the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

Diana,

I can’t offer any suggestions of good or interesting topics, mainly because I’m not much good for political discussion. (To me government is mostly something to be appeased so they’ll leave me alone to do what I want.)

But I’m curious why bringing in examples of past leaders automatically makes people defensive. I don’t question the observation; I do wonder what reasons might be behind it. The cynic in me proposes that rather than think for themselves, people choose a leader who espouses what they believe is right (for whatever reason - conscious thought, upbringing, or brainwashing) and then defend him against all comers.

Dave

Hi, Dave.

That’s a good question. I’m not sure I have a good answer–just a few thoughts. I have no doubt that many people select their leaders based on one thing that person says he believes in, then defend him against all comers. It may be to defend one’s choice to vote for him (an interesting psychological phenomenon through which humans tend to justify possibly poor choices in order to rationalize personal investment in them).

Overall, if we ally with one political party, we tend to respond defensively to perceived attacks on our group. We often do this without stopping to place the “attack” in perspective. Was the person in question guilty as charged? How would we look at the situation if he was a member of the opposing party and behaved the same way? Perhaps the criticism is justified. Perhaps, actually, we should have voiced the criticism first.

I just know that if I, say, accuse Bush of driving our deficit into the stratosphere, I’m just begging someone to step up and point the finger at Obama, and then it’s just a bitch-slapping contest and no one thinks about his own beliefs because we’re too busy defending “our” party’s choices.

I’m not sure it can be done, but I want to see if I can have a discussion about issues without doing that. Cross your fingers for me. ;)

d

Diana,

Crossed and ready!

I admit I’ve wondered recently if the 24-hour news cycle has skewed the average American’s view, and thus participation, in politics. The recent rancor over health care, with accusations and counter-accusations not just against lawmakers but against demonstrators, make me wonder if the country really is going to hell in a handbasket, or whether professional politics has always been that nasty and Americans are just getting a good look at it and don’t understand that it’s how law gets made. (Kind of like making sausage, you know?)

You make a good point about justifying poor choices. Nobody wants to look like a fool for picking the wrong candidate. But dog gone, how long does one have to stay with a sinking ship?

Dave

Thanks! :)

I’ve wondered also if politics has always been this…well, nasty. I wouldn’t know, though. Like I said, I wasn’t paying attention most of my life.

You ask an interesting question. I suspect there’s a dissertation in the answer, though. ;)

d

Diana,

I’ll let you handle the dissertating. I’ll stick to writing code and scifi.

I did think of one political topic that might bear discussion: the question of allowing corporate entities to participate in elections, either through campaign assistance or outright voting. I realize the Supreme Court has provided an answer, but I don’t think the matter is settled. (At least not to hear President Obama tell it.)

I can see a case for either side of the issue. Once could argue that corporations employ x% (I don’t have the exact figure) of American workers, so legislation in their favor gives workers more opportunities. (Admittedly a hollow argument at the moment, given how the economy got in its current state.) On the other hand, in the Constitution’s preamble it says “We the people…” and goes on list the purpose of the document. To me, promoting business seems to fall under “promote the general welfare,” which is the fifth of the purposes listed. In other words, power is established and law is made by people, and that other needs of the nation have priority.

In any case, IANAL, just a marginally satisfied customer.

Dave

Hm. I knew corporations are considered a “person"–the logic of that one is still lost on me, I admit–but I didn’t know they could VOTE. You’re for serious, though.

I’ll have to give that one some thought. Maybe for a long while. There’s too much about it I don’t know and have never heard, heretofore. Homework will be required. :)

d

Diana,

No, I’m pretty sure they can’t vote. (Or do you know something I don’t? Wouldn’t be the first time.) My questions is, should they be allowed to? The recent Supreme Court ruling overturned a law limiting corporate campaign contributions. (A decision the President doesn’t like.) Some of the follow-on rhetoric asked, “What next? Votes for corporations?”

Corporations are virtual people, with many of the rights and responsibilities of an individual, but also with some special rules they must follow. I’m not sure, but I think the Supreme Court ruling was based partly on freedom of speech issues, and how a law limiting campaign contributions violated the First Amendment. My questions is, should that have applied? Or should one of the special rules for corporations prevent them from taking part in elections, either completely or on a limited basis.

Dave

My bad. I misunderstood. It isn’t the first time.

I’m very interested in the issue of campaign contributions, overall. I’m all for limiting them.

(Oh and, I don’t buy the snowball fallacy rhetoric that we’re facing corporation votes next. Snowball rhetoric, in my opinion, tacitly admits that the user doesn’t have a good argument against the current proposal; that’s why they have use the “What will happen next?!” argument.)

d

Diana,

Well, that’s how it works. You have to say SOMETHING for the cameras. But I don’t put a lot of stock in FUD spread by the losers.

From a practical standpoint I don’t know that corporations being able to cast a vote each would have affected the last presidential election much. There’s room for abuse, certainly, with people creating corporations for the purpose of ballot box stuffing, but election fraud has a long and colorful history already in this nation. (Grin)

Corporations campaigning is another issue. Money talks during a campaign, and a good sized corporation can afford the resources to out-shout a lot of grassroots support. But is it fair to limit that just because an entity is a corporation? A billionaire could do the same thing. Where to draw the line?

Dave

Dave, I think you bring up a good point in your last post. Where do we draw the line?

For myself, I think the line should be drawn somewhere in a spot that would limit the amount that ANY entity or person could contribute, and that would include the amount from corporations AND their higher-paid people! In other words, if X Corporation wants to support Candidate A, then ALL the money that corporation contributes can only be a certain percentage of their profits for the year. And their employees, especially those in the corporate headquarters, can only contribute the same percentage, or less, according to which party they contribute to. So if Corporation A is in the 10% sector, no one working for that corporation can contribute more than 10%, in any way, except in free labor.

Maybe that doesn’t make sense, but it would put a stop to rich corporations and rich people giving to the candidates that will be partial to them, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications for the job. THAT is what we need to worry about, not just how much money is being thrown about in order to get votes, but especially that each candidate is the best possible for the job, according to the qualifications that candidate has that make him or her FIT to handle the job!

I’ve been thinking about your suggestions, Aunt Bann, and I’m not sure where I stand with them. If we went with a percentage limit, then the bigwigs would still have too much pull. What if we just set a cap? Would that help? Or would we end up with the same thing?

Excellent discussion, though. HOW best–and most reasonably–to stop campaign finance corruption?

d

Diana,

Reading Ms. Bann’s remarks about a candidate’s fitness for an office leads me to believe there are two problems here:

1) Candidates with extensive resources (personal or corporate) “buying” elections through massive PR campaigns.

2) Voters who fall for massive PR campaigns.

In a fair world the candidates would present their qualifications and platforms and the voters would choose the one best qualified whose position was acceptable to the majority. In that world once every voter was aware of a candidate’s position and background, any more PR money spent by that candidate was unnecessary.

But campaigning now is more an exercise in product branding than voter education. It seems that enough people vote on name recognition to make huge PR efforts worth the expense.

In some ways it’s like making movies. The true measure of a film’s popularity is the extended box office receipts. It’s possible to make a dog of a film and dump half its budget into marketing, so it’ll have an amazing opening weekend but fall flat the following week as word of mouth gets around. But in elections, there is no following week. All you need is a great opening on election day.

Dave

Good post, Dave. Now I’m going to argue with it a bit. :)

I just finished reading a book called Predictably Irrational in which the author (Dan Ariely) studied the data to determine whether all that extra campaign money actually did make a difference. The answer is that it doesn’t. People contribute to campaigns they are already in favor of, at which point spending that money to increase campaign propaganda makes no difference.

It just tends to look like more money = more votes, because the two usually coincide.

Of course, you do need a certain amount of money (more than I have, certainly) to even launch a campaign. No question.

d

Note to all three of you. Each of you have good posts, recognizing different positions. Let’s face it: in politics, the ‘real world’ doesn’t exist, at least as it should. We will never get around, no matter how hard we try, the concepts of race, class envy, education, outright lying, intentional or (sometimes) unintentional misrepresentation of the opponent’s qualifications, and a thousand other variables, including, but not limited to, such things as media bias, voter bias, disinterest, and apathy. So the question becomes, in our own government, how do we get around all this, and still have the people choosing their representative people, as well as leaders, who will work for the good of the people both present and future? I think an annual poll tax of $5oo or more per person, adjusted for inflation annually, would do several things in this problem.

First, people would have a vested interest in the outcome, up front. This would cause them to listen, study, meditate, and learn, before the last two weeks before an election.

Second, It would, over time, cause people to think in terms of helping to control their own government. If you are poor, and you know you can do nothing without the $500 down payment, you will do whatever it takes to increase your wealth.

Third, This would, over time, create , and define for all time, those who SHOULD NOT have a say in the government. They should not, because working in government requires a personal sacrifice, and these people have proven they are unable to understand the concept. I can’t accept arguments to the contrary, because of the time factor which I have already mentioned. Each generation would have their own opportunities to improve and take a part. Of course the reverse holds true for those involved. Enough for now. Got to go eat and to his nibs. Daddy

Diana,

Interesting. Apparently the voting public has failed to live down to my expectations once again. (grin) Maybe there’s hope after all.

I think I need to check my assumptions and see where the idea that a corporate shill can buy an election came from.

Did Ariely look at state and local contests too? My experience (sample of one, obviously) is that sometimes you have to dig harder to find the details on candidates for local and sometimes state offices. (Even my incumbent Congressional rep doesn’t run a lot of ads on my local TV stations because I’m closer to Rochester, which is a different district, than Syracuse which is the center of our district. Challengers, who often are less well funded, advertise even less here.)

Dave

Dave, I think we all have that assumption, frankly. It’s “common knowledge,” is it not? :)

I wish I could remember the details, but I can’t. I remember that Ariely looked at candidates who’d run against one another more than once, their campaign finances, and how popular they were before and after donations to come to his conclusion. I would assume it would apply to all levels of politics, but maybe I shouldn’t assume. :)

Daddy, I agree that we have a slew of problems when are endemic to human nature and will never be overcome. As for the poll tax?

:)

I think I’ll just fetch some popcorn and sit back for a while.

d

Mr. B,

I like your suggestion. I think a lot of the perceived ills in our election processes can be traced back to an electorate that is able and willing to be deceived. (Call it what you like - apathy, narrow-mindedness, or just being a sucker for the promise of a handout.) Getting people to realize they have a dog in the fight so they need to do their homework is a good thing.

But I’ll bet the words “poll tax” have left a bad taste in a lot of mouths, so it’d be hard to get something like that enacted. Even if it did pass, it’d be so diluted and changed it would most likely not achieve the desired effect. (I get the feeling subsidies for low-income voters would be available. (Grin))

I like Robert Heinlein’s suggestion - rather than a tax, one had to be honorably discharged from military service to vote.

Dave

I’m more in favor of military service as a prerequisite to voting, which is not to say I’m in favor of that, either. The military has a reputation for molding minds, and I seriously doubt we really want ALL of our voters thus affected.

I like the idea of people knowing they have a dog in the fight. I don’t deny that. The thing I have a problem with is the underlying assumption that poor people are poor because they simply aren’t motivated enough (aka, they are lazy).

I disagree. Passionately.

But there’s also the problem that the poll tax has historically been used (as Dave mentions) to disenfranchise unwanted groups. I’m not sure I–NOT being included in the unwanted groups at present–could be convinced that it would not do so again. As a matter of fact, it already would disenfranchise the poor.

Daddy had me read A Tale of Two Cities when I was a kid. If nothing else, I came away from that experience with the understanding that leaving the poor with no voice is a very bad idea.

d

PD and Dave–The individual is normally not poor by choice–at least not his own. Poor people are like rich and/or comfortable people is this respect: Peer pressure is tremendous. At this point in my life, I see the ‘poor’ making attempts to keep all their ‘kind’ poor, by deriding their attempts at education, upward mobility, etc. (Sample of one. OK). But this approach would add to their willingness to overcome the negativity of their peers (or should I say “our” peers).

PD, leaving the poor with no voice is not, in general , a good idea. My thoughts are, that there would be adequate push from outside their community to reach the point where they could, and would have a voice, which in general, I think, create voices which would consider all sides of a question, rather than “What’s in it for me?”

Military service? I fear it would be lopsided in favor of conservatism,but either way, lopsidedness is not good.
Lunch was good, and Gary did a great job in adjusting my spine, in case anyone was really interested.

I care, Daddy. :)

You remind me, I probably should go see Doc Lowe soon.

I agree that peer pressure is tremendous for all groups. I just don’t see a poll tax changing that or overriding it. All it really stands to do is further alienate the people who need, above all things, education.

I fear increased militarism, frankly, but yeah…I think the majority of uniformed people are conservative, too.

I’d say it’s “their” peers, since ours (that is, in the middle class) tend to be horrified at their peers efforts to keep them uneducated.

We truly are very different cultures, even though we live in the same land and abide by the same laws.

And from what I’ve seen, those who are able to pay the poll tax are just as subject to the “what’s in it for me?” motivation as their poorer brethren–maybe more so.

d

Well, I have this to say about my little brother’s suggestion on the poll tax. If you remember, Lynn, the poll tax was still in force when we were in high school. I had to actually pay the tax a couple of years (I don’t remember exactly when it was repealed), and even though it wasn’t but twenty dollars at the time, that was a LOT OF MONEY for poor folks! And to say $500 should be paid to vote would be even worse, especially for those of us who are basically living on Social Security—-which, in case you haven’t gotten the news yet, DID NOT get a raise this year. So all of us are trying to pay this year’s prices on last year’s salaries! YOU try it! It just makes getting the necessities that much harder.

So forget the poll tax. I’d say get rid of the electoral college and let the POPULAR vote be the decider in elections!!!

Would it be stating the obvious to point out that the poll tax was declared unconstitutional for a damn good reason?

d

I was just thinking a bit more about the “what’s in it for me?” comment. It seems to me that the people MOST likely to feel that way about legislation are the middle and upper classes. When it comes to money, the poor have a very different attitude toward it; their attitude is generally that it takes a distant second to family and community. They don’t have money and generally don’t expect to.

Then look at people with the much stronger focus on money–the middle and upper classes–and watch their “what’s in it for me?” attitude any time new legislation is proposed.

I long since lost counts of the number of middle class people who have complained because they feel their medical care will suffer or they might have to pay a bit more if medical care is offered to everyone. I’m disgusted by the selfishness, frankly. (And having enjoyed socialized medicine for many years now, I have much reason to believe that their fears of their care getting WORSE are unfounded.)

In Alabama, any time someone even SUGGESTS raising land taxes ANY (and they have some of the lowest in the nation) so thy can pay for public schools through a dependable income instead of sucking off of city taxes and always falling short, everyone screams that the schools are FINE. Why? Because the schools their children go to are private (if you have ANY money in Alabama, and you care about your children’s education, you pay to get them that education). THIS is the “what’s in it for me?” mentality, and it stinks.

I don’t know that I’ve seen a similar thing from the poor, frankly.

d

Hi Diana,

I am thrilled to see how much action you are getting with this post. Way to go.

To tilt the topic slightly, once people are elected, I would be most interested to see what would happen if there were to be a lottery for all those elected to federal government. Names would be drawn. The percentage of the population on welfare would be the percentage of legislators who received that monthly income, the percentage receiving old age pension, medicare, full medical benefits, living on student loans, paying back student loans on entry-level wages, those living the salaries from McJobs etc.

While no legislator in their right mind would allow such a provision to be imposed upon them, I do find it delicious to speculate on what might happen and wonder what bills might be introduced, if they could not repeal the “Salaries of the People for Legislators” amendment.

Keep up the great blogging. You have learned, thoughtful friends and family members.

Lorraine

Politics have ALWAYS had some elements of rancour, or worse. Go back to 1804 when Democrat Aaron Burr had an unsuccessful campaign for governor of New York. His political rival, Alexander Hamilton, wrote articles about him in their version of CNN/Facebook, and made some remarks about him at a dinner party. Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel and killed him.

I did a book report on this when I was in grade school. Hhmm, I wonder if this began my fascination with politics, and my wariness of Democrats?
:)

Regarding limitations on campaign contributions . . . there still are limitations on how much individuals AND corporations can give to an individual campaign, and to parties. Certain states have even stricter laws. I worked in a campaign with a donor database, and I developed functionality that instantly let us know when an individual or corporation was over their limit, and we sent their checks back.

The recent Supreme Court decisison was just. First, certain corporations and groups were exempt from McCain-Fiengold. News and media organizations for instance. Why should other corporations be discriminated against?

Secondly, the specific supreme court case involved a movie about Hilary Clinton. McCain-Feingold didn’t allow it to be shown before the election. The question was asked by the court “If this movie had been a book, would it have been banned?” The government defense’s answer was “yes.”

So, if you disagree with the court’s decision, you are FOR book-banning.

Now corporations as well as unions can publish their opinions of candidates by name. To have not been able to do so was a definite infringement on free speech.

IMHO, the more information, the better. With the Internet, people can easily research truth claims on both sides. Limiting what one side can say puts limits on what WE need to make rational decisions. That is if humans CAN be rational. :) That’s a topic for another day.