JUST HOW STUPID ARE WE?

By Woodhull

I've really enjoyed some of your recent threads on PUMA, third parties, Whigs, etc. Funny how we caring voters seem to always know what we don’t want but have a harder time articulating what it is we want -beyond the usual top-level wish list items like honesty, fair representation, transparency and so on - in our government. Typically these wish list items are the kinds of things that any political party include in their mission statements-whether they are manifest in reality or not.

This made me think about why it is easier for us to discredit the array of options before us rather than say "This is what the right political party would look like for me." What membership drives depend on for any option is one of two things: Either the people they are trying to reach are also well-informed about the issues before them (let's get the ball rolling) or, ideally, the sign-up rosters are filled with those who are not well-informed and just throw their lot in with a group that kind of sounds like what they want and they aren't really sure, but what the heck it's better than the other guys! (let's make the ball bigger and keep it rolling). The proof of this is in the state of the two party system that exists today. Many people cite one party or the other as being the standard bearer of certain "core values" that simply no longer exist (if they ever did) in these parties and, more likely, is mere propaganda that neither party actually hopes for or plans to attain. I know that the so-called 'ideals' of the Democratic party had a lot to do with voter choice in this last election that had nothing to do with the Democratic party's presidential candidate or its leadership's vision. What is deciding the real values of both parties at the moment are primarily the vision and values of a very few people within each party and the rest of us are just along for the ride- because we claim that's our historic party affiliation and we believe that whatever else our party may want, we still believe in a mythical set of ideals that will carry the day and, hopefully, us along with it. A personal example would be that I always thought that my party were the "good guys"; that whatever mistakes or bad things that came out of my party's existence happened because of external circumstances. I know, naive, right? And I thought I was a pretty well-informed citizen.

I think the reason we cannot identify a suitable party affiliation for ourselves or are surprised when our party of choice disappoints is that we don't have a complete set of criteria or perhaps more importantly, clear reasons why we think whatever criteria we have is important to us. So, we go off in search of something or a group that seems to represent us; usually coming up empty handed for the same original reasons. There has been talk of resurrecting the "old" party (of both the Dems and the Reps), but even that doesn't get us where we want to go because if we do any kind of light research we are more likely to come up with personalities (past presidents or other elected officials) that defined the party and not today's reality of that party. Each party's platforms change from election to election. And in recent decades, especially, each party's planks change radically based on dishonest use of wedge issues or winning strategy that sways large blocs of voters. This may be a good way to win elections, but it's no way to run a party or a country. So why is it that neither party satisfies most Americans? And why is it that when contemplating a new, third party is there so much distrust about who or what may be behind such a proposal? What is missing?

I wondered why. So I started to look at the group that is the most vocal about failed government: "We The People." What I've found, unsurprisingly, is that throughout our history (even within ten years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence) Americans have found it a lot easier to blame political parties for failures in government. Our political parties after all, we reason, set the agenda for how government acts. "We The People" are wholly blameless for this state of affairs, or so we have mythologized. But back in 2004, when Bush junior won reelection, in part, because of a nutty claim made about the horrors of gay marriage I began to question the mental acuity of a large swath of my fellow citizens. Are we really that stupid?

An astute historian and author, Rick Shenkman, asks the question in his book by the same title, "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter" And it's a rather easy, yet difficult-to-say, answer: "Very." Now before anyone gets defensive about Shenkman's claim let's take a ride in Mr. Peabody's WABAC Machine


Here are some interesting stats related to one of this country's biggest mistakes: (Shenkman writes) "In January 2003, three months before our invasion of Iraq, the survey-takers found that a majority of Americans falsely believed that "Iraq played an important role in 9/11" Over the next year and half PIPA polls indicated that a persistent 57 percent believed that Saddam Hussein was helping al Qaeda at the time we were attacked. (Other polls came up with higher numbers. For instance, in September 2003, a Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.) In the spring of 2004 the 9/11 Commission flatly stated that Saddam had not provided support to al Qaeda. The Commission's findings received saturation coverage. Nonetheless, in August of the same year, according to a PIPA poll, 50 percent were still insisting that Saddam had given "substantial" support to al Qaeda. (A full two years later, in 2006, a Zogby International poll indicated that 46 percent of Americans continued to believe that "there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.")".

Did you get the part: "The Commission's findings received saturation coverage."?

I won't go into the statistical details of American's belief in WMD. But Shenkman concludes this passage by reminding us that the illusions held by Americans regarding Hussein and his mythical support of al Qaeda drew a lot of us into supporting the actions of our Congress and the President in 2003. I know, you and I weren't one of them. And instead of laying the blame for terrorism on specific groups and individuals we are now stuck with another false idea that fuels national (and irrational) fears of nameless, faceless terrorists popping up from under manhole covers. You know, the ones that we are warring on in our "War on Terror." During the Cold War our enemy was described as the "Ten foot threat." Back then we built backyard bunkers and stockpiled 20 years' worth of beef jerky and Tang. This time we spend 4 hours waiting in line at the airport to hop a commuter between Seattle and Spokane and stockpile plastic sheeting and duct tape. Do these seem like smart responses to an ill-defined threat?

So what has this all got to do with choosing a political party that represents our beliefs? Well, it's what we believe, whether it's true or not, that motivates our choice of affiliation and leaves us vulnerable to what they tell us. It's what we believe (true or not) that gains our vote and puts their people in our senates, houses, the U.S. Congress and the White House. It really sounds too fundamental to state, doesn't it? For those, like me, who need a clearer declaration: We need to stop (STOP!) putting the responsibility for running this country into the hands of our elected officials! We cannot strut around with a sense of warm, self-congratulatory satisfaction just because we exercised our right to vote and leave it at that. We love to invoke the Founder's words of "We The People", but our sense of duty to that privilege seems to vanish after the poll volunteer plants an "I Voted" pin on our lapel. And let's be honest, there's at least even odds that we can be smug about the fact that "I didn't vote for him/her". Cold consolation if it was good government you really wanted.

There's a lot not covered here; media's dumbing politics down, for example. But these things we know: The media lies, politicians lie and C-SPAN is incredibly tedious. What's to be done, then?

In order to integrate something else, we must first disintegrate what we already know. And there will be a period of feeling like you've just gone insane because if you're not sure about "anything, anymore it's a little crazy-making. But hang in there because it's well worth the discomfort.

-We must denounce our faith in political parties and what they say they stand for. All of them. Even the parties of yore. We cannot see the forest for the trees when all we often claim to know anyway is really just the personalities of FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, Clinton, LBJ or Carter and the rest. And besides, unless you really know the morphing history of political parties in this country you should probably not add to the misinformation. The party you affiliate with today holds little resemblance to its origins just as the party you seek to build will look nothing like its namesake today. That goes double for labels that are meaningless in today's political environment like "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "far right", "far left" and so on. Because as soon as you figure out who you think you are under these labels, you stop thinking. You stop thinking because you've identified yourself with someone else or some group who is going to do your thinking for you. Don't even call yourself "Independent" because the parties and the politicians already have a plan to appeal to your ego and your vote. Or worse, they've written you off as someone who isn't worth listening to because their pollsters have told them you can' t get them elected. When I say "I'm an American of voting age. Whatcha got for me?" I'm in a better negotiating position. And all of a sudden I'm looking at politics, politicians and issues in an entirely different way.

-Invest in your knowledge of American history (including economics). You're an American-read the owner's manual. If it's never been your subject, try to think of it as a mandatory fact-finding mission, a treasure hunt, a puzzle to solve. You'll find as I did that history, especially our history, is stranger and more surprising and fascinating than Ripley's Believe it or Not. And before you know it, you'll be able to figure out why some of today's problems go back to this country's genesis and how it is that so many vocal pundits and political analysts get it wrong. You'll also discover that some of our current problems are really not as dire as we're lead to believe and there's a calming aspect to that. I know it's popular to disparage revisionist history, but we are living at a time when the big picture is plainer than ever because the unexpected benefit spawned by the backlash to "revised" history has laid bare a lot of once-hidden details. Read as many points of view as you can; soon a pattern will emerge that gives you greater confidence in the facts; a confidence that gives you greater personal freedom to speak out with conviction and to demand answers that actually make some sense.

- Figure out what is important to you and what you think should be important to your country and prioritize your list. Use your own list to go shopping for candidates and find out if you can help recruit someone you think would make a good candidate if those running for or already in office aren't meeting your criteria. You'd be surprised how many others are probably thinking the same thing. Maybe you should fill that council vacancy yourself.

- Know the facts of important issues of the day. If you can't find them on TV (which you won't), make a new friend of a librarian or a blogger whose research you trust. Be sure to follow office holders' voting records and find out who they owe for their $uccess. It's easy to do. Everyone has a web page and the newspaper chronicles this, too.

- Don't be like them. When you're wrong about something, admit it to yourself. We tend to seek any kind of confirmation for what we believe even if deep down we know it's probably inaccurate. We can be passionate about something without invoking half-truths, omitting facts or citing questionable or unchecked sources. It's called being intellectually honest. That other thing is called 'politics'. And isn't that what drove us to go hunting for a new party in the first place? Focus instead on good government; great politician's primary aim is to get reelected, but good and wise stewards of the people's will get my vote from now on. When we stop rewarding political behavior over earnest representation, the political cleverness will stop. Most parents understand this theory.

- Don't waste too much of your time pointing out others' willful ignorance. Thomas Jefferson said: "Do not be too severe upon the errors of people, but reclaim them by enlightening them." You can only do this if you know what you're talking about. Yes, there are some people who just want to be right, but mostly they want to know why you think what you think. Rely instead on your solid knowledge of history, candidates, elected officials and issues of the day and people will seek you out for your wise counsel. The next step is to help others to "not be like them."

And two quotes to end this treatise: JFK: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." See, even a master mythologist (remember "Camelot"?) can state a pithy truth.

And from Jefferson, again: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

I'm Not Pregnant

by 'tamerlane"


An email from a dear friend, recently wed, contained some pleasant news: "Yes, we are expecting." This was in response to my query: "How's married life treating you - are you knocked up yet?" If my colloquialism was pedestrian, my friend's was downright quaint. Yet I much prefer hers to the current fabricated PC turn of phrase, "we're pregnant."

"We're pregnant" is silly. Yes, yes, it's a way to indicate the man's commitment and acceptance of responsibility. I get it. But "we're pregnant" strikes me as yet another pretentious attempt to talk our way into behavior. Admittedly, how we phrase things can influence perception. But this is preaching to the converted. I doubt we'll ever see Jay-Z release a song titled "Me and My Bitch Have a Shared Problem."

I have never been pregnant. Knocked up any of my partners, that is. I have, though, always quietly accepted the potential risk & consequences inherent to having sex. My approach for those special third dates is: if I'm always "prepared", then we're always prepared. Contraception is a mutual responsibility, and in a steady relationship, a mutual decision. I really appreciate that, if my partner uses oral contraception, she's taking on the inconvenience and screwed-up hormones for the both of us. I can express my appreciation without declaring, "we're on the pill!"

If one of my little swimmers ever completed its mission, by intent or accident, I'd step up to the plate. Still, while I may be half of the chromosomes, I don't face anywhere near half the consequences. Including me in the "we" of "we're pregnant" belies that lop-sided burden. I'm not the teenager with the diminished reputation, or the difficult choice. I'm not the one who'll be spending the next nine months waddling around, throwing up, etc., or the one enduring hours of labor. And, however diligent and attentive I father I may be, the children will never impact my life, on a day-to-day, hour-by-hour basis, as much their mom's.

So, could we please stop saying "we're pregnant"? It's technically inaccurate, and while aiming to underscore one sentiment, obscures other important points. For a welcomed pregnancy, what's wrong with "we're expecting?" It neatly expresses the joint investment of both parents, along with their joyful anticipation.

(c) 2009 by 'tamerlane'. All rights reserved.

A letter to the DNC

This letter appeared in the I Own My Vote newsletter in response to the DNC treasurer Andy Tobias's request for money. Many of you also saw it on NoQuarter. It is worth re-reading. The writer lays out the case against BHO with clarity and frankness. The real case against Obama is damning. I repeat - AT BEST with Obama we are taking a massive risk. At worst he is every bit the charlatan he appears to be.

Dear Andy,

So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.

As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.

After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.

In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.

The fact that I became successful is not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has
something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.

So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and
supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.

Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.

I would not choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors, not for political reasons or any other reason. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; and for him the ends justify the means. He lacks character.

Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people’s accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.

In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.

It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.

Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do.

Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the latter part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.

Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.

At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,wink.

Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.

You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say…. the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?

Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what’s up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not willing to just say anything to get elected.

I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.

But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.

Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the microphone over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.

All this might not bother me so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.

Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,

I own my vote.