Miss TanZANia

Larry Wilmore. If you are gonna bomb, bomb big. Now everybody whose anybody in his world knows he is nowhere near as funny as they thought he was. That’s what Larry Wilmore’s Monday will be. Indeed, the rest of his career will be. Like the Zodiac Killer. Remember that one? Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac Killer. Repeat till they finally stop laughing entirely.

Still, Larry Wilmor didn’t blow a perfect joke like Obama. “Trump has spent years meeting with leaders from around the world”, Barak opened: “Miss Sweden”, let a beat pass, “Miss Argentina”, let two beats pass, “Miss Azerbaijan”. Three beats. The audience is waiting for it. “Miss TanZANia”. BAM! The audience would have exploded, boom, the laugh-o-meter gone to laugh-o-meter heaven. All those celebrities and reporters and politicians and would have laughed and laughed, laughed themselves silly. But Obama never said it. He never said “Miss Tanzania”, trumpified and mispronounced.  He merely went on to his next bit. So we will never know just how funny a well timed “Miss Tanzania” (rhymed with Albania, sort of) would have been. Not here anyway. Not in this universe. In some alternative universe maybe. In some alternative universe “Miss Tanzania” would have been the funniest punch line ever. Outright prolonged laughter across several dimensions. That’s the thing about alternative universes. Some of them are really funny. In some alternative universe Larry Wilmore’s routine was funny too.

Well, maybe not. Not even string theory could have saved that material.

Reaganomics

(originally written in 2009 or so)

The 1970’s were economically tough in America, very tough. But the downturn afflicted all classes, to no one’s benefit. There was no deliberate siphoning of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. That is the difference between Nixon and Reagan…and something Steve Forbes, of course, is loathe to admit.  With the election of 1980 there begins a dramatic rise in the income of the very wealthy…but more importantly, the middle class began to divide…and the upper middle class began also to benefit tremendously from New Right economics while the rest of the middle class began to drop to working class wage levels. The top twenty percent, before the latest recession, had 85% of all the wealth in the country.  And 90% of all the liquid money. There is far too much focus on the top one of two percent….you cannot have a functioning economy with a handful of rich and everyone else broke.  But you can have an economy with one fifth rich and the rest struggling. Which is what we have now. And which we did not have before Reagan. Why? Because it was an impossibility before. There was literally no way for one fifth of the population to acquire four fifths of the wealth. That had to be legislated into effect, which is what happened in the first half of the first Reagan Administration. And you can see the effect in the charts…whereas rich, middle class and poor alike had all seen their income suffer in the seventies, from 1982 onward there is a dramatic change. The wealthy become increasingly wealthy, and the rest of us have very little income growth at all. And in fact when you account for inflation and the fact that we are paying for so much of our own benefits today, we are often making less than we were before 1980. I’m not denying that there would have been wage deterioration anyway…but I am saying that it would not have been to the degree it is now. The income structure that exists now is the result of Reaganomics. Without Reaganomics, the upper 20% of the United States would not be as separated from the rest of us as they are now.

What we have now was the creation of the Reagan Revolution, though the degree was something the Reagan adminstration never imagined. They thought all our wages would rise along with the wealthy (the essence of trickle down economics)…but at the same time they allowed upper management to begin shipping production–i.e., our jobs–overseas (mainly through tax benefits–which are still in effect). Thus began the great divide between the classes, something that seems by now impossible to stop. It will stop, I think. The Reagan Generation, those children of the FDR generation, who rejected everything their parents believed about income equality and egalitarianism as an American virtue, is dying out now. There are less and less of them. And the young voters today, the vast majority of them raised in cash strapped environments, are voting to the left pretty regularly. So eventually a big shakeout will occur, a counter to the Reagan Revolution, and much of what created such disparity will be legislated back out again. We’ll never be as rich as we were in the 1960’s, because the world has recovered from the two successive world wars and all the economies trapped in communist regimes have now rejoined the rest of the world. But it will be a lot better than it has been now. I think the Reagan Republicans somehow had the idea that money was unlimited, and that if the rich could make more money then everybody else could make more money too (again, that is trickle down economics). There was no limit to how much money you can make. Kind of like the way Republicans thought about the economy in the 1920’s. But there is a limit. Wealth is not infinite. It’s even less infinite when you begin to allow the upper class–that top 20%–to make a lot of their wealth from business in foreign countries and not allowing the rest of us to do the same. We can’t tap into that income, nor can we get any of it back via higher taxes on the rich. We’re just cut off, completely. So when it began to dawn on the Right that there model did not allow for rising profits for the whole nation, they just flat out didn’t give a damn. Which is pretty much their position now. The rich are rich because they deserve to be rich, and we are not because we are not rich. That wasn’t part of the Reagan creed. That evolved since then, crystallizing in the George W. Bush years. It is the greed unleashed by Reaganomics being hardened into privilege. The top twenty percent are the aristocracy, and we are the dirty masses. And that, more than any other factor, is why everything is so messed up now. Until that divide is smashed and the wealth disparity ended through some sort of redistribution (e.g. tax increases on the wealthy, limits on upper management pay, the replacement of benefits once provided by employers), the rich will only get richer and the rest of us poorer. What a dismal future that will be.

Democrats and Republicans, a brief history off the top of my head

(A Facebook post.)

I wouldn’t call the Democrats reactionary before the Civil War. There were as many northern as southern democrats. And the Republicans didn’t exist till the 1850’s, and only became national when the Whigs dissolved (split like the Democrats by slavery). The Republicans were Abolitionists, and I suppose you could equate that with Progressivism, but after the War they also became the party of Big Capital and business. When Progressivism began it went after both Democratic big city corruption and Republican business ties. There was also a definite upper class edge to Progressives, and they were for eugenics, which is one of the great divides between New Deal Democrats and Progressives….FDR’s politics was anything but elitist. They could be racist, as he needed the Southern Democrats to counter all the Republicans who would have done in Social Security and the New Deal and just about everything else in his program, but they were never elitist. FDR never backed eugenics, not at all. That was a great ideological dividing line long since forgotten, and thankfully so.

Progressivism didn’t start till the turn of the century, actually, and before then it was the Democrats were more friendly to labor, for instance, and to immigrants, and small farmers and had a distinctive anti-Big Capital edge. William Jennings Bryan and Al Smith were Democratic progressives (well, Bryan was a proto-Progressive) and both were the nominee twice, and of course Woodrow Wilson actually won. And Progressivism actually sundered the GOP just as the Dixiecrats did the Democrats later. 1912 was the year the GOP split. Much of the Progressive GOP eventually wound up Democrats (though Al Smith wound up an anti-New Dealer, go figure.). During FDR’s terms much of what were to become Dixiecrats in 1948 were actually very pro-New Deal (Remember Huey Long?). FDR, like I said, was dependent on southerners to pass all his key legislation. It was a vastly different political world in the South from today’s.

The Dixiecrats broke from the Democrats in 1948 (over Truman’s civil rights and desegregationist tendencies) but then stayed loyal Democrats, pretty much, till 1968. Goldwater failed to attract as anywhere near as many as he’d hoped in 1964 (if you look at the state by states results, you’ll be amazed at how many states below the Mason Dixon line broke strongly for LBJ). In 1968 Wallace was the home of the Southern Democrats, and would have been again in 1972 had he not been shot. (Arthur Bremer is a very important man in American political history….) Wallace had no need to even join the American Independent party (A.I.P.), he could run as a Democrat in the primaries, and then as A.I.P. (or whatever label was handy) in the general (Sanders could conceivably follow the same route next year, as could Trump). Nixon just barely won in 1968 (he’d been sliding against Humphrey and it’s said that had the race gone on just a couple more days Nixon would have lost). In 1972, Wallace’s attempted assassination and removal from the race allowed the GOP to go after Southern Democrats in a big way in the general election because the Left had disastrously taken over the Democratic party that year. 1972 was the year the Nixon Campaign developed its vaunted Southern Strategy, which helped set the stage for the Reagan Revolution and the future of the Republican Party. The mess that the GOP is in today can be traced all the way back to 1972.

McGovern was a huge mistake for the Democrats. It took most moderate voters away from us for the first time since Eisenhower’s two elections (JFK aimed his campaign at them in 1960) and put them solidly in Nixon’s camp–and Nixon was running as a moderate more than as a conservative (people forget that now.) Nixon was not trying to dismantle the welfare state or environmental laws. He was not gunning for the unions. He was essentially an Eisenhower Republican, that is essentially a New Deal Republican. But Nixon took advantage of uncompromising southern racism to get southern Democrats to vote for him, or vote against the Democrat, anyway. (Though Wallace running as an independent would have served his purpose almost as well.) It was under Reagan that Nixon’s Southern strategy morphed into a way to undo the New Deal. That is, from 1980 on they weren’t using Nixon’s but Goldwater’s southern strategy. Goldwater sought to undo Civil Rights legislation and dismantle the New Deal. Nixon could not possibly have advocated that. There were still substantial numbers of liberal Republicans who had to be accommodated. (People forget that now, too.) They had tried in 1976 but failed, but Carter’s catastrophic presidency had left the country wide open to a conservative takeover, especially with the Left still unrecovered from 1972. The McGovern debacle, if not a mortal wound for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, was a crippling one. It took years and the birth of a new generation of voters for it to even begin recovering.

With each election cycle from 1982 on more southern Democrats were purged by the voters and the last of them flipped to Republicans in the 90’s. Democrats became as scarce south of the Mason Dixon line as Republicans had been fifty years before. But what truly turned the GOP so hard right on a national level was not so much the Southern Strategy but the purging of its northern liberals and moderates, the people who were instrumental in getting civil rights legislation passed. Watergate had made it worse when in 1974 and 1976 many of the Northern Republicans had been beaten by Democrats in their formerly safe Senate and House seats. As the liberal and moderate Republicans in the northeast disappeared, the numbers of Republican voters in the region dropped, leaving the party there increasingly conservative. Remaining moderates and liberals were then easy pickings for conservatives who would challenge them in the primaries and win, only more often than not be beaten in the general by a liberal Democrat. It was a party committing regional suicide for ideological purity. But by 1976 the writing had been on the wall for the liberal wing of the GOP anyway (that was the year Reagan’s delegates shouted Rockefeller down at the convention as he gave his speech, Rocky then flipped them off), and they’ve been virtually extinct for a couple decades now, ending the great tradition of Republican Progressives (in the old sense, not the new far left sense) that dated back to Teddy Roosevelt. There are no liberal Republicans now and few moderates, and very few conservative Democrats. And because of that Congress has been divided worse than at any time since 1860. It seems unlikely that anything as sweeping as, say, the 19th Amendment–the women’s right to vote–could get through Congress now.

I recall at the peak of the Tea Party there were calls in the South by extremist Republicans to recall the 13th Amendment–which had ended slavery–and to remove Lincoln’s birthday as a national holiday. For Republicans in the South, Lincoln was an enemy. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. The man who made the GOP. He was now an enemy to many of the southern Republicans. Which made sense, because he had been an enemy of Southern Democrats. And thus do parties change. The once slave owning Democrats are now champions of civil rights and demanding the confederate flag be pulled down everywhere, while slavery loathing Republicans pass laws to repress black votes and even wave that very rebel banner that once represented everything their party hated. Ain’t life funny sometimes.

Today's very confused Republicans.

Today’s very confused Republicans.

The Bernie Effect vs the Baby Boomers who will not go away

The Bernie effect? A new poll shows young voters see a big role for government” says the Washington Post.

And yeah, they do, but they don’t vote. Voting rates don’t rise to a level where they actually have a fundamental impact on elections until after age 40, by which point people begin voting in numbers more than 50% (it goes up about ten percent every ten years of age). By that point they will not be as far to the left. They will be left, just not left like Bernie Sanders. Another thing that is not discussed is just how few Millennials there actually are, because America’s birth rate is the lowest it has ever been and will only continue to drop as the last big wave of immigration–from Mexico in the ’80’s and 90’s–age and their children have children at the same rate as everybody else. To make it worse, from a Millennial POV, is the fact that people live so much longer now, and remain healthy and active and voting into their 70’s and increasingly into their ’80’s. There is nothing even remotely as effective as AARP for the under thirty voters (and in fact, the Sanders campaign has been a flop at getting Millennials to vote in the 60%-80% numbers Bernie assumed he would be getting, and it wasn’t until later in the campaign that his numbers surpassed Obama’s in 2008.) This has made Baby Boomers–who were a huge demographic bubble, much larger than Millennials–uniquely dominant in that we are living so damn long, and voting the whole time. There are far more voting Boomers now than there are voting Millennials (I did the math…and if I remember right I think there are about 25 million more voters over forty-five than Bernie has voters under thirty.) Boomers are also the most conservative generation at least since the 1920’s, far more conservative than their parents, aka the Greatest Generation (seriously, that is the demographic term), and their kids, aka Gen Xers. (Millennials are Boomers’ grandkids). Baby Boomers voted for Reagan and both Bushes. (Indeed, while the majority of us boomers voted for neocon George W Bush, our parents rejected the original Goldwater in a landslide.) Being so conservative, despite our hippie mythology, Boomers will be a damper on the leftward trend of the country for the next twenty years. The country will finally get back to the neo-New Deal-type orientation (neo-New?) but it won’t be this year, or four years from now, or even eight years. It will be sixteen years from now at the earliest. More Boomers will be dead than alive by then. (The same way that more New Dealers were dead than alive when Reagan was elected.) In the meantime, we can expect moderate liberal Democrats and more looney Trump Republicans as our presidential nominees. Hillary and the Donald are likely the template until Millennials enter middle age.

Presidential elections are about issues, sure, but even more they are about shifting demographics and birth rates and death rates and life expectancy and the long sweep of history. Change comes, but it takes time, and a lot of old people have to die first, especially when birth rates have plummeted and the great waves of immigration have dried up. The reason for this is simple: people tend to vote the way they first voted, and will vote that way their entire lives, and will only stop voting that way when they stop breathing.

Not everybody is voting the way white people think they should vote.

I’m getting tired of some of those on the paranoid fringe of the Bernie movement who insist that Bernie is actually winning and Hillary is only ahead because of vote fraud. Think about it: Bernie has received nearly three million fewer votes than Hillary, and Bernie can only consistently win in caucus states, which is a far less democratic way of selecting candidates. Bernie consistently loses primaries (he’s won only five of the twenty two primaries so far, but won ten out of twelve caucuses). But Bernie can’t possibly lose, so something must be wrong. Obviously, Hillary is cheating. It can only mean that Hillary’s black and Hispanic (and women’s) votes are being counted (or perhaps over counted) and Bernie’s overwhelmingly white votes are being undercounted. That could be the only possible explanation. It’s not that the majority of voters in these contests actually preferred Hillary over Bernie. No, that is inconceivable, impossible, or maybe just politically inconvenient. Especially when everybody they know on Facebook is pro Bernie, and Facebook is never wrong.

But when this fringe of Bernie supporters claim that Bernie has been cheated in every primary he has lost, they are engaging in disenfranchisement just like Republicans do when they too do not like the way blacks and Hispanics vote–they claim voter fraud. Not everybody has voted the way white people think they should vote this year. That is the real issue here. The only states these paranoid Bernie conspiracy nuts think that wide spread fraud is not happening are the extremely white states that Bernie Sanders wins. It’s ironic that some on the left are adopting the thinking of those on the right–if you can’t get those people to vote for you, scream vote fraud. Apparently white privilege is not just for Republicans anymore.

FoxNews first reported a completely bogus voter fraud claim at the Iowa caucuses.

FoxNews first reported a completely bogus voter fraud claim at the Iowa caucuses. Though Media Matters exposed it as bogus, the story was believed by enough Bernie supporters to keep it alive.

Fox Resorts To Bogus “Voter Fraud” Claims To Downplay Clinton Caucus Victory

Democracy Spring

I am utterly bewildered by the timing of this “Democracy Spring” movement. Shouldn’t these people be helping out Bernie Sanders right now instead of this? No one will pay much attention to them as everyone is focused on the election. This is beyond stupid, this is just baked. Which I’m sure too many of them are, to the eyeballs. Dude.

Of course, one of the things about social media is that it gives the illusion that you are having a huge impact on the real world when actually only your Facebook friends are paying any attention.

I’m amazed that the Ben and Jerry guys were in on this. I’d thought they were working for Bernie 24/7. Unless this is somehow supposed to be part of Bernie’s campaign? Is this the revolution? Hell, if Ben and Jerry hadn’t been arrested scarcely anyone would be paying attention to this at all. Meanwhile, as Bernie is fighting for his political life in Maryland and Pennsylvania hundreds of well meaning fools are getting themselves arrested on the Capitol steps for no useful purpose at all.

Democracy Spring–or Democracy Awakening, another group–might well be onto something. This might turn out to be huge. But not now. They have an incredibly bad sense of timing. Might not it be better to picket the Capitol when congress is actually in session? Or when Bernie is not running at the same time? How about when people will be paying attention?  I suggest they take a hint from their name, in the Spring. By then they might even realize that protest means more than sitting around staring at your iPhones.

Democracy Spring

The revolution will not be twitterized.

 

Know Nothings

Know Nothing flag, mid-1850's.

Know Nothing flag, mid-1850’s.

Native-American didn’t always mean American Indian. That definition took hold in the 1970’s*. Back in the 19th century, at least until the Civil War, it meant native-born American, and American meant White, English, Protestant and especially not Irish. In fact, many people in the 1850’s hated the Irish flooding into American ports after the Potato Famine of the 1840’s, hated them so much they formed a political party, the Native American Party. It was a secret, at first–secret societies were all the rage back then–and if asked a member was supposed to say I know nothing. Hence the common name. (Seriously, that explains the name, as stupid as that sounds.) Later it called itself the American Party, but it wasn’t around long enough for that name to stick. To this day we know them as Know Nothings. Only the Anti-Masonic Party of a generation earlier (they really hated Freemasons) had an odder appellation for a major American political party. Continue reading

Bernie’s Hobson’s Choice

I think that from a genuine democratic socialist perspective, a third party run by Bernie Sanders would make perfect sense. Democratic socialism seeks to overturn capitalism via democratic as opposed to violent means. Bernie has already pointed out that it will take years to achieve. It is more likely that his under 35 voters would be pushed to the left by a Trump or Cruz than by a successful moderate Democrat like Hillary. If Bernie were to stay true to his deepest philosophical convictions, he would run as an independent to help crush and thereby transform the Democratic Party and use a Cruz or Trump to bring about a much larger far left electorate in 2020. That would enable his supporters to gain seats at congressional and state house levels as well. Continue reading

Bernie Sanders and the Fifth Great Awakening

Oh man, another Bernie supporter telling me that Bernie is GOOD man (not merely a good man, but a GOOD man) and therefore deserves to be president. And another just told me that Bernie will never lie to us….

So what’s with this weird “he’s a GOOD man” trip that so many Bernie people are on? They make it sound more like a religious movement than a political movement. Is Bernie the messiah, promising utopia? Any time anybody mentions even the slightest hint of imperfection they start with the Bernie is a GOOD man mantra. Or how Bernie will never lie to us. Hell, he’s a politician, he will lie, he will sometimes betray his own principles. It goes with the gig. But if Bernie’s losing campaign has proven anything, he’s shown that the under 40 year olds in this country are as ripe for the next great American religious revival as were the under 40 year old baby boomers in the 1970’s. They called that one the Fourth Great Awakening. Looks like the Fifth Great Awakening might be right on its historical schedule. Continue reading

Going out on a limb

On the eve of the latest Super Tuesday, March 15….

I haven’t read or watched or listened to or imagined any of the news today, but I’ve been assuming Bernie Sanders has had Missouri for a few days now. Maybe Illinois too, as Rahm Emanuel is so unpopular he’ll probably drive some urban votes to Sanders. But Bernie would have to have a huge Millennial turnout, a huge independent turn out, a huge turn out in the suburbs, and 25-30% of the black vote, not to mention a sizable chunk of the Hispanic vote. It’s a tall order but not impossible. But it would bring him close, even if he lost, to splitting all those Illinois delegates fairly evenly. Continue reading