tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24055353639410499382024-02-20T16:33:43.111-08:00Infinite Shades of Purple"Moderate" shouldn't be an insult in American Politics. Moderate voters can be just as firm, fierce, and forceful in their political views as anyone else. Our nation has never been this polarized since the Civil War, but the chasm in the middle is starting to fill up with reasonable, rational people like you and me. Between the bluest Blue and the reddest Red, there are infinite shades of Purple.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-57623693876377181782017-08-14T13:55:00.000-07:002017-08-14T13:55:02.411-07:00Hate on Both Sides?This weekend the President characterized the Charlottesville violence as a result of "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides... on many sides." He curiously felt the need to repeat "on many sides." This rationalization was parroted in social media by his followers. This, as with most things the President says, is not entirely truthful nor accurate. <br />
<br />
The untruth and inaccuracy was this: the "egregious display" of bigotry came from one side only.<br />
<br />
Granted, there certainly was hatred from both sides, but the bases of this hatred must be clarified. One side hates people of darker skin color. The other sides hates bigotry, racism, jingoism, etc. I happily join the latter group. It may be ironic, even ludicrous, to be intolerant of intolerance, but these are ludicrous times with ludicrous events unfolding.<br />
<br />
What was basically a klan rally was very euphemistically titled, "Unite the Right." Of course, "right" is intended to also mean right vs. wrong, not just right vs. left. For those who claim this event was only an expression of freedom of speech to protest the removal a Confederate hero's statue, you are either lying to everyone, you are lying to yourself, or your worldview is severely astigmatic. <br />
<br />
I tend to believe all of the above are true. They were not there to peacefully protest, because they had pepper spray, clubs, shields, helmets, and semi-automatic weapons. Civil rights protesters of the 50's and 60's marched peacefully and were unarmed, but then targeted with fire hoses and attack dogs. The alt-right, neo-nazi protesters were in Charlottesville to intimidate and incite violence in pursuit of their political objectives; hence, to commit terrorism.<br />
<br />
While the freedom of speech guaranteed us in the 1st Amendment isn't absolute, it does offer wide latitude, and I'm fine with that. It's not unconstitutional to have or verbalize stupid, racist views. Nor is it unconstitutional - should you choose to have or express racist, bigoted views - for me to believe that you are an infected, festering, puss-filled, bloody cyst on America's rear end that should be lanced and disinfected immediately.<br />
<br />
No one admits to being a racist - even David Duke denies it. And no one I saw on social media this weekend admitted this was a klan rally, despite the numerous swastikas and neo-nazi emblems being held, worn, or presented by attendees. Nor would they ever admit to committing terrorism.<br />
<br />
I must admit here and now, though, that I am prejudiced, intolerant, and hate-filled. I am.<br />
<br />
I'm prejudiced against anyone who believes they are a superior person strictly because they get sunburned faster than others.<br />
<br />
I'm intolerant of anyone that claims to be a patriotic, "real" American but averaged a C- or worse in American History and Government in school. <br />
<br />
And I hate knuckle-dragging, swastika-wearing, inbred neanderthals, with the intellectual capacity and IQ of slime mold, and a worldview smaller than a pinhole, who have the nerve to think they love America more than I do.<br />
<br />
Does that make me a bigot?<br />
<br />
For all Trump supporters who agree with his immigration policies, please don't bother trying to rationalize your views. "I don't <i>hate</i> those people," they say, "its about economics." Those of us who disagree with you know better.<br />
<br />
If you're a part of that group, ask yourself this: suppose that all the refugees and immigrants, legal and illegal, in the U.S. came from Canada, Iceland, and Scandinavia -- would you still focus on illegal immigration as an issue as much as you do now? Would you still hate immigrants like you do? If it were 12 million light-skinned Canadians harvesting our crops, would you feel the same about immigration?<br />
<br />
American history is filled with racist acts and racist Presidents, but no President in modern history was so blatantly racist. What makes his racism so obvious is that he is, at the drop of a hat, prone to immediately denouncing any person or group he doesn't like, launching now famous tirades on Twitter. Attacks by non-whites on whites particularly draw his immediate, tweeted attention. But a neo-nazi speeds a car through a crowd, killing one and severely injuring dozens more who openly disagree, and nothing from him for days.<br />
<br />
Only this morning, after 3 days of pushing from his staff and criticism from both sides of the aisle, did he finally rebuke the white nationalists. Only after. And frankly, the insincerity was more than apparent.<br />
<br />
Similarly, during the campaign when then candidate Trump received the endorsement of David Duke, for days he was asked if was doing to denounce it, which he didn't immediately do. After several days, he finally did, but in passing. "Alright, you want me to denounce it, I denounce it." <br />
<br />
That was it.<br />
<br />
He, like all bigots, can't admit it to himself or anyone else. History will remember this President as the ignorant, bigoted racist he is, and his followers as the bigoted racists they are. They are ignorant not only of the reality that all humans are created equal, but also of their own hatred and ignorance. <br />
<br />
The fish isn't aware of the water until it's out of it. The ecosystem this species of fish thrived in for a thousand years is disappearing, and they are unable to adapt to the changing environment. As the water level drops, they flounder and writhe on the drying mud. Eventually they will suffocate, so just let them.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-42646110011941635192016-11-19T12:24:00.001-08:002016-11-19T12:24:53.286-08:00I get Election 2016 now...<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Dear Republican Party, </span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="2nrhj-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">I understand. You hate Bill and Hillary. You H-A-T-E them! You tried to bust Bill Clinton on just about any allegation you could think of, and he kept getting away. On the day of his impeachment, his approval rating was in the 60's. So you hate them. You can argue all you want about ethics, morality, blah blah blah... but they just plain beat you at your own game. So you hate them. I didn't trust Hillary either, but not for the same reasons you don't.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="8s3s1-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="8s3s1-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="8s3s1-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">And there are A LOT of people out there who didn't enjoy the income benefits of a growing and widening economy. Whole new business sectors were added in the last 25 years, and many didn't see income gains from it. I've studied economic inequality for the last 15 years, and as a result I firmly believe that the Middle Class began shrinking back in the 70's. Remember "stagflation?" That was when prices were going up yet the economy was stagnant. That's when it really began. And it only got worse, especially during the Reagan and both Bush administrations, but also during the Clinton tenure.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">That is because the economy evolved, businesses tightened their belts, and many jobs were lost. BUT, many new jobs were created in the last 30 years, jobs that required skills and training beyond high school. Today, many economists argue there is a "skills gap" in our economy, with many people creating an available workforce, but many open jobs require skills that available workforce doesn't have.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">So people are angry that others are getting rich when they are not; that the Great Recession happened it impacted their lives even further. Fair enough. But people weren't adapting to the changing economy, and I think you're blaming the wrong people.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
I understand, too, that Christians fear an Obama/Clinton tightening of what they perceive to be an infringement of their religious freedom, because they won't allow Christians to discriminate against other religions, or because they won't allow Christians to discriminate against people who live lives Christians believe to be abhorrent to their beliefs. </div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Well, wasn't the Moral Majority formed specifically to mold public policy to be more inline with Christian beliefs? Basically, Christians have been trying to amend our legal system to force everyone to live by their religious beliefs, regardless of what anyone else believes. Isn't that the case? Christians may try to call that "religious freedom," meaning I'm totally free to live by your religious beliefs. I call that hypocrisy. </div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
So, in your detestation of Hillary Clinton, you voted for someone who throughout his life has demonstrated no religious conviction whatsoever... none. I must've missed that line from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said, "Blessed are the greedy and self-promoters, for they will inherit the favor of all who reject science, data, education, information, and knowledge."</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
You have the right to believe whatever religion you want to, but historically the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that you don't have the right to infringe on my right to believe what I want to.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
And before I forget, Democrats, you aren't entirely blameless here. You nominated the most divisive and polarizing Democrat since Andrew Jackson... nice going there.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
This is the final point I want to make. Okay, Trump followers, you got what you wanted. I could list the volumes of times in the last 16 months Trump has proven himself to be a liar, bigot, sexist, racist, narcissist, and fascist, but I'll spare myself the torture. So here's the thing:</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we lose our freedom of speech, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we lose our civil rights, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we lose our voting rights, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we lose actual freedom of religion, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we lose any freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we end up in a new World War, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we end up in a global economic collapse, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If we end up in a total fascist state, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If Klan rallies spread and lynching happens again, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If innocent Muslims in this country are harassed, injured, and/or killed, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If innocent immigrants are harassed, injured, and/or killed, it's on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
- If in 4 years you're not better off than now, it's totally on YOU.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
If any or all of these things happen, its on YOU. It is on you. If things don't go as planned, look in the mirror. You voted for someone who throughout his life has only cared about himself, and never, ever demonstrated any concern about the Middle Class, Working Class, or even the rest of the 1%. He's only ever done what suited him at the time. That includes skirting laws, unethical business practices, and suing whomever he wanted to because they said something negative about him, true or not. </div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Blame President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or whoever you want, but History will blame you. And as a lifelong student of history, political science, and economics, I will blame you, too. I don't know what your vision of a "great" America is, but I honestly think MY country is already great. </div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
"Give me your tired, your poor, you huddled masses yearning to breathe free, your wretched refuse from your teeming shore..." THAT is the America I was taught to believe in, the America I believed was emerging from its past, the America that elected its first African-American president, but its apparent you don't agree. For the moment, we still have the right to believe what we think is right and just.</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="c1k1t" data-offset-key="12aop-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
You won this election. I know you're happy. Now you have four years (if that?) to show what you meant. But remember, it's on YOU.</div>
jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-29419072638163613632016-09-11T00:50:00.000-07:002016-09-11T00:50:27.267-07:00Choosing Between the Lesser of Two LiarsAfter following American Politics since 1986, the first year I was able to vote, it seems clear to me that each presidential election has elicited louder and more hateful voices toward the opposition's candidate. Bush and Dukakis in 1988 was intriguing to me because a guy named Lee Atwater created TV commercials that amazed me with the exaggerated claims made in them, but I began to see that politicians will stop at very little to get what they want. And in the 28 years since, they seem to be willing to stop at less and less.<br />
<br />
History teaches us the that the ugliest presidential campaigns in the U.S. were 1800 -- Adams and Jefferson -- and 1828 -- Jackson and JQ Adams. These were truly vicious, with surrogates printing the most inflammatory, exaggerated claims about the other party's candidate. But I think 100 years from now, historians will include 2016 in that group.<br />
<br />
I expect campaigns, consultants, surrogates, and the AM radio parrots to spew vitriol about candidates, and I expect campaign commercials to present embellished arguments bordering on outright lies -- that's the nature of the beast of American politics. With the advent of social media, I can now see the vitriol and incredibly one-sided hatred that many of the big party voters spew, and I'm horrified.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Now we know this is the first campaign in modern history where both major candidates have higher unfavorable ratings than favorable -- meaning more people dislike each candidate than like them. As a follower of presidential campaigns, I'm entertained by that. As a voter and citizen and self-proclaimed patriot, I'm horrified.<br />
<br />
I'm horrified to see so many people willing to spew hateful things about the other major candidate, while being completely blind to their own candidate's blatant and obvious flaws. Hillary Clinton is a lifetime politician, who should know better than to keep her State Department emails on a private server. With the microscopic lens that she knew was going to be on her as she ran for President, that decision was arrogance bordering on recklessness. She and her husband truly are world-class political agents, and they had to know this was going to be thrown back in their face. Did they think they would just be able to explain it away, or just add it to the list of conspiracy theories their opponents would pull out of the file cabinet?<br />
<br />
Now there are plenty of examples of why I don't trust Hillary Clinton. For one thing, she seems to be the most manufactured candidate I've seen in my adult life. She seems to strike whatever point she feels will get her the most support. During the primaries, she took the position of "pragmatic progressive" compared to Sanders' "revolution." I wonder if Sanders had taken the pragmatic road, if she would instead have campaigned as a "revolutionary." Probably so. Another example... one week she says, "I'm not going to apologize about the email issue." The very next week -- the VERY next week -- "I'm sorry about the emails." That is why I don't wish to vote for Clinton.<br />
<br />
I don't believe all the conspiracy theories about her that emerge from numerous outlets, but I still don't trust her. I do believe, however, that part of the reason that why the Right doesn't like her is because her husband beat them at their own game. Republicans threw everything they could again Bill Clinton during his administration, and when he was about to be impeached, and when he left office, his approval ratings were still in the 60's. Sorry, GOP, I know you tried.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to Mr. Trump. He has made such blatant claims during this campaign that many well-known and respected Republicans have very publicly jumped ship. This is perhaps the clearest difference between the two -- I don't know of any Democrat politicians who have publicly said they would vote for DJT over Hillary, though there are a Bernie supporters who have said they wouldn't vote for Clinton.<br />
<br />
And those same followers who support Trump the most fervently are the ones who hate the Clintons to the same degree.<br />
<br />
I believe that Trump is pathological liar, a sexist, a racist, a narcissist bordering on delusion, and a dictator in waiting. Mental health professional don't like it when lay people do armchair psychological diagnoses, but there are plenty -- puh-LENTY -- of examples to show Trump suffers from an extreme case of Narcissist Personality Disorder. (Sorry, mental health professionals, its true, and you know it.) <br />
<br />
Now, I could expand extensively on why I will not vote for Trump, or what I think of Trump's followers, but I will say that another truth brought out in this campaign that worries me is that DJT is exposing the rampant bigotry still exists today in the United States. I thought we were past that in 21st century America. It's as if DJT is the manifestation of a backlash that was brought out by the first African-American President. <br />
<br />
But what worries me the most is complete lack of 360 degree vision of voters of both sides of the political spectrum. I see scathing accusations about both candidates from people, accusations that I don't necessarily disagree with. But what I don't see -- except from the people in the Middle I'm getting acquainted with thanks to Twitter -- is that the people making those scathing accusations about either candidate seem completely oblivious, or intentionally ignorant, of the issues with their own candidate. <br />
<br />
These are people with the worldview boundary and introspective capacity of a kindergartener. I'm reminded of the line somewhere in the New Testament where Jesus is talking about trying to get the speck out of someone's eye when you have a log in your own. These are the people choosing our next President, and I'm horrified.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-46647882288510318022016-01-05T18:54:00.001-08:002016-01-05T18:54:59.470-08:00Why Moderates Don't Get News CoverageI've asked the question in several places why the Moderate movements isn't getting more press coverage, even though the majority of voters now state they don't align with the extreme voices in the major parties. If the centrist view -- or at least the non-extreme view -- is beginning to catch on among rank-and-file voters, why isn't there more coverage?<br />
<br />
After extensive consideration, the answer may be Reality TV There is a reason why reality television shows don't ever show rational, emotionally healthy behaving like civilized adults: because ratings would plummet. We've all read the stories about how show-runners try to stir up emotions and goad participants into tirades and difficult situations, then edit out anything that doesn't bring a dramatic climax and/or fist-fight.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that reality TV is necessarily to blame, but is definitely an indicator of our current situation. <br />
<br />
There is a little-known reality cooking show called Top Chef Master, which -- in its first couple of seasons, at least -- featured mature, experienced chefs. It was one of the very few shows I watched, because the show featured grown-ups collaborating and competing at the same time, helping each other out, and communicating with professionalism and courtesy. It was thoroughly refreshing.<br />
<br />
Having cut the cord a couple of years ago, interest in TV in general has been lost for me. Looking for the show online, its not on the network's main menu anymore. Meanwhile, there are still 8.. EIGHT Real Housewives shows. While I don't watch much TV anymore, I read extensively from a variety of news sites, and from the growing number of moderate opinion sites, from which I get my media information, and hence draw these conclusions.<br />
<br />
The 24-hour cable news industry is dominated by the need for viewership. That's why Trump gets exponential coverage on cable news compared to Sanders. Like him or hate him, Trump gets viewers, and the cable news networks know it. So when imagining Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow, or especially any Fox News parrot, trying to interview a Moderate advocate, one can hear the sound of thousands of remotes clicking..<br />
<br />
The fact is, moderate and centrist dialogue isn't good for ratings, because to really get to the heart of any centrist-moderate-independent policy issue requires details, facts, data, explanation, depth, and most of all, t-i-m-e, with absolutely no taglines or slogans. We don't use three-syllable slogans to outline our views -- "tax and spend," "cut and run," etc. -- which doesn't translate into the riveting TV that networks strive for. Most cable news segments are just a couple of minutes, and even the Sunday morning news shows have to offer some draw, despite the lowered volume of the dialogue.<br />
<br />
Imagine a moderate-centrist "McLaughlin Group" type of show, where someone says, in a civil tone, "I'm not sure I agree with that view, and I ask your indulgence to explain why." Would this show ever, e-v-e-r get air time?<br />
<br />
Most voters seem to want easy options and solutions. Don't burden them with too many policy options for any particular issue, and by all means do not attempt to discuss the full range of issues a President, or Senator, or Congressional Representative really has to deal with.<br />
<br />
Take foreign policy for example. Most voters don't want to consider that maintaining good relations with other nations, even our closest partners, is incredibly complex, requiring depth of knowledge, ability to discern nuance, cultural sensitivity, firm grasp of international law -- and numerous other areas of understanding. The current batch of GOP presidential candidates want to say, "All we need to do is __________." This is simplistic approaching idiocy, but these types of statements resonate with the people they are attempting to attract.<br />
<br />
They are simple, they are black and white, they are "us versus them." And too many voters want that. But there is hope. There is a growing number of internet content dedicated to moderate-centrist politics and dialogue. There are a growing number of Twitter tweeters sharing articles and updates. And there is growing data showing more voters are leaving the two major parties and seeking an alternative.<br />
<br />
This blog discussed before the need for a centrist party, but also of the difficulty of attempting to meld a huge number of disparate, but respectful, viewpoints into a single party platform. I've suggested we might need a charismatic and eloquent voice to lead the movement. Upon further review, I'm not sure anymore. I like that we are so diverse in opinion, and can share differing views. But then again, I don't watch reality TV.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-92198875587646761732015-12-28T14:49:00.004-08:002015-12-28T14:51:25.274-08:00Can a Centrist Movement be Unified?As the year winds down, 2015 seemed to be the Year of the Extreme, at least to me. Extremist views seem to have become the norm, with inflammatory rhetoric and outright lies becoming not just accepted but embraced by candidates' supporters, and this is not just limited to GOP candidates. Bernie and Hillary both have had their share of fact-checked statements discredited.<br />
<br />
While I would love to see 2016 become the year that logic, reason, data, facts, and truth return to our political culture and dialogue, you and I know that possibility is slim, if existent at all. Supporters for both Trump and Cruz -- they are the best examples -- take everything their candidates say as gospel truth, and criticize the critics who dare to question their candidates' statements. It doesn't matter how outside the realm of probability that statement is, or how far removed from confirmation with actual data, if someone disagrees, its because they are a part of the "establishment." (The rise of the low-information voter will be a subject of future writings.)<br />
<br />
To me, we need a united movement of Centrists, but I honestly wonder if that is even possible, for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
1. From my observations and own experience, Centrists tend to adopt their political opinions completely independently, and not because the same statement is repeated ad nauseum over various broadcast and cable media. <br />
<br />
2. People who don't feel the need to belong to any group will likely not need to join this one, either. Being able to act and think independently takes a certain measure of self-worth and self-identification. This issue could be our Achilles' heel.<br />
<br />
3. The range of opinions within this broad circle will likely diverge much farther than anything either of the major parties will see. This would cause the construction of any kind of a political platform to require significant discussion, lively debate, and in the end, compromise. That, in turn, requires us to reveal if we can truly act according to our words.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
4. There are more Centrists emerging within the parties, and data shows this. But, I believe, those voters would prefer to remain under that canopy, even if others are moving that canopy further in a particular direction. Maybe they don't see a need for a middle canopy, or they just aren't ready yet to step out into the bright sun of a million ideas to help construct something new in the Center.<br />
<br />
5. Lastly, I believe this effort requires some kind of a unifying voice, theme, or charismatic representative, willing to be hit with all the verbal punches that would ensue. Ted Cruz, for example, calls us the "mushy middle," although he may have been referring to Donald Trump's beltline, or his own. There will certainly be far worse insults hurled at us should these efforts appear on the national media radar.<br />
<br />
While I initially saw some light at the end of the tunnel with better-known efforts such as "No Labels" and the Bipartisan Policy Center, upon further review, I'm less enthusiastic. These organizations actually have funding and have been able to draw some notable former legislators to their non-partisan events, but it seems disingenuous since, while in office, these legislators were as partisan as anyone else. Having since retired, or been beaten, they suddenly believe in crossing the aisle to shake hands? I doubt it. I'm fine seeing someone like Jon Huntsman participate, but people like Trent Lott and Eric Cantor cause these efforts to lose credibility, in my view.<br />
<br />
This needs to be a grassroots effort, an a-c-t-u-a-l grassroots effort, not just one called that by well-funded organizations. I know you're out there, I see you on Twitter every day. We're like the many cars jammed on a freeway, all heading in the same general direction. It would be so much faster if we all just got on a train together or rented a few buses, and we would get where we want so much faster. But we like having our own car, where we can pick the music, and can choose on our own if we want to change lanes or stop and get some coffee.<br />
<br />
I once had a journalism professor in college state very clearly to never use the words, "the time has come for..." in any kind of editorial piece, because, one could easily argue, the time has come for just about anything. And up until now, I have adhered to that instruction. However...<br />
<br />
The time has come for us to come together and get in this fight. We need to raise awareness and let people know that we are here; that we don't like what the parties are offering; that we believe inflammatory rhetoric and demagoguery are not constructive towards creating sound policy that benefits all Americans; that sound policy only results from research, data, and a thorough sifting of facts from lies.<br />
<br />
I consider it a fight, one that will be ugly. You have encountered some of the internet trolls already, who are incapable of having a rational discussion on issues, but are well-armed with ridiculous words like "libtard." And heaven help anyone who becomes a target on cable news or AM radio.<br />
<br />
But if we don't engage collectively, then are we just confirming what the critics say? jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-34606719162433506672015-12-16T17:40:00.002-08:002015-12-16T17:40:52.892-08:00TrumpI just have to get this off my chest. Trump is a narcissist. The most sociopathic narcissist I have ever been made aware of.. and I know some real a-holes. He desperately craves attention and validation, and when criticized throws it back with insults and degradation. I'm actually entertained with he calls someone a "no-class dummy." Is it really classy to call anyone that?<br />
<br />
The Twitter-verse has already and exhaustively completed the diagnosis of Trump Narcissist Personality Disorder, so don't need to do into detail here. But do any of his followers not want details when if comes to policy? It apparently is enough for him to say things like, "the Blacks like me." "The Jews like me." "The evangelicals like me."<br />
<br />
... or to say "ban all Muslims." Or "shut down the internet." Really?<br />
<br />
I'm not ever sure he really believes any of the things he's advocated for during this campaign. I wonder if his NPD simply makes him say these things that resonate so deeply with his audience.<br />
<br />
The real concern for me about the Trump movement is the following that has developed around him. Demographic analysis shows that the bulk of those followers -- I call them "followers," not voters -- are low-income, less-educated, white males, the same group, other that whites over 50, that rallies after Fox News and listen to their AM radio propagandists. Reports indicate shouts of "white power" at Trump rallies. That should explain it all.<br />
<br />
I've never quite understood why low-income whites were always such a vehement, vocal faction of the Republican Party. It's painfully obvious the GOP cares nothing about the situation of the blue-collar class, regardless of race. But this group has unfortunately fallen for the underlying themes of GOP messages, the "if you aren't with us, you must not really love America," trope.<br />
<br />
Numerous articles in the left-center web media discuss how the GOP has created this Frankenstein themselves, and this is just chickens coming home to roost. I tend to agree, but am still puzzled as to what this Trump following really believes will make 'Mair'cuh great again.<br />
<br />
My hasty, somewhat bigoted conclusion is that this group of white males, who didn't necessarily finish, much less start, college, see non-whites as a threat. They view their economic situation as a direct impact of "those people" coming here to take their jobs. <br />
<br />
My response to that viewpoint would be to explain that as the economy has grown and evolved over the last 30 years, education and vocational training has gained in importance, and there are still many good-paying jobs available for those who have training and education. This, of course, could be backed up with data.<br />
<br />
I tend to think simpler people seek a simpler explanation of the world, which Trump easily delivers. So the next time he calls anyone a "no-class dummy," accuracy would dictate he target his own audience.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-1851519663132538042015-07-08T14:39:00.001-07:002015-12-16T17:06:21.740-08:00Biblical Bases for Political Viewpoints... and My Own.While most of my views and posts focus more on economic issues, I couldn't help but chime in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In order to offer a basis, perhaps it may help to elaborate on some of my religious views, as it seems the basis for the opposition to the issue is based on religious grounds.<br />
<br />
I am an agnostic... an inquisitive, deistic agnostic. That is to say, I don't know if the God depicted in the Holy Bible is real, or if the Bible itself is "true." I seriously doubt it is. I believe the Bible was manufactured from a wide variety of documents, letters, and written narratives that were cherry-picked by the Council of Nicea. I believe the Church that emerged after the death of Jesus quickly morphed into an organization more concerned with maintaining, and gaining, power and wealth from its followers than the sanctification of followers' souls.<br />
<br />
Since college I have read a great amount of history of the ancient worlds, including the Stone-Bronze-Iron Ages, Greece, Rome, the Dark Ages, etc. This study has come partially under the light of answering questions about the Bible, the same questions my numerous Sunday School teachers couldn't answer. But it also came as a result of general curiosity. I've always wondered what happened and who lived before us. But I've also dabbled in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, as well as a little into the physical and life sciences. <br />
<br />
As a result, I've discovered that science makes much more sense as to the various religions do. I have, in truth, my own theory on the origin of religion in human history, though I'm sure I'm not the first to have conceived it. It is this: humans have always been an inquisitive species, and we have always wondered where we came from, how we got here, and why we're here. So it seems natural and rational to perceive early religions being created to begin answering those questions. One need only recall their own childhood, or being a parent to a young child, and asking the many questions inquisitive young children ask. <br />
<br />
After reading Hitchens' "God is Not Great." I learned its an idea well-developed. Hitchens takes the point further; since we created religion to explain the world to us before science, now that we have science to explain the world, we don't need religion anymore. And I tend to agree.<br />
<br />
I imagine it starting like this: a small tribe of early humans are sitting around a campfire one starry night. A child asks what those tiny lights are in the sky. No parent, especially a father, wants to look stupid or ignorant to their child, so a parent, most likely the father, was willing to make up something. If the parent was clever, they would create a fable that would entice the child to behave and obey. "Those lights are the spirits of all the people who lived before us... including my parents, their parents, and their parents' parents. And they are all looking down upon me and you. So you better always do as we say, but they are always watching y-o-u."<br />
<br />
Not just a plausible theory, but in my view, an allegory of religion in general. Because of what I've read from so many different subjects, I'm led to conclude the Bible is not a history book, not a logical explanation of the Universe, and barely a comprehensible morality document.<br />
<br />
I do, however, believe the words of Jesus are a more consistent moral doctrine, and simpler to absorb and follow. Sparing all the quotes and passages, I'll just summarize Jesus' teaching as: "Be good to each other." Simple as that. Don't just be good to the people around you, or the ones you like more, but, as Jesus did, those most in need. Help heal the sick. Help feed the hungry. Just "be good to each other."<br />
<br />
Where my agnosticism crystallizes is in the question: Is/was there some kind of a Creator? While I do not believe the God as depicted in the Bible is real, I do believe there are an infinite number of possibilities of some kind of a being that drives the Universe. Maybe it's just energy, maybe there is some logic and order to this seemingly random space, or maybe there is not. To me, to extrapolate that because the God of the Bible isn't real there is can be no higher power of any kind is a leap I'm not willing to take. A sharper mind like Dawkins or Hitchens would be able to skewer this viewpoint, and one day I may work to develop the idea further, but for now I'm okay with that view as is.<br />
<br />
All that said, I take issue with the people who say homosexuality, and hence gay marriage, is wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible also says it is not only right to have slaves but its also okay to beat them when they get out of line. The Bible describes the eating of pork as a sin as much as it refers to homosexuality, or other "immorality" as a sin. The Bible also says divorce is akin to adultery. <br />
<br />
Therefore, I will conclude that the people who truly believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so, also own slaves, have never divorced, and especially never had sex before marriage, and never, ever eat pork.<br />
<br />
There's a much greater discussion to be had another day on the impact of the Religious Right on contemporary American politics, but I promise you, we will have it soon.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-87757167034394579192013-10-19T13:32:00.000-07:002013-10-19T13:32:41.770-07:00No Better Time to Unite our CentristsThe shutdown is over -- for now -- but we know it won't be the last time, not for this Congress. It has become a tired cliche, but the Republican Party did take our federal government, and our nation, hostage. The broader problem is, a portion of that party had no preference whatsoever whether the ransom was met, or the hostage killed. This is a level of extremism that I know is abhorrent to most Americans... at least, I HOPE it is.<br />
<br />
I've put this call out to some of you before, and so I have decided I will continue -- albeit politely and rationally -- to do so until the needle gets budged. Here it is: We need to start stitching our collective tents together to cover the growing number of voters who, I sincerely believe, are ready to change parties if there were a centrist alternative.<br />
<br />
We not only would be able to offer a place for voters who see things as we do, but we could also offer cover for policymakers who agree with us. Moderate Republicans are not only being targeted in primaries by the Tea Party, but even conservatives are now, if they are as far to the extreme as TP groups want.<br />
<br />
I was reading this morning these groups actually have the nerve to call themselves "real Americans," and while completely offended, I realized this is the kind of partisan propaganda that we have seen expanding for a few decades now. No party has a monopoly on patriotism in this nation, and any group who call themselves "real Americans" don't understand the Real America, they only grasp their own narrow, myopic viewpoint,<br />
<br />
Someone in the middle of a crowd can scan 360 degrees and see everything and everyone around them. Anyone standing toward the outer boundary cannot see the whole picture. So they have to shout louder to be heard by the other far side, and that's exactly what members of extreme groups are literally doing in public and on the airwaves. <br />
<br />
This places an obligation on us, I believe, to link our voices and our efforts. We H-A-V-E to start pushing back, because right now they are the only one's doing the pushing. Whether or not you conclude that the Tea Party and conservative Republicans got anything out of the shutdown, this ransoming is only going to continue unless a voice from the center begins to speak, so voters know there is place for them.<br />
<br />
"Compromise" is not a profane word. In fact, it is a concept that is rooted into the very foundations of our nation and government. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously after edits were suggested and approved by opposing viewpoints. As was the Constitution. As was every piece of significant legislation approved by Congress -- and it's arguable every piece of legislation ever approved by that body.<br />
<br />
So just what exactly would this new tent look like or consist of? That is for greater political minds to debate and decide. I'm just a rational voter wanting to see rationality, honesty, objectivity, and leadership brought back to our federal government.<br />
<br />
I will, however, offer what I believe could be a basis of agreement for this group. Centrists are those voters who choose pragmatism over dogmatism, practicality over ideology. We prefer ideas that work, no matter which party proposes it. We prefer policies that have been proven to be effective. Of course we believe in Freedom, but we also understand that no freedom is absolute, nor does it come without responsibility. We believe in effective, efficient government, and competent, compassionate leadership.<br />
<br />
If you agree, then let us begin to get together, as drops of water collect into a puddle.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-3797136266376537612012-11-08T01:08:00.002-08:002012-11-08T01:08:43.669-08:00There's got to be a morning after...<br />
Hey! Guess what happened today?!?! The sun rose. The earth kept spinning on its axis. It wasn't the end of the world as we know it. <br />
<br />
We all managed to survive the last four years, and we'll manage to get through the next four. And then, as history indicates, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and then MSNBC can go back to whining, while Fox News can go back to their "You lost, deal with it" taglines.<br />
<br />
Or wait... I have an idea! How about we all quit shouting "I'm right, you're wrong," and stop thinking that 'compromise' is weakness and means the other side has to agree entirely with what you're saying? How about -- crazy thought, I know -- we actually start working on finding some common f'n ground and building from there. Partisanship does not equal progress. There was a time -- many times, actually -- in this great nation when both parties actually did manage to agree on crucial issues of their day.<br />
<br />
Can we all agree that a strong economy means everyone benefits?? <br />
<br />
Can we all agree that America is and should continue to be 'the' world leader, and lead by example?? <br />
<br />
Can we all agree that the planet is -- whatever the reason -- really getting hotter?? <br />
<br />
Can we all agree that freedom means a non-intrusive government but also means individuals respecting the rights of others?? <br />
<br />
Can we all agree that America still is the Land of Opportunity, but that there is room for improvement and we could make it even better... for all Americans?? <br />
<br />
Can we all agree that voting in America is not just a right, but also a privilege, and should not only be made easily accessible to all who qualify, but should not require waiting in line longer than it takes to watch all three 'Lord of the Ring' movies?? Director's cuts??<br />
<br />
And can we all consider the possibility that there are more than just two solutions to any particular problem we face?? And that maybe -- just maybe -- the best solution out there doesn't come from either party??<br />
<br />
I know that a two-sided system was a part of this nation from the very beginning. I know that politics has always been a fierce and passionate debate. I also know that despite those fierce and passionate views on both sides, throughout our history we have managed to still find agreement when it mattered, and lived with the results afterward.<br />
<br />
This is a time that requires us to start drinking some ideological decaf in the morning, and replace that allegiance to dogma with some higher-altitude objectivity and policy pragmatism. Things are starting to get a little better based on the numbers, but those numbers don't reveal the problems that still exist.<br />
<br />
We still have a skills gap -- at this point one could call it a skills canyon -- in our workforce that is contributing to the high unemployment and lingering poverty. To close it requires adequately preparing our workforce for the technical jobs currently available -- jobs that sit vacant all over the country because employers can't find people with the right skills to fill them. Our schools, including higher education, need a stronger rapport with the business community to adequately identify those needs, and need to amend curricula to address those needs. Our federal government needs to make investments, and make the right policy choices, to build that infrastructure.<br />
<br />
Speaking of infrastructure, our transportation, communication, and electrical infrastructure require massive re-investment, as they have been ignored far too long.<br />
<br />
Yet, despite that need for investment, we still have a massive federal debt, compounded by massive annual deficits, that will require both sides to commit to long-term strategies, on both the revenue and expenditure sides, and stop kicking the fiscal can down the road.<br />
<br />
I will always have hope and faith that America will not just survive, but thrive, and lead the world as it should. But, Folks, can we all just get along??<br />
jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-16628911041774247232012-09-20T15:24:00.000-07:002012-09-20T15:24:29.795-07:00All the BS During Election YearI needed to get a few things off my chest about the election right now. Eventually I'll re-write this to be more fluid, but for right now I beg your indulgence while I spew a few things. <br />
<br />
First, and this is in no particular order, I wish to remind the Republican Party that everyone knows this is not the candidate you wanted. For those giving their full-throated support to Gov. Romney, I know it's only because the Republican candidate you actually wanted didn't survive Mitt's mud-slinging during the primary. I know, too, many of you are voting for Romney as part of an "Anyone But Obama" strategy, too. That's your right and your prerogative. So hold your nose while to make your vote, and God bless America.<br />
<br />
Now, let's remember this is not the first time a "private" meeting with Romney's funders was publicized and embarrassing to the candidate. <br />
<br />
If the running of his campaign is any indication of how he runs a business, or how he would run the White House, I'm not impressed. He thinks he can change Washington from the inside?? He thinks if he were President terrorists will be too afraid to do anything?? He thinks he's that much of an intimidating bad-ass?? Sorry, Mitt, even nerds like me think we could take you in a bar fight.<br />
<br />
Does he think the practice of foreign relations, the most difficult task any President faces, is as easy as him barking orders from behind a CEO desk? It's not. It's even more difficult than working with the opposition party. I get the impression the only place he is truly comfortable is behind that desk, because anywhere else he's appeared stressed, uncomfortable, or outright annoyed.<br />
<br />
Romney had said in the past that he doesn't care about the poor, and now we know why. He hates them. He considers them lazy, stupid, entitled, and unworthy. In the past, many of the Republicans have given away this underlying assumption that is the foundation to seemingly all Republican policy proposals: that the poor are poor because they deserve it -- they are lazy and/or stupid, and therefore deserve to be poor in the dream they call a capitalist society. <br />
<br />
This is also more evidence that clearly what MR is saying in public is what he really thinks, or perhaps what he really plans to do if he makes it into the Oval Office. The joke about Romney being a flip-flopper is tired now, any yet somehow Republicans and Conservatives continue to support him, because the alternative is even worse for them.<br />
<br />
Ever wonder why Republicans don't agree with Libertarian philosophy more?? Because Republicans don't r-e-a-l-l-y want a truly capitalist system in place, where competition really is king, and companies survive and fail based on their own merit and quality.<br />
<br />
Then, the convention tried desperately to paint Romney as good, decent, human. Numerous examples were tossed out about how he helped a church member in need, or some other inflated tale. Here's the thing. Good and decent people don't just help out the people they like, they help out as many as they can. Jesus helped out with lepers and prostitutes, as I recall.<br />
<br />
The person who, with no compunction whatsoever, was willing to go into any business in this country -- really, any business that would've been profitable for him -- close it down, raid the pension fund, fire all the employees, and take millions in profit for himself and this Bain cronies. A good, decent person would so quickly throw workers out onto the street, causing those workers to become the "poor" that he so obviously despises??<br />
<br />
<br />
And he obviously doesn't understand moderate voters, either. His point that moderate voters are sorry they voted for Obama may be partially true, but his premise is completely false. Moderates knew what they were getting, and they preferred it to the alternative. This is why Romney will not be getting the moderate vote in November, because they know what they are getting. We know the President hasn't always been completely honest. We know he kept C-SPAN cameras out of the health care debate rooms. We know he's launched more drone attacks in 3 years than President Bush did in eight years. <br />
<br />
Moderates want substance, and when Romney says, "wait until after the election for details," moderates say "no thank you." Of course, the President has been quite short on details and substance in his stump speeches, but that's another blog. Moderates want to hear on substantial, detailed alternative. <br />
<br />
It's not enough to criticize the President for not doing enough. Put some skin in the game, and bring something to the table. And the President is actually telling the truth about one thing: the policies Romney is proposing are truly the same Republican policies that shrank the middle class, widened the income gap, and caused the worst financial and economic meltdown since the Great Depression.<br />
<br />
Call them what you want -- Moderates, Swing Voters, Independents -- there is no Moderate Party for a reason: the 20 million or so voters in between both major parties are there because they don't trust either party or their candidates. Moderates don't need a party to tell them how to vote, or a cable new network to tell them that to think. Moderates are better able to come to their own conclusions on issues than their counterparts in either party.<br />
<br />
<br />
President Obama is a politician, which means he lies often in order to achieve his goals. Mitt Romney is just a terrible person.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-71127666099052363122012-07-23T15:51:00.003-07:002012-07-23T15:51:53.474-07:00Why I'm not a Republican/DemocratAt this point in the monologue it might be fitting to begin outlining my concerns with the two major parties, and why I'm not a member of either. But first, a little history...<br />
<br />
I turned voting age in 1985, and started fairly actively following politics at that point. My father was very interested in politics at all levels, and in fact ran for city council in my hometown at one point. He always instilled in me a respect for our Country, our Constitution, and the right to vote. So the 1986 midterm elections were my first opportunity to participate in the process, and I did.<br />
<br />
I originally registered as a Republican, as my dad was, and my research from my senior year government class led me to believe the Republican Party actually was the party of small government. It made sense to me that we should try to maintain smaller, balanced federal budgets while keeping a focus on defense and national security. <br />
<br />
Even then, however, I could see I didn't quite fit in. I certainly was not the "pro-business, no matter the cost" that many R's seemed to be, and though I went to church and believed in God, it felt like a growing group of religious zealots were trying to force the entire nation to live by their beliefs, which in my mind is not what the Founders meant by "freedom of religion."<br />
<br />
I remember during the Iran-Contra scandal thinking to myself -- after hearing in the news that President Reagan denied having a role, and all his minions confirming it -- "Come on! The President not only knew what was going on, but quite possibly initiated it." <br />
<br />
I remember the 1988 presidential election because it was the first time I would be able to vote for a President, and it was also the first time I got exposed to the inflammatory rhetoric that so dominates our elections. I distinctly remember two events: 1) Michael Dukakis riding in a tank looking as out of place as Dan Quayle at a NAACP convention, and 2) Governor Dukakis, when asked if he would support the death penalty in a case where a member of his family had been raped and murdered, the Governor responded, "Well, the first thing I would do is form a commission."<br />
<br />
Are. You. F'n. Kidding. Me. Form a commission... At this point I realized two things... First, I was going to be forever entertained following American politics, and second that I would never register as a Democrat. So for the next couple of decades I would slide back and forth between Libertarian, Independent, and Decline-to-State. <br />
<br />
I did enjoy and was even impressed with some of the dialogue of the 1992 Democratic primary. The debates between Bill Clinton and Paul Tsongas were particularly enlightening. That issues could be discussed intelligently and passionately in public, without the typical catchphrases, talking points, and taglines opened my eyes (a little) that politics didn't always have to be superficial in its discussion, or pandering in its rhetoric. There was plenty of pandering going on that year, but on occasion there was worthy debate going on, and I appreciated that.<br />
<br />
The 1992 general election persuaded me that politics can make even decent people resort to the typical tactics in order to be elected. In the final days of the election, President Bush began using rhetoric that I though was below his status as an elder statesman, calling the Clinton/Gore ticket "Ozone," and saying things like "my dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than those two Bozo's." Disappointing, particularly for someone who truly tried to maintain the stature and prestige that the position requires. Then again, when someone like Lee Atwater is your campaign adviser, not much can or should be expected.<br />
<br />
In the end, I realized neither party truly reflects what I see my Country to be, or have nearly the same goals as I do for the U.S. If either party, no matter which, had their way, without the barrier of an opposition party holding them back, we would have continuous recession, sky-rocketing deficits and unemployment, and wealth concentration worse than Ancient Rome. This is because neither party really cares, in my view, about the good of the country as a whole, and all the people in it. They really only care about protecting and pandering to their base.<br />
<br />
If Republicans had their way, the top 10% would pay no income taxes, we would be forced to live strictly by Mosaic Law, and unemployment would be in the 30% range, but on the bright side, <u>in their view</u>, immigration would likely drop to negative numbers, because people from other would know there is no more opportunity here than any other nation. Its also possible there would be a balanced budget because all social programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and especially all programs assisting the poor, would be eliminated. Oh, and the defense budget would explode, too. The days of the $700 toilet seat would look Libertarian compared to that.<br />
<br />
If Democrats had their way, the top 10% would be inflicted with a 90% tax rate -- driving them to hide all income and assets offshore -- Keynes would be turning over in his grave at the gross misinterpretation policies, leading to record deficits, we would all be forced to wear hemp clothing, there would be permanent moratorium on new housing and development of any kind in the name of habitat conservation, and job creation would be down to nothing because required union membership would make outsourcing to China even more appealing.<br />
<br />
So in small, one twisted way, that both sides are so combative is actually a good thing. but, as long as both parties continue lean even further in the direction of their extremes, as they have been doing for some, the middle will open up even wider, and the number of people who choose to vote from that perspective will continue to grow.<br />
<br />
Up next, I will attempt to compare and contrast Moderates, Independents, and Swing Voters. Thank you for staying with me... all three of you.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-36047605267250680352012-04-26T12:46:00.000-07:002012-04-26T12:46:44.194-07:00Why I Consider Myself a ModerateIn future posts I will (happily) describe the reasons I don't align myself with either major party, it seems logical to first discuss why I consider myself a Moderate voter. In previous posts, I've compared being a Moderate to the terms Libertarian Light, and Diet Libertarianism, and that is generally what I view Moderate politics as. <br />
<br />
While Libertarians tend to fall on the far right on fiscal/economics, and far left on social issues, Moderates land on the same side, in my view, just not nearly as far on each side. I've come across these descriptions in the past from other writers, though I did come up with the terms on my own.<br />
<br />
This might be oversimplifying things to the point of approaching inaccuracy, because there are plenty of voters who might fall slightly to one side for both types of issues, or may be leftish on fiscal but rightish on social issues. Unlikely, but still possible... these voters might be called Diet Populists. <br />
<br />
I've also stated before that trying to create a Moderate party, with a distinct, agreed-upon platform, would be incredibly difficult because the field of Moderates, Undecideds, and Decline-to-State voters is simply to big and diverse to even attempt to put under a single tent.<br />
<br />
As stated, I generally find myself on landing on the right of center on government fiscal and economic issues, and on the left of center on social issues. I believe we should have a small federal government, but one that still is able to protects civil rights and the interests of individuals. I emphatically believe we should avoid deficit spending at nearly all costs. The federal government should provide for our national defense, protect individual civil rights, offer guidance and direction on domestic policy -- and perhaps some funding, too, when its available -- but little more.<br />
<br />
I think taxes should be simple, and generally low, but simply because we should be raising only enough revenue to cover our budget, which ideally is a fraction of what it is today. That our tax system is hyperbolically complex, convoluted and unfair is of little disagreement, but Congress simply doesn't have the will to do anything about it. I honestly ask the questions -- what is wrong with everyone pays 10 or 12 percent, with no deductions??<br />
<br />
I happen to support a hybrid flat-tax, negative income tax system, where there is a relatively flat tax -- perhaps a two-tiered system I would be agreeable with -- with relatively few, in any deduction opportunities, but below a certain level of income any taxes paid during the year are returned plus an income augmentation. A future blog will cover this issue in more depth.<br />
<br />
On domestic issues, I think DOMA and immigration reform are sanctioned bigotry. I truly believe if it were 12 million light-skinned Canadians coming over the border to mow our lawns, harvest our crops, clean our hotel rooms and be maidservants to the wealthy, nobody would have a problem with illegal immigration. And people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. <br />
<br />
I think a woman's body is her own business, and while I abhor the thought that abortions occur, we should be enacting policy to discourage, not outlaw, abortion. For me personally, I have a problem that any abortions occur, and I can't offer a rational, philosophical reason -- I can only say that's what my gut tells me. But as one individual voter I do no have the right to tell someone what she can or can't do with her own body. I do, however, think that medications like RU-486 and the morning after pill should be available. Critics and opponents will likely want to engage in a "when does life begin" debate, I'll save that issue for long down the road.<br />
<br />
I believe the Bill of Rights should be interpreted equally, meaning freedom of speech and religion should be interpreted as loosely as the right to bear arms. I think a future blog will address who gun rights advocates ignore the first half of the Second Amendment, but either way its there, so we should respect it. <br />
<br />
The same holds for freedom of religion -- that means citizens have the right to worship God, or any deity they choose, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to worship. That also holds for using religion as a basis for policy. "Because the Bible says so..." isn't good enough for me. If you choose to life your life based on the Bible's teachings, or the teachings of Jesus Christ, you have that right to do so. But you don't have the right to force anyone else to live strictly by those teachings. A future blog will deal with this issue, as well.<br />
<br />
So there you have it. Republicans say I'm too liberal, Liberals say I'm too conservative, Libertarians say I'm too moderate, and Moderates -- well, Moderates don't really talk to each other much... yet.jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-82629819671936168072012-04-25T18:12:00.001-07:002012-04-25T18:13:19.584-07:00Why I Love Primary ElectionsFriends on mine on Facebook know that I've been beating up more on the Republican party lately, but only because the primary elections were so very entertaining to me. I couldn't help but notice that nearly every Republican presidential primary candidate -- with the exception of the eventual winner, had said publicly that God had told them to run. I guess God likes lively primaries, with numerous debates and all the fun and rhetoric that go with them.<br />
<br />
I love primary elections, too. I've always so amazed not only at how ugly they get, but how the media covers the vitriol -- as if its news! As if the 2008 primaries were gentle, civil, and intellectual. Or the 2000 primaries... or the 2004 Democratic primary... or the 1996 Republican primary... or the 1992 Democratic primaries... or the 1988 primaries -- and these are only since I started paying attention upon turning voting age.<br />
<br />
Primaries always get ugly, and then at the convention all is miraculously forgiven and support congeals around the candidate in the general election. That's what will happen this year, too. That the media is covering this election like it's 1800 or 1824 entertains me... I can only conclude the political media in this country has little, if any, understanding of American history, and even less memory of recent elections. <br />
<br />
In Tampa this August, all Republicans will get behind Mitt Romney -- denying me the brokered convention I was hoping for this year. Afterwards, be prepared for a presidential general election that potentially will rival those of 1800 and 1824. For those few readers whose history is a little hazy, the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson was made contentious through the use of surrogates, one James Callender in particular. Jefferson had hired Callender to print mud against Adams, but after a fallout turned his ink on Jefferson -- that was when the first allegations of Jefferson and Sally Hemings first were made.<br />
<br />
The 1824 race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson is considered next in the ugly category. This time it was Jackson's wife, a divorcee, who was the first target. Jackson was certainly not one to back down from a fight, and so it went.<br />
<br />
Romney's tactics -- use advertising to make the deepest cuts into his opponents -- will come out in full force, and he will have the financial resources to do it. He not only has raised capital to levels that would offend most voters, he will now have the financial backing of all the other wealthy financiers previously supporting his primary opponents. Be ready for a lot, A L-O-T, of mud being slung on the TV and radio. I'm sure you may even see it in movie theaters.<br />
<br />
And President Obama will not sit back. He has shown from 2008 his campaign can raise equally offensive amounts of money, and he obviously knows how to win elections. He personally will take the high road, as will Romney, in person, but his ads will be just as dirty. And the use of surrogates will continue, potentially making this election one for the history books.<br />
<br />
I don't shout this with glee. I lament this. For as much as our political system, and our Constitution, is the envy of the world, our elections have evolved little at all in tone. Our dialogue, discourse, and debate should be the envy of the world, as well. Not just between our candidates, but between us voters, too. We should be able to discuss issues, respectfully, open-mindedly, inquisitively. I've never, ever heard any Republican or Democrat utter the words, "okay, fair point." It's always, "Oh yeah!? Well what about (insert the name of the other party here)?!?!" <br />
<br />
Our candidates should get together, in public, without a moderator, and each get, say 5 minutes, to speak and rebut, going back and forth, similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. But I don't think that makes for good television, so the networks will have none of it.<br />
<br />
The only difference between 1800 and 2012 is the technology -- the hateful tone will be equal, if not more so. But it's our own fault, the voters. If mud-slinging didn't work, candidates wouldn't use it. But they do, because it does... oh so well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2405535363941049938.post-4266180816238423362012-04-23T16:56:00.001-07:002012-04-24T21:23:17.158-07:00Introduction to Moderate PoliticsThe title of this blog refers more to my introduction to what being a moderate voter is about, and not in any way should imply that I have any room to lecture anyone else. Having considered myself a moderate, or independent, or decline-to-state, voter for a few years now, my intent on this page is to explore -- along with anyone else who might be interested in joining along in the journey, however few, if any, there may be -- what it means to be a Moderate voter in California and the United States.<br />
<br />
I'm a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas, where we may toss out our opinions to be assessed and criticized by any others participating in the marketplace. In the marketplace of ideas, we have the freedom to toss out
ideas for consideration by others, for those to respond who wish to, as is
their right. That response may be in the
form of thoughtful inquiry, harsh critique, name-calling, or a response
somewhere in between or outside of those examples. If I am critiqued, criticized, or even
condemned for opinions I bring to this marketplace, well… that’s how it
goes. It is unfortunate that the ideas
marketplace has such incivility, but I choose not to let that fact keep me from
entering. Free speech, guaranteed us in
the First Amendment, not only includes my right to express an opinion, but
others’ right criticize my opinion, and my right to criticize theirs.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Comment, critique, criticize, but don't be an ass. There're enough of them in American politics already. I'm leaning toward the conclusion that most politicians, and political commentators, are really narcissists anyway, able to feed not only on the praise of sycophantic party members, but also on the harsh criticisms of political opponents. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent example of that point.<br />
<br />
We need honest, considered, rational dialogue, not taglines, talking points, and BS. Discourse is not debate. If one is looking for a debate, or simply to spew out some existing party line propaganda, please move on to the next blog.<br />
<br />
So what is it to be a Moderate? First, I think its important to understand that terms like Moderate, Independent, Undecided, etc., are not synonymous. Not all moderates are independents, nor would all undecideds necessarily consider themselves moderates, and all the way around. The Venn diagram might be heavily overlapping circles, but still distinct groups. For the sake of simplicity, however, I will generally refer to these groups as the middle.<br />
<br />
And within each circle are a myriad of viewpoints, hence the name of this blog. It seems to be, particularly in California politics, but also nationally, that each party is leaning toward its own extreme. Bad for those parties, but good for all of us in the middle.<br />
<br />
I wager that both parties privately like to label Moderates as fence-sitters, indecisive, wishy-washy... you get the point. I couldn't disagree more. The Moderates I know and discuss issues with are clearly focused in their perspective, and are very firm in their beliefs, even passionate. We just aren't tied to any particular policy idea based on ideology, dogma, or party platform. Voters in the middle tend to arrive at policy ideas based practical, pragmatic analysis. "Independent" applies also to our thought process, not just our policy conclusions.<br />
<br />
Publicly, both sides, especially the presidential candidates, understand they need the middle voters and will be attempting in the coming weeks and months to pander to us. This will be interesting to witness, and I'm sure I will have much more to say as these campaigns proceed.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Moderate voters generally tend to fall slightly to the right on fiscal and economic issues, and slightly to the left on social issues. I personally like to call it Diet Libertarianism, or Libertarianism Light. Having already annoyed those on the Left and Right, why not piss off the Libs, right?? Working on the assumption that Libertarians generally fall on the far right on fiscal/economic issues, and the far left on social issues, this logic makes sense to me. I understand I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think there will be too much disagreement, except possibly from the hair-splitters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In future posts, I will be elaborating on specific policy issues, focusing more the policy ideas I have, why both major parties don't agree, and less on why middle voters might agree. It would be nearly impossible to try to clarify what a Moderate Party platform might look like, because between red and blue, there are at least a million shades of purple.</div>
<br />
<br />jimclaybaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04522248929743485529noreply@blogger.com0