(SIGH)
OK, we're better now. We've muted any way Paul Ryan could interrupt us, and we've triple locked the doors, so he won't try to come in and interrupt as well. Now back to the coverage. Man, wasn't Pawlenty and Portman both boring and disingenuous. A real winning combination there, ain't it. And of course there was also Mike Huckabee, and the birther Attorney General from Georgia, and that governor of New Mexico who balanced her budget without raising taxes (in part with Federal monies, but she forgot to mention that). I'm sure she's working real hard to get that blue meth off of the streets of Albuquerque.
And now on to the centerpiece of the night, the speech by Paul Rya-
(Paul Ryan tells same lie about Barack Obama and Medicare from before)
GAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHSCREWCRSERPWWTWEPGUWPEWPTWPEOSPCREWPUPWPREWPUPSFPFPUPGWDJFPWEOUPWEOJGFPLGDPOGUWEPOUEPOR42FGPWOEWEU$#$$PGPDJGPWOUPTOEWUJVMppgoaugpoeuepwotapotewuoagpagaowtepwpagmagowewepwea
OK, enough of this crap, that's all for this recap. See you tomorrow for the recap of Mitt Romney's speech. I'm sure Chris Matthews will love it, then five minutes later hate it.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day Two
The theme for Day Two (effectively Day One) of the Republican National Convention was "We Built It". To me, that seemed like an odd choice, as it sounds awful close to the Obama campaigns theme. Of course, what they really mean by it is "I Built It", a response to the incorrect assumption based upon heavily edited comments from Obama that made it look like he said small business owners didn't build their company.* If you were to pick the theme based upon the small business owners that spoke yesterday, the appropriate theme would have been "We Built It with Government Assistance and Contracts".
Another theme would be "We're the Republican governors, and we'd make MUCH better Presidents than this idiot." These governors liked to tout their record, while trying to make the contrasting point that Obama is a failure. On top of that balancing act, they also had to say all of this in spite of either contradictory evidence, or the fact that their state's revival was due in part to Federal funds or the auto bailout.
The crown jewel of these governor speeches was the keynote address by New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In many ways it resembled the speech given by then Illinois senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004, albeit with a meaner and more divisive tone.** Effectively it was a speech that touted the speaker far more than the Presidential candidate it was supposed to support. The result was a speech that overshadowed Mitt Romney, who was clearly not impressed by it as he sat there watching it awkwardly. There is little doubt that Christie's speech was more about launching his 2016 GOP nomination campaign.
Looking forward to tonight's line up, it appears there will be plenty more governors speaking, as well as a cavalcade of senators. This all will lead up to the speech by the Republican candidate for Vice President Paul Ryan, where I assume he will try to play down his own budget ideas, while totally winking to the crowd that he still will push for those ideas.
Like last night, we here at August Prairie will be live tweeting about the convention, so if you haven't followed us yet on Twitter, please go do so now. We'll wait.
As for Thursday, it is unlikely that there will be any live coverage, at least not early in the evening. Real life has imposed itself, and we'll be on the road for much of the day. Hopefully we'll be back to cover the main event, which will be the speech by the candidate himself. No matter what, we'll definitely have a recap of at least that speech come Friday.
*Obama was talking about roads, bridges, and helpful teachers, the GOP likes to cut that part of his speech out. Note that they don't show the video of him saying it, as that would clearly show the editing job.
**It also wasn't anywhere near as great as a speech as the 2004 DNC speech. You can't doubt Christie's energy, though. You can doubt his sense in killing needed infrastructure upgrades, while giving away large tax breaks to the wealthy in NJ.
Another theme would be "We're the Republican governors, and we'd make MUCH better Presidents than this idiot." These governors liked to tout their record, while trying to make the contrasting point that Obama is a failure. On top of that balancing act, they also had to say all of this in spite of either contradictory evidence, or the fact that their state's revival was due in part to Federal funds or the auto bailout.
The crown jewel of these governor speeches was the keynote address by New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In many ways it resembled the speech given by then Illinois senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004, albeit with a meaner and more divisive tone.** Effectively it was a speech that touted the speaker far more than the Presidential candidate it was supposed to support. The result was a speech that overshadowed Mitt Romney, who was clearly not impressed by it as he sat there watching it awkwardly. There is little doubt that Christie's speech was more about launching his 2016 GOP nomination campaign.
Looking forward to tonight's line up, it appears there will be plenty more governors speaking, as well as a cavalcade of senators. This all will lead up to the speech by the Republican candidate for Vice President Paul Ryan, where I assume he will try to play down his own budget ideas, while totally winking to the crowd that he still will push for those ideas.
Like last night, we here at August Prairie will be live tweeting about the convention, so if you haven't followed us yet on Twitter, please go do so now. We'll wait.
As for Thursday, it is unlikely that there will be any live coverage, at least not early in the evening. Real life has imposed itself, and we'll be on the road for much of the day. Hopefully we'll be back to cover the main event, which will be the speech by the candidate himself. No matter what, we'll definitely have a recap of at least that speech come Friday.
*Obama was talking about roads, bridges, and helpful teachers, the GOP likes to cut that part of his speech out. Note that they don't show the video of him saying it, as that would clearly show the editing job.
**It also wasn't anywhere near as great as a speech as the 2004 DNC speech. You can't doubt Christie's energy, though. You can doubt his sense in killing needed infrastructure upgrades, while giving away large tax breaks to the wealthy in NJ.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day One
Thanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which at one time appeared to be heading straight for Tampa, but instead is heading much farther west, the first day of the RNC was rather short. Nevertheless, in just about five minutes of time it already had me wondering if covering this Klassic Komedy Kavalcade* is a good idea.
Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.
At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.
Stay tuned for more as the day continues.
*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.
**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks whenSt. Gipper the Jellybean King Reagan and Bush 43 were loading up our deficits? Oh that's right, debt is bad only if a Democrat is President.
***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from Star Wars or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.
Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.
At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.
Stay tuned for more as the day continues.
*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.
**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks when
***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from Star Wars or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.
How we got here, Part 2: 1824
Remember how I said that 1796 was the beginning of two party politics in the United States? Well, it was, but only the first beginning. You see, after 1800, the Federalists, always little more than a minority party primarily centered around the elites of New England, started to wane in importance. Sure, they ran candidates for the Presidency up through the 1816 election, and a few held on even longer in Congress and the Supreme Court. However the party's power had diminished as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe each served two terms. By 1820, James Monroe ran virtually unopposed for his reelection, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams. It was the "Era of Good Feeling", and it appeared that our partisan divide had been eliminated.
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.
Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832
The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.
Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832
The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.
Friday, August 24, 2012
UPDATED: Apologies in Advance to My Neighbors: August Prairie Covers the 2012 RNC
Assuming it isn't washed away by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac, August Prairie will be covering the Republican National Convention. No, not in Tampa, but from the comfort of our living room. We can't promise our coverage will be thorough, entertaining, or even coherent. Honestly, it may just be a string of profanities and drunk ramblings. However, we do promise to try to try and give meaningful coverage.
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
How we got here: A history of partisan politics in America
For about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties.
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
August Prairie, Round 2
This evening I watched one of my favorite movies, 1776. It is a musical from 1972 based on the Broadway show of the same name. As made somewhat obvious from the title, it is about the men who gathered together in Philadelphia in June and July, 1776 to debate whether or not to declare independence from Great Britain. Although many delegates have parts, the main characters are Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and especially John Adams. Of all the members of the 2nd Continental Congress, Adams has to be my favorite. Sure, everyone loves witty old Dr. Franklin, and as he was a tall intellectual, I can relate to Jefferson. Adams, of course, was known for being sarcastic, caustic, and absolutely committed to independence for the assembled colonies. For months on end, he kept trying to push the Congress to accept in law what had happened in practice: That we were a free and separate nation from the British Empire. Here is the opening scene of the movie which shows Adams berating the Congress for delaying a vote or even debate for independence.
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.
After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.
Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.
One final note: On my hiking blog I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.
*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.
**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.
After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.
Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.
One final note: On my hiking blog I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.
*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.
**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Let the Tax Cuts Expire
Mr. President,
I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.
I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.
However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.
Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.
The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.
But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.
Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.
I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.
I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.
However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.
Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.
The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.
But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.
Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)