Disappointment With The Oregon Electorate

I'm a bit perturbed with the election results ─ not on the federal level, though I find the punditry's response mildly peeving ─ Oregon Measure 73 passed, while measure 74 failed.

Measure 73 increases minimum sentencing for 2 x Sex Offenders and makes 3 x DUII a felony. I whole-heartedly support harsher sentencing for repeat sex predators, and better education and prevention initiatives, but the latter was missing from measure 73. However, I can't see how turning a DUII into a Class-C felony will benefit the state ─ though the increased spending on prisons seems a clear detriment to Oregon ─ and I also resent that the 2 issues were presented as a single ballot measure, which to me represents a clear manipulation of the electorate. Finally, the measure didn't include funding, and the last thing we, as voters, should have done this election is mandate more state-level spending.

Measure 74 would have created a cost-neutral, state-regulated distribution system for medical marijuana. Currently, medical marijuana users need to either grow their own medicine, locate and rely on a certified grower, or turn to the black market. This measure would have partially undermined the power of gangs and cartels, thereby leading to safer neighborhoods and reduced spending for law enforcement. Although, I do believe full-on legalization is a fiscally sound move for Oregon, partially by reducing crime & gang violence, but especially if a hemp industry were able develop and augment our disappearing logging industry. Ignoring the implications for public safety and the state's financial well being, I believe we are entitled to vices, particularly when they present no harm to others: alcohol provides a strong precedent.

I'm left to wonder why people vote the way they do; it's tempting, but I think fallacious, to assume ignorance or fear. Personally, I consider the implications of a ballot measure in terms of costs and benefits for myself and the state. So, I voted no on 73, because were it in already in effect, it absolutely would have negatively impacted people I care about, who've had DUII convictions ─ plus the cost of enforcing the measure potentially takes away from education and prevention initiatives. I voted yes on 74, because easing access to medical marijuana has no negative impact on me, may in fact (someday) benefit me or someone I know, and potentially reduces crime & therefore government spending. I realize, part of the opposition to measure 74 came from a desire for a more comprehensive system, but the first challenge for legislation is getting something on the books, then comes refinement: all law represents social experimentation.

On The National Results For The 2010 Midterm

The primary metaphor, expounded by the Republicans and the Punditry, to describe the election results was that of a "Red Wave," washing over America. If the left had an equivalent to Beck, Limbaugh or Fox News, the imagery of the "Red Wave" would have been associated with the threat a new Communism. The parallels between the current iteration of conservative methods & ideology, especially as espoused by the Tea Party strain, with the populist movements which led to communism revolution, are easily laid bare. I'm not advocating that liberals use the equivocal rhetoric embraced by conservative media outlets: I'm simply establishing that the liberal bias does not exist in the same way  as the conservative media bias.

Meanwhile, the failure of Democrats to retain the House and Senate, was almost universally attributed to a failure of President Obama to communicate with the electorate. However, Conservative news outlets, attribute the Democrat's failure to public disdain for Obama's policy and Democratic ideology. I agree with both, to an extent: I believe that the last 2 years of policy changes weren't accurately communicated to the majority of the electorate and many votes were cast in a certain ignorance. But, that's speculation on my part.

I think, what actually occurred was that the legislative progress of the last 2 years, was typically reported with a negative spin. To those on the Left, it was never comprehensive enough and to those on the Right it was just evidence of the over-reaching power of government. To the pragmatic and the independent, the view is that whatever the hell is happening, just isn't working.

The Obama administration, at all levels, has been exceedingly accessible to the press, so I don't think we can accurately attribute the loss to a failure to communicate. The problem is, the supposed media-cabal, that some claimed led to his election, doesn't and never did exist ─ decidedly pro-Obama stories probably get bad ratings at the moment, and thus don't carry traction in the news cycle ─ the Administration and therefore the Democrats as a whole, lack prominent media advocates of the Republican and especially the Tea Party strain of Conservativism do.

One final perturbance, Oregon, and other states which stand against the "Red Wave" metaphor of this election cycle, have thus far has been largely unacknowledged by the punditry. This is an ongoing frustration of mine, as the media unscientifically glosses over seeming outliers and counter-examples to their narrative. Meanwhile, it's common to hyper-focus on alternative scenarios and prognostications, which truly add nothing to the dialog.

Further Development of a New Progressive Rhetoric, In Response to an Ill-reasoned Chain Message

I was forwarded a chain email ─ I'm fairly certain I've received it before ─ a cursory search shows the cited figures date back to 2005 and the email made the digital rounds following Obama's inauguration in 2009. The version below has been updated to indict the current Congress and President Obama over the Health Care Reform Act.

The message is interesting for it's inconsistent logic per an argument that government is too expansive and taxes are too oppressive, but that government ought be run by the people operating the most expansive business in the nation and for profit.

The email begins by listing a series of impressive figures relating to Wal-Mart, which is an undeniably successful business ─ controlling a pseudo-monopoly, but not of any particular good or service, instead dominating the shopping experience of a certain financial class.

The message then points to various governmental agencies, indicating how long they've been in operation, then states "you had [so long] to get it right, and it is broke," mostly devoid of other facts. The USPS is mentioned, although that was cut off from tax-support in 1983. A false statistic is presented: $1 Trillion (which is roughly half the federal budget and which) is supposedly misappropriated for "The War On Poverty." The only way to arrive at those figures, is to include SS and Medicare/Medicaid, while ignoring almost 30 years of legislation which reduced and fundamentally changed how "Welfare" type/related entitlements function in the US.

Weekly Address: Working Together on the Economy

Obama's rhetoric switched back toward an advocation of bipartisanship, something he'd seemed to abandon early in Aught-Nine. He's also rocking a violet tie and deep-purple suit, while the video itself has slightly purple cast to it ─ I don't want to call it subliminal messaging ─ but, the tie and suit definitely offer a subtle and deliberate statement, combining the Republican Red and Democratic Blue, whereas the skewed colour in the video may be incidental or just my eyes. I'm genuinely impressed and optimistic after this weeks address, something Obama hasn't inspired in me for a while.

The President's rhetorical shift itself, is coloured by his Wednesday interview with Jon Stewart, and perhaps Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. But, the looming contextual punctuation is the 2010 Midterm Election results ─ common wisdom is that Republicans will regain the House and the Democrats will lose their super-majority but maintain control of the Senate ─ the overall message is, therefore, conciliatory.

What I like, is that this address seems to pick up on the tone which national politics have been taking on at the local level. There seems to be discordant harmony among conservatives and heavy dejection among the liberals, both of which play into an apathetic malaise afflicting the non-affiliated and centrists. It feels like it doesn't matter who you vote for ─ not because there's no substantive difference between the parties ─ not because there are fascist cabals controlling the government ─ but because the House and more especially the Senate, follow arcane & defunct rules of procedure.

If the President finally gets it, and if the Democratic party follows his lead, and if the Republicans understand that their victories represent a referendum on the state of politics and government (not on their Democratic opposition), maybe we will see some cooperation, leading to long-overdue institutional reforms in the Congress.

Vote.

Answering Charges of Elitism

Image via Wikipedia

I'd intended to let the parody video in this post stand on it's own, but then I read this article on Politico: essentially arguing, democrats are condescending elitists and therefore will lose control of congress, this election cycle, and deservedly so. The article points to all the likely culprits ─ Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, President Obama, etc. ─ as the voices of condescension.

Elitism is the belief in the superiority of some class of people, and their consequent entitlement to privilege: I don't see this from the democrats, so I have no choice but to call shenanigans.

The essential message of modern liberalism is that cooperation leads to shared prosperity and government is a legitimate tool for building consensus. American Conservatism, conversely, argues that government essentially inhibits liberty and destroys individual prosperity, while gripping firmly to protectionism, a political theory itself necessitating government of considerable size and complexity.

Rape is a societal issue

I was reading Politico's Daily 10 Winners, this item impacted me viscerally

3. COLORADO — Democrats moved swiftly to extend the legs of the Ken Buck “global warming hoax” story, with the League of Conservation Voters holding a press conference call to “correct his denials.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee piled on with a new ad tailored to women that capitalizes on his decision to pass on prosecuting the case of an alleged rape victim. Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign feels like they’ve won the week by keeping all the attention on Buck.

Who Won Friday: Bennet 

Latest Poll: Buck 48%, Bennet 45% (Reuters/Ipsos 10/15-10/17, 405 likely voters) 

Recent Rasmussen polling shows similar results to what Politico reported. It's revolting that Buck is the favorite in polling and it's sickening that he's even in serious contention for a US Senate seat. It's possible that the rape case indeed wasn't prosecutable ─ but, the essence of the issue isn't simply his refusal to prosecute ─ his statement that the alleged victim had "buyer's remorse" and expressed opinions on other "women's" issues, indicate a lack of empathy and, at worst, exemplifies the crypto-misogynistic fascism which seems endemic to the American Right ─ typically disguised as "Christian Morality" or "Family Values". We, Moderates and Liberals, need to understand rape, domestic violence, birth control, et cetera, and the whole of feminism as societal issues with broad implications, not uniquely affecting women: just as Conservatives do.

Here, Ken Buck addresses the subject on Meet The Press:

Here is the DSCC ad, mentioned by Politico:

White House White Board #2

At present, the flow of the "mainstream media" has shifted to the right. Conservative voices tend to dictate the daily news narrative, with unabashed bias. The liberal punditry ─ possibly in an effort retain some air of neutrality ─ is critical of both the President and democrat-led congress, with the unfortunate consequence that the liberal/progressive agenda is weakened.

What's lost in the din of republican rage and democratic dismay, is that President Obama has been successful on several levels and multiple fronts, despite numerous Republican roadblocks and Democratic defections. The fact is we, liberals and progressives, should be jubilant and ready to double-down in support of our party and president: there ought not be an "enthusiasm gap" in this election.

Please share this post, if you agree at all.