Categories
political challengers

Where’s Sarvis?

Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe each closed their arguments in last night’s Virginia gubernatorial debate with passion, gusto, and verve — but not for why voters should trust them to run state government for the next four years. Instead, each made the case why voters ought not trust the other guy.

“My opponent talks a lot about experience,” McAuliffe argued, “but his experience has been in dividing people by pursuing his own ideological agenda, introducing legislation that would outlaw most common forms of birth control.… Frankly, I think Virginia women have had just about enough of Ken Cuccinelli’s experience.”

Cuccinelli attacked his opponent’s business record, charging that McAuliffe had “driven jobs from the state,” adding, “Terry sold more visas to Chinese citizens as part of GreenTech than his failed company has sold [electric] cars. Terry will fight for Terry.…”

Those same messages are carpet-​bombing across the commonwealth in 30-​second spots. We’re told by each man that the other is unfit.

Both gents are on to something. And, not surprisingly, polls show more voters have a negative view of Cuccinelli than positive, with McAuliffe faring only slightly better.

Too bad Virginians are stuck with just these two unpopular choices!

Wait … what? Who? Well, yes, there is the Libertarian Party nominee Robert Sarvis.

I guess he didn’t have the 5 or 10 percent in the polls to be invited, but with voters so disgusted with the Elephant and Donkey Party nominees, why not give him a chance?

Wait, the latest Washington Post/​Abt SRBI poll shows Sarvis with 10 percent support. Oh, maybe that’s why he wasn’t invited.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption political challengers too much government

Protesting “Capitalism”?

While Americans appear mildly unsettled or perhaps “ticked off” about recent government revelations, elsewhere in the world citizens move from “unease” to “unrest” and outright “protest.”

The protests that erupted first in Turkey and now in Brazil and elsewhere are filled with the ranks of the young, not a few of whom have noticed something: They are getting a raw deal.

Many of their issues are meat-​and-​potatoes: lack of jobs, burdensome student debts and, in Brazil, a bus fare rate increase made ugly in the context of cost overruns in taxpayer support for the World Cup and Olympics.

The young Turks protested, at first modestly, over planning for a park, but a harsh police crackdown led to more widespread marches, sit-​ins, and demonstrations — which now often bring up questions of the current administration’s repressive anti-​modernist, anti-​freedom agenda.

This more heroic theme resonates elsewhere, too.

In Bulgaria the issue most protested appears to be police brutality and the general spirit of repression. In Latin America, opposition to corruption has moved from old stand-​by to vital question of the day.

The saddest statement I heard was this appraisal, hailing from the BBC, of the general climate: “today capitalism is becoming identified with the rule of unaccountable elites, lack of effective democratic accountability, and repressive policing.”

Well, that’s not laissez faire capitalism that’s failed, but crony capitalism. Laissez faire’s truly free markets require a rule of law, the suppression of government corruption, and effective public accountability.

But that’s not what’s dominant. America itself serves, today, not as a beacon of liberty but of institutional control, of crony capitalism.

We need to protest that here, again, in the U.S.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

A Sharp Report?

There’s a new report out on the GOP’s future prospects. The findings are grim; the recommendations are predictable and somewhat craven: “On messaging, we must change our tone — especially on certain social issues that are turning off young voters. In every session with young voters, social issues were at the forefront of the discussion; many see them as the civil rights issues of our time. We must be a party that is welcoming and inclusive for all voters.”

Obvious problem? As Ms. Alex Palombo at DailyKos noted, the Republican National Committee’s Growth & Opportunity Report is made up almost entirely of “surface suggestions.”

The deeper reality is that the Republicans have lost so much support in recent years mainly by betraying their one plank that appealed across party lines: fiscal responsibility.

The Republican Party will go nowhere until it gets serious and consistent about the principles of limited government. Sure, that has implications for social issues. I hope the GOP changes its position on gay marriage, which I support. Generally, I think progress on social issues can best be made outside of government.

But mostly what the GOP needs to do to thrive with the young, with women, with minorities, is to focus on the immediate threat to the country’s future, the federal government’s rising debt, continuing deficits and looming liabilities.

Were Republican politicians honest and serious about this, they could gain respect everywhere.

Still, many retain hope in surface tweaks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

 

 

 

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Fiscal Brinksmanship

“America,” President Obama insists, “is not a deadbeat nation.” Mounting evidence to the contrary.

He chastises Republicans for even contemplating a default on the debt. At a news conference this week, he called any attempt to use the debt limit authorization issue to negotiate federal spending down “absurd,” and akin to a hostage situation. Refusing to raise the ceiling, you see, would “crash the economy”:

He demanded that Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives approve a rise in the federal government’s authority to borrow money to pay existing obligations — without seeking policy concessions in return.

The BBC goes on to quote the president, who clarifies his stance. “While I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits,” said the president, he insists that he will definitely not “have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people.”

It’s an interesting approach: accuse Republicans of dangerous brinksmanship, while continuing to overspend and increase debt to the very brink of insolvency.

What Obama won’t recognize is that fiscal conservatives, today, play the same role as a parents cutting up their college kid’s credit cards after the young spendthrift had racked up an extraordinary debt. Obama plays the role of the kid saying: I’ve already budgeted spending, you can’t cut up the credit card — that’d be irresponsible!

It was different in 2006, when Senator Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling and called the increasing debt levels a sign of “a failure of leadership.”

Now that he — and not a despicable Republican — has the leadership role, he’s changed his tune. He says his former cry of “irresponsibility!” was itself irresponsible.

The very best thing we can say about this? The president has been captured completely by the forces he once opposed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


P.S.Soon after the last period of the above squib was struck, I turned on Fox. And there was Sean Hannity, leading his nightly political opinion show with the president’s remonstrance of Republicans for daring to fix tight the debt ceiling. Hannity noticed what I noticed — indeed, what it turns out a lot of people noticed: Obama’s repudiation of a practice that he himself had engaged in in 2006.

But notice what Hannity is trying to prove: “how reckless, irresponsible and fundamentally dishonest a man [Obama] is.” Hannity sees Obama’s press conference performance as indicative of the president’s hypocrisy, demagoguery, and slipperiness-with-facts.

The case can be made, and Hannity has made it. The trouble is, the way Hannity makes it, to his audience, just skips over precisely this kind of behavior from Republicans. For, remember, Republicans repeatedly voted to increase the debt limit while their guy, Bush, was in charge. Another person to notice the differences between Junior Senator Obama and Second-​Term President Obama, young Ms. Julie Borowski (“Token Libertarian Girl”), showed more savvy on Facebook than Hannity does on his primetime program:

Most Republicans are against raising the debt ceiling under Obama. But most were all for it during the George W. Bush administration.

Most Democrats are for raising the debt ceiling under Obama. But most were all against it during the George W. Bush administration.

Pssh, here’s a better idea. Dramatically cut spending. Stop manufacturing fake crises and raising the debt ceiling almost every year to finance drunken spending sprees. And why they are at it, members of Congress should pass a budget for the first time in over three years. It’s no wonder that a recent Public Policy Polling survey finds that cockroaches are more popular than Congress.

No doubt, since insecticide is cheaper and more effective than politics.

Categories
political challengers

The Unkindest Cut

Over three thousand years ago, in ancient Egypt, two wives of the Pharaoh Ramesses III, Tiye and Iset Ta-​Hemdjert, fought over which of their sons would inherit the throne. Queen Tiye organized a harem conspiracy to favor hers. Dead, in the end, was Ramesses III, along with Tiye’s Penteweret, according to court documents.

There’s been considerable mystery surrounding Ramesses’ demise, but recent CT scans show that he almost certainly died of a slit throat. The wound had not previously been noticed because of the extensive wrappings around the pharaohnic mummy’s neck. A Horus eye amulet was found in the wound, undoubtedly placed there by the embalmers, probably for healing and protection in the afterlife.

Another mummy from that time has been determined, by genetic analysis, to be a son of Ramesses. There are strange marks around his neck. Since Penteweret had been found guilty at trial, and was said to have killed himself, and this particular mummy was dishonorably embalmed, the mummy is thought to be his. Perhaps he had hanged himself.

Such was ancient politics. Succession of rulers was often violent — and, even when not violent, there was no assurance that the claimant to the throne would be anything like a good ruler.

Which brings us to one of democracy’s great achievements, perhaps its greatest. Democratic elections do not express the popular will in any sure way. They do not conjure onto this plane of existence a Mandate of Heaven (Chinese), or any instantiation of Horus (ancient Egyptian). What they do is remove rulers from power, peacefully.

And that’s not nothing. Ask the grimace on the face of the remains of Ramesses III.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies political challengers

Silence, Please?

At this time in an election year, condemnations of “negative” political ads crescendo to fortissimo. But hey: Are folks really so attached to watching the standard menu of TV advertisements for GEICO, Viagra, and Chia Pets?

I doubt it. I think they worry about what such nasty attacks say about our political process. Granted, many 30-​second political spots stretch the truth like a pretzel, though not any more than the candidates regularly do in person.

Still, political debate today is no nastier than it was when Washington and Adams and Jefferson roamed the earth.

And TV wasn’t even very big back then.

“An onslaught of negative political advertisements in congressional races,” the New York Times relates, “has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.”

Incumbents are smart … and informed about campaigns. I’ll bet they know that in the 54 races lost by incumbents in 2010, Super PACs spent on average over $900,000. In races incumbents won, about $75,000.

“Incumbents have a lot more money than challengers do,” Professor Bradley Smith, former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, points out, “and Super PACs help to level that playing field and make challengers competitive.”

Incumbents think that elections are a time for them to speak. It’s all about them. Plus, no one — great, lousy or mediocre — likes to be attacked.

But elections in a free society are a time for everyone to speak.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.