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."

2012: The Obama Cult vs. the Wing Nuts?

A few posts ago I said I' be blogging my political evolution right here on the WWW. 2 mornings in a row I did. So here is the third post in that trifecta.

My entire theory about the need for a "3rd way" rests on 2 assumptions.

1. The economy is not going to recover in the usual manner.

2. Obama will slip below 50% approval by years end and stay there. He will not get what he wanted* on the big liberal issues and will be seen by more and more of his base as a disappointment. This will devolve into outright anger in many quarters. The natural size of Obama's "base" is about 20-25% of the population. If the economy continues to falter his "base" will shrink to its natural size - then shrink further as the disappointment sinks in.

* This is predicated on believing that Obama ever truly wanted what he sold last year.

If I am wrong in my "guesses" then this post is nullified. Maybe I am. We will all see.

Projecting forward: I believe a viable 3rd option will become more important than ever in the next few years. The economic "recovery", when it comes, will not look like the ones we are accustomed to. We are in for a long haul readjustment of our expectations. Neither party is prepared for this. However, the far right is positioned to take advantage of large scale social displacement. The far left will try - but fail - as their energies have been subsumed by the President's misdirection. Therefore the GOP is likely to present an uncomfortable but viable option in 2010 and 2012. The moderating influences in the GOP are weak and likely to become weaker as Obama weakens. The Glen Beck boys do not ignore blood in the water. Since my theory assumes Obama will, in essence, fail, any alternative voice within the Democratic party will be tainted and - largely - useless.

This leaves one section of one party standing. The reactionary impulses will be vast as people grapple with a changed landscape . Loud portions of the Democratic party will attempt to take the megaphone. But they will have no choice but to defend Obama in the end. When Obama becomes unpopular anyone remotely connected to him will be on the losing end of any argument. BHO's employees are every bit as tainted as W's. Please read the link. Summers is, for lack of more precise words, a panhandling crook.

So where does this leave "democrats in exile"? Here's where now: The Democratic Party or the GOP. 2008 should be the last time this constricted choice is forced on people.

There is another possibility. Obama will fail on such a catastrophic scale that his own party will dismiss him in 2012. A meteor striking the heartland tomorrow has approximately the same probability.

A "third party" does not top my list of things I'd like to see happen. It is my guess - though its not yet a conviction - that economic malaise will open the door WIDE for a slew of unsavory characters on the far left and more probably on the far right. Without an alternative to the soon to be tainted Democrats and the Glen Beck conservatives the energies of the population will have to choose between these unfortunate camps.

"Democrats in exile" (I am avoiding the acronym "P.U.M.A.") are a logical base - to start. As for the comments that insist I should get off my ass and start a third party all I can say is Thanks for the compliment. Even in my most grandiose moments this feels like an absurdity.

However, I will evolve some ideas about what a "third way" might look like in the next week or so. And state without equivocation that I will help should the energies of the immediate aftermath of last May's Obama coup be reignited.

The time to start thinking about stopping the coming right wing backlash is NOW.

When Obama fails

Comments on yesterday morning's post here suggesting that a third way must be found got me "to thinkin" on my daily walk to MacArthur Park. (No one has left a cake out in the rain there, though the spoiled, city ducks and bobbing syringes do suffer a downpour every blue moon.)

Kara rightly noted in the comments that the PUMA moniker has no value at this point. I feel no allegiance to it. Riverdaughter has a link across the top of the Confluence which is labeled "An invitation to Democrats in exile". This doesn't work for me either. I have left that party for good and do not consider myself "in exile" from it. I'm gone. Pelosi, Reid and the rest make it an untenable option, with or without the current President.

This has left me grasping. I looked into some libertarian sites and found them interesting - but, alas, in the end they are not my people. If a true collapse occurs I bet I'll throw my lot in with the libertarians - as the other voices that will gain traction in that scenario, I have no doubt, will be mortifying. We are not immune from despotism.

I felt a similar way last fall having scored a ticket to a Palin rally in Carson, California (I don't remember how now ???). I went out of an anthropological love of the process and to see if she was ,in fact, a star. She was almost a star - no Bill Clinton - but no pushover either. She electrified her people - they are just not my people.

The glorious mess that was the Democratic Party B.O. (before Obama) contained my people. No more.

What unnerves me about the current state of polarization - and we are polarized regardless of what the MSM says - is the lack of a viable third option. Not a perfect one - a viable one. Whether I, like Rush, hope "Obama fails" or not is beside the point. I believe he will fail - in a broad sense. That is to say he will fail those who loved him and set aside rationality to see him elected. Whether he fails those who paid for his election is another story and another post. We shall see. Just remember, those who paid for his installation are not you, me, or the most rabid Obama fanatics. The One has come to massage us into believing change has come while protecting the status quo - look no further than the banking plan for evidence of this. (By the time he gets to health care he'll be below 50% and unable to do anything but tweak the system. )

When Obama fails the alternative must be apparent. As it stands now the only alternative is a swift shift to the Right. The magnitude of his failure will dictate how far the pendulum swings. Cannonfire makes the point here. We are liable to breakdown into a 2 camps. Glen Beck type right wingers or Obama supporters. The prospect of having to choose between Newt Gingrich or worse- or to help re-elect Barack Obama in 2012 is not one I look forward to. I am glad I voted Green in 08 - but did it because I knew they were not viable and needed a place to land.

Soon enough, the exigencies of the current circumstances will place the political environment beyond the scope of the usual suspects of either party. A protest vote will not suffice in 2012.

PUMAs who blog from the edges have my respect and perform a valuable service. I will certainly continue to critique, make fun of, and lambaste for the duration. Nevertheless, a third way, perhaps more moderate than I would like, must emerge.

Added note - You'll notice that the Obamamedia is doing its duty and trashing Evan Bayh for having the gumption to do his job... Expect this type of thing to continue.

The community organizer - in - chief, and his merry band of Ameripeans.

Throughout the trauma inflicted on the Democratic Party by Obama, his pod people, and the media last year, my personal politics stayed largely intact. 2008 did not radicalize me, or stoke any reactionary impulses. What the on going self immolation of the Democrats has done is open up a willingness on my part to at least listen to the other side. I did not vote for either side. There are, believe it or not, other options on the ballot.

The first 2 months of the Obama Admin. may be different. I am questioning my politics now. In a series of decisions Obama has proven to be as greasy a politician as we have ever seen. The direction he is taking us is at best odd and at worst disastrous. It is increasingly clear that neither of the traditional parties has solutions anymore. I am not even sure either side is interested in solutions any more.

I am beginning to see the libertarians as a corrective....whether I like all of what they say or not is beside the point. The normal corrective processes have been usurped and obliterated. It is possible that the only viable counterpoint is an upsurge in libertarianism. Obama does seem determined to "community organize" all of us into something else. Not quite American, not quite European. Ameripean. Though I don't fear "the European model" - I just don't think we are, finally, like them. In the long run "community organizing" the entire country is much more likely to highlight factionalism. States refusing stimulus money can be seen as a foreshadowing of this.

Listen closely to those on the right, left, middle, outer political reaches, and the politically disinterested - and "Don't tread on me" can be heard in one form or another. For most Americans it takes under 5 minutes to get to some version of "Don't Tread on Me". The only places in the U.S. this is not the All-American "final answer"? Nancy Pelosi's head and Chicago. Another reason to look wearily on any thing that comes out of the Obama/Emmanuel White House.

I have never seen the Federal government so disconnected from the people it governs. Polls aside, the cascade of our money being thrown at the people who caused the mess is nothing if not contemptuous. They don't care about us. Frankly, they barely even act like they do anymore. Our representatives did not even read the bill that spent 700 billion of our dollars. And gave AIG executives the green light to hand out obscene bonuses.

They did not read the bill. That is the core of the problem. They did not read the bill.

We should call this what it is - contempt.

Neither party is capable of seeing past the next fundraiser. Neither party can be trusted. Nor should they be.

Within the system we now have I see no way out of the current era. And the era is ending. This does not mean there is not a way out within in the system. It would just take a sea change in the attitudes of our leadership that is unlikely to occur.

The system is not broken. It is working just fine for those who run it. It is broken for the rest of us. And it should go. A season of libertarianism tempered by common sense and a dollop of compassion may be the only viable, American option to counteract the community organizer - in - chief, and his merry band of Ameripeans.