Category: Politics

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Heretic that I am, I’m going to take an unpopular position: that the Democrats lost not because they were too bold, but because they weren’t bold enough. As all the “pundits” tell the Democrats (as they always do) to move ever-more-rightward, I’ll say, yet again, that moving rightward and wimp-ward is why they keep losing!

The strength of the Tea Party vote is more than a repudiation of Obama. It’s also a repudiation of the “mainstream” GOP (which was already so far to the right that people like Nelson Rockefeller or Lowell Weicker would have found it very uncomfortable).

The massive switch of independent voters, in particular, was, in short, a continuation of the 2008 Obama call for “change”: a loud cry that people didn’t feel they actually received the change they had voted for in 2008.

And this can be pinned squarely on the Democrats’ failure to make bold policy, and to be willing to tell the story of their success boldly. On health care, on climate change, on the economy…the Democrats whittled themselves down to half-measures. Where was the single-payer health care program that almost every other country in the world has adopted in some form (and why didn’t they position that as the boon to the business community that it is)? Where was the Marshall Plan-scale effort to get us off fossil and nuclear and into job-creating, carbon-slashing clean renewable energy? Where were the measures to hold Wall Street and the GW Bush administration accountable for the mess they made? And where were the visionary leaders who should have populated Obama’s Cabinet?

Despite a huge mandate for change, and a majority in both House and Senate, the Democrats refused to even listen to calls for massive structural reform, and then forgot all the marketing lessons they learned in the campaign and let the other side not just control but completely dominate the discourse—leaving the impression that they are a weak and ineffectual party of favors to special interests who can’t fix the economy or anything else. And failing on three crucial aspects of marketing: to remind people firstly of who got us into this mess, second, of the steps they did take to pull us out, and third, of the policy initiatives where change was actually achieved in the last two years.

As I wrote two years ago,

Don’t apologize for your beliefs. Three out of the four most recent prior Democratic nominees–Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry–all crawled on their bellies with messages that basically said, “umm, I’m not really a liberal, I didn’t mean it, I’m soooo sorry!” And all three lost because doing that took the wind right out of their sails. Bill Clinton, who is not a liberal, didn’t play that game. Not surprisingly, he won. Obama never apologized, ignored the L-word, and didn’t even flinch when in the closing days, McCain revved it up and actually called him a socialist (traditionally, the kiss of death in US politics).

Monday evening, Rachel Maddow released a video highlighting Obama’s accomplishments. It’s a great video. The Democratic Party itself should have made something like it, six months ago, and worked to get it viral. Released by an outside journalist, twelve hours before the polls opened, it had no time to gather momentum.

Here in Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick wasn’t given much chance a year ago. But he ran a positive campaign focused on the slogan, “Optimism and Effort.” He highlighted his accomplishments over and over again, made a case that the work wasn’t done, and inspired audiences with a message of hope, economic recovery, and the rights of ordinary people. In other words, he used the exact strategies I’ve been advocating for decades that the Democrats use. Despite his somewhat centrist record, he was able to position himself as a change agent. I went to one of his rallies and went up to him afterward to thank him for being a sitting governor bold and hopeful enough to go out and make that kind of speech.

He did benefit from a third-party candidate who clearly drew votes from the colorless, bland GOP candidate. But still, he won, and by a larger margin than many pundits had predicted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker has gone over the edge. Rather than attacking incumbent governor Deval Patrick on his record, Charles Baker pulled a number out of a hat and claimed Patrick could raise the income tax from 5.3 to 7 percent. Patrick has never announced such a proposal.

According to the Boston Herald story,

During a press conference at Fenway Park [map], Baker said he felt comfortable with his conclusion, which he printed on a poster that was used as a prop, because of Patrick’s record of passing tax increases and the lack of specific plans from Patrick to solve next year’s $2 billion projected budget gap.

Here’s what Baker has done in my household: I have been weighing the merits of voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, whose politics are much closer to mine than Deval Patrick’s, or voting for Patrick, the Democrat, because he could win and would be far better than his two other rivals. Patrick has been a decent, but uninspiring and sometimes clumsy governor. Baker not only has views I find icky, but this latest faux pas has me questioning his core ethics (and where is the outrage from Fox News, dare I ask?) Cahill, the independent candidate, has made a series of remarks that make me extremely uncomfortable, including some that I and many others interpret as bigoted.

Thus, between hearing a recent Patrick speech and finding myself agreeing with almost everything he said, and my deep concerns about living under either a Baker or Cahill administration, I will be marking my ballot Tuesday for Democratic governor Deval Patrick. Charles Baker can take at least some of the credit for my vote.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

Now is President Obama’s chance: with the much-scorned Larry Summers stepping away from US financial policy, there’s room to appoint an economist with a deeper understanding of the causes and cures for our economic woes. If I were Obama, my second choice would be former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich. My second choice would be Nobel Prize winner and New York times columnist Paul Krugman. And my third choice would be someone from completely outside government: the earth-centered economist Hazel Henderson, author of many influential books from the recent Ethical Markets to the long-ago Creating Alternative Futures.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Considering their enormous and deep understanding of marketing during the campaign, it’s hard to understand why the Obama administration is so bad at marketing itself as a governing force. Obama’s advisors need to take some lessons from George W. Bush. He was a terrible president, but he was extremely skilled at marketing himself and his accomplishments—and all my years observing politics, I’ve never before seen a team that was as good at staying on message. Better even than Reagan, if you ask me.

With just over a month left before the election, it’s time for the Democrats to go deep and hard on their marketing: to create a message that will resonate with the American people and cut the floor out from under the Republicans.

If I were running the national Democratic Senate and House campaign committees, I’d do it like this:
You voted for “Yes We Can”—But the Republicans Gave You “No We Won’t”

Two years ago, you, the American people, voted for change. You said it was long past time to focus the economy on Main Street…to get out of the illegal and unwinnable Iraq war…to begin once again to stop behaving like a “rogue state” and take our place among nations as the most powerful and inspirational democracy in the world…to once and for all rein in runaway corporate power and massive environmental devastation.

We’ve done a lot in the short time we’ve had to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. Here’s a list of 91 different things the Obama administration has accomplished.

But most of those 91 accomplishments didn’t require approval by Congress. The Republicans have decided, as a bloc, to vote against almost anything we propose—even if they proposed it first. If it comes from the Democrats, they vote no, end of story. How much more progress would we have made without their tantrumy-two-year-old behavior? How much better shape would the economy and our carbon footprint be in—if, for instance, the green Jobs package hadn’t been so watered down?

You didn’t vote for “No We Won’t” in 2008. You voted for “Yes We Can! Vote Democratic and get the change you wanted all along.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics

While I am not particularly a fan of this presidency, and it’s easy to dwell on all that is NOT being done or being done wrong, it is good to have https://obamaachievements.com/ a solid list of 400 achievements, compiled by a Twitterer names Shoq, to look on and remember how much better things are than they would have been if the election had gone the other way. I was particularly gratified to click on the environmental/energy category and see a very long list. Especially as I’ve been quite critical of some of his non-progress on those issues.

People need to look at this list when thinking about what party they’ll support in November.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Diversity, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , , ,

Came across this article, “Why Are The Feds Banning E-Readers?” by Pat Archbold, on National Catholic Register:

Sometimes the federal government does something so laughably moronic, that one has to stop and ask the question “Are they really that dumb or is something else going on?”

Here is the setup. Recently a number of universities around the country decided to take a look at using some modern technology in the classroom in an effort to save money. These universities took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks. As you know, many people now use e-readers like the Kindle or the Nook as a replacement for traditional printed books. There are many reasons for this including cost, environmental impact, and convenience. Further, anyone who has gone to college understands the high cost of textbooks and would likely support any way to reduce this large expense.

Here is the pathetic punchline. For conducting this experiment with the Kindle, Obama’s Department of Justice threatened legal action against the universities. The ridiculous contention of the Obama administration is that the Kindle and e-readers violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. Why? Because the blind can’t easily use them.

Now the first thing that would pop into the minds of anybody with a third grade education and that does not work for the government is this simple question. If e-readers discriminate against the blind, do not traditional textbooks discriminate equally? The obvious answer is yes.

The obvious solution, in my mind, is to require the universities to offer a suitable alternative for blind and visually impaired users—NOT to prohibit the devices entirely. E-book texts are easily converted to voice, so the only issue is giving those who don’t see a way to navigate into the right e-book.

But his article, and the comments it drew, amazed me with their various “evil conspiracy” theories. Yes, there were some that argued rationally about the legitimate difficulties blind users have with these devices (and pointing out that they have much more difficulty with a printed book). But there were also a number of comments speculating that this is a way for the Obama administration to control dissent and silence conservative voices.

My question to them: what have you been smoking?

Here’s Archbold:

I posit another and perhaps more nefarious reason. I think that the federal government is adamantly opposed to the use of e-readers as an alternative to textbooks for fear of loss of control. This loss of control is not so much at the university level but at much younger levels. The universities just happened to be the first ones to try.

Here’s one of the comments, from “Frank”:

A great deal of control over curriculum nationwide is exerted through textbook control. Education is critical to progressives. Remember, those who control education, control the culture. (Now , think of Obama’s childhood development, i.e. Indonesian grade school;, contact with Frank Mitchell Davis during high school years;, professors at Occidental College and Columbia University;, Alinsky acolytes in Chicago; social/political training in Hyde Park, Chicago South Side; Chicago political cauldron. Put it all together, what else can you expect but what we have experienced since January 20, 2009?)

To me, the ruling that e-readers are out of compliance with ADA—and I speak as a disability advocate who served on my city’s official Disability Awareness committee for six years—is nothing more than the typical heavy-handed over-response of large government entities. No malfeasance, just bureaucratic inability to see past a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s the same mentality that, here in Massachusetts under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, allows developers to ram through inappropriate and out-of-character housing projects that violate local zoning, in the name of increasing the ratio of affordable housing. Affordable housing is a worthy goal, and I spent about ten years doing a lot of volunteer work to address that issue—but 40B is a cannon shot fired against a mosquito: the wrong tool, with lots of unintended and undesirable consequences.

The same mentality that thinks every road improvement—even our local bikeway—has to include over-widening, over-straightening, and often removing trees, stone walls, and other vital features.

Big governments are slow and clumsy creatures with limited intelligence, even when they’re headed by very smart people. Over time, we as a society will realize that conditions vary in different locations, and one size really fits no one at all, only breeds resentment.

Progressives can make common cause with the Right on this issue: local control is the preferred alternative whenever practical.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

The Senate can’t pass a jobs bill or a carbon cap bill, but had no trouble finding $60 billion for war.

All I can say to the Senate is, shame on you people! You’ve got your priorities all wrong.

And I can also say to Progressives that we need to reclaim the discourse in this country. If we don’t create pressure for change, we get the same old same old, even from the administration that was elected on a platform of change. Let’s get out there and make some noise.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Right-wing bloviators spewing bile and calling it “news” have been a fixture on the political scene for quite a few years now. And they’ve had influence far beyond the numbers of “true believers.”

While it’s hard to understand why anyone would pay attention to these mouthy masters of misrepresentation (take that, Spiro Agnew!), we see their influence in the raucous but marginal Tea Party gatherings, in the intransigence of the “Party of NO” in moving any policy agenda forward, and in such incidents as the forcing out of the amazing Van Jones as Obama’s Green Jobs advisor and the defunding of a national community organizing group based on the actions of a couple of idiots (even though most of those approached in the sting refused to go along)–by that logic, we could have defunded Congress centuries ago.

So it’s with gladness that I report that as soon as it became obvious that the widely circulated video of black official Shirley Sherrod making what sounded out of context to be racist remarks–and which forced her unwilling resignation–turned out to be just the opposite–a story of how she overcame her internal racism and did the right thing to help a white family–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made a public apology and offered her a job again.

The hatemongers lose this round. Now…how aobut revisiting the Van Jones incident.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, media-general, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice, Socially Responsible Investing Tagged with , , , ,

Rarely do I open up my morning paper and see even one positive story among the day’s major news. Today—though I already knew about two of them from other sources—there were three:

1. The Wall Street Reform Bill has passed both houses of Congress. Is it everything I want? Of course not. Is it more than I expected from this stalemated Congress? You betcha.

2. BP finally seems to have capped the torrent of oil from Deepwater Horizon. A lot of wait-and-see before claiming victory, but at least for the moment, no oil is pouring out.

3. Overwhelmingly Catholic Argentina passed same-sex marriage rights legislation, striking a major blow for equality and human rights. The bill, according to NPR’s All Things Considered last night, has the support of an astonishing 70 percent of the population. Major demonstrations helped sway the legislators.

A very good news day, all in all.

Footnote: My local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, ran all these stories in today’s first section. But its news pages are only open to paid subscribers, so I’ve linked to other sources.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Politics

This letter, except for the first paragraph (which I added), was just sent out by the Nuclear Information and Resource Center. You can also call your Rep at 202-224-3121. Note that this page is keyed to me. Scroll down about a half a screen and then click “if you are not Shel”–before you fill in the petition, especially if you’re modifying the text.

If you’re not familiar with the many problems with nuclear power, do a search in this blog on “nuclear”

Dear Representative,

Nuclear power is NOT Green, has serious environmental and security problems, and should not be supported. If we learn nothing else from the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico–we should know not to put our faith in dangerous technologies when people think they can figure out a fix AFTER something goes wrong.

I have learned that the House Appropriations Committee may take up the FY 2011 energy and water funding bill next week.

I understand the Department of Energy is seeking additional funding for new nuclear reactor loans in this bill: a whopping $36 Billion increase for construction of new reactors, That’s taxpayer money that would go to some of the wealthiest companies in the world, companies like Electricite de France, Areva, NRG Energy, Toshiba, General Electric, and the like.

As you may know, these loan “guarantees” are actually taxpayer loans from the Federal Financing Bank. This is not the time to shell out billions more taxpayer dollars for the benefit of one special interest industry.

Please act to ensure that NO new loan “guarantee” authority for nuclear reactors is provided in the FY 2011 energy funding bill. Please tell your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee that they should vote no on new nuclear power loans.

Thank you,

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail