Why the Tea Party tolerates Etch-a-Sketch

Missing so far in October’s political commentary is an obvious question about Mitt Romney’s latest Etch-a-Sketch redrafting of his positions. (Just yesterday Romney “softened” his position on opposing abortions and repealing homeowner and charities tax deductions.)

Question: At what point will the Tea Party see Romney as just another RINO (Republican in Name Only)? At what point will the latest sketch drive out the hard Right wing of the Republican Party?

Romney’s campaign has obviously asked the same question ... and answered it. Indeed they probably answered it months ago. After all we first heard the Etch-a-Sketch analogy from the Romney campaign on the day Romney won enough primaries to ensure his nomination.

Might the Tea Party abandon Mitt?

Not to worry.

They’ve likely been clued in that this is the essential means to the end of taking over the White House. Rest assured, Tea Party, after the November victory, the sketch will change again and you will like what your see.

Meanwhile, the rest of us want in on the secret. What will we see if Mitt wins?

We know where to look for clues. Follow the money.

What was once said about the piper can now be said about the sketch artist. Whoever is paying the artist guides the pencil.

The problem for us outsider citizens is this:  while we know where to look to find out how much money (hundreds of millions) is going into the campaign, we don’t know who is giving it.

We have our Supreme Court to thank for our ignorance.

In fairness, the same “Citizens United” secrecy applies to the Obama campaign and its financial backing, but at least the president is consistent. Compared to Romney, the president paints in vivid, lasting oils, albeit they are smudged by the Republican opposition. To be sure, much of Obama’s artwork is bad.  Regarding war he paints in blood red and black boxes. His portrait of the environment is decidedly ungreen and is increasingly pitch black and oily surrounded by blank space.

A sobering concern is that the very same people may be paying both candidates. “Hedging” is the by-word for our times. PACs are really nothing more than arcane policy/financial hedge funds managed by political consultants.

So, to change images, will the Tea Party fall off the wildly swerving Romney wagon as the candidate lurches to the middle?

I doubt it. I think that Paul Ryan and friends have clued in their fellow travelers. So far the polls show that the Right has received the message and is holding on.

Finally, there’s this nasty part of Tea Party thinking that has nothing to do with Left, Right or Center. For reasons that reside in the conspiracy-obsessed heart of “birther” darkness, large portions of the Tea Party hate Barack Obama. He is “the other”  — and Romney isn’t. The visuals of television debates, far from hiding differences, only make them more apparent. They are visceral — beyond discussion and debate.

Four more years....

I’m looking into the future, to August 2016 to be exact.

It is not a pretty picture.

Sure the unexpected can happen (and likely will) but assuming the “normal” course of events given what we know, the government will either be hamstrung or following ruinous right-wing policies.

The hamstrung scenario has Barack Obama as president and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Yes, governing will be even more difficult than it has been for the last four years. At best, the nation and the government will be on hold. The question in August 2016 is, who will the Democrats choose to run for the presidency and will they be able to take back Congress? The answer to the first part is most likely Hillary Clinton. And, no, the Democrats will not be able to take back Congress, whose major function will have become to blame everyone, including fellow members of Congress.

The economy will be even worst than it is today and the Republicans will still be in their Grover Norquist, drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub mode. The Republicans will no doubt choose, yes, Paul Ryan to head their ticket. He’s such a nice, “refreshingly thoughtful” man. At some point the GOP might change its name to the “Tea Party.” Perhaps a real Republican “party of Lincoln (and, Oregonians please note, Hatfield and McCall)” might re-emerge.

On to scenario #2. The country is run by the Romney/Ryan administration with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress (Okay, they might lose one or both in the 2014 mid-term elections, but you get the idea.) The rich get even richer (anyone want a sixth Caddy and a seventh home?) and everybody else tanks. Under this scenario, Bernie Sanders decides to run for president (as a Republican Socialist?) and the Democratic nominee is...hmmmm. Your choice. Could it be that no one wants the job?

Pulling the levers on all the above will be the very, very rich and the very, very secretive. Casino owners, TV wrestling magnates, defense contractors and corporate carbon-belching global warmers. (Did I mention that the drought and weather extremes will worsen over the next four years?)

Meanwhile, in the streets, expect food riots, Romney-ville or Obama-ville homeless camps. The Occupy movement of 2011 will look like a picnic in the park compared to what’s coming.

If reviving the economy means declaring yet another war, we may finally see veterans take to the street to demand an end to the madness. It is a madness that is literally leading them to take their lives in appalling numbers. This too will not abate.

Back in the world of electoral politics (if it can be called that), the options are grave. Of course someone will chime in to say that at least scenario #1 is likely to produce a more moderate Supreme Court. When the choice boils down to the future of the Supreme Court, you know we are in trouble.

The best way to spend the next four years is to do some serious blank-slate rethinking about the state of the nation, its constitution, its values and its role in the world. What say devolve into very small, autonomous manageable states? Switzerlands come to mind. Split Oregon down the middle, East and West.

Ecotopia anyone?

At the very least, the thinking might provide political talking points as the election campaign gets serious in late summer of 2016.

Ever considered joining the Tea Party?

It was bound to happen. A liberal/radical friend told me recently that he is seriously considering joining the Tea Party.

“That’s where the energy is,” he said. True, but I think he was mostly saying that the Democratic Party is where the energy isn’t. But I took him at his word. How about joining the Tea Party?

We talked...

About populism, third parties and exploring common ground with the Tea Party.

I even brought up my occasional musings about Cascadia, a secessionist nation bounded by the Pacific and the Cascades and running from the Canadian border to Point Reyes in Northern California. (I quickly add that the boundaries are negotiable, and Ernest Callenbach’s “Ecotopia” may or may not provide a guidance.)

I confess I have given thought to finding common ground with the Tea Party. Where does the party overlap with my own brand of populism?

Could some Tea Party-ers be peeled off into a broader populist movement? Is the Tea Party interested in this country actually being at peace? Have party members considered that our economy may be welded to war? What would America at perpetual peace with the world actually look like?

Imagine!

Are folks in the Tea Party interested in cutting the bloated military budget? Talk about deficit reduction!

Would any of them be interested in putting a lid on obscene CEO salaries via the "T" word? Do they think it is good for political and economic power to be in the hands of the certifiably greedy?

Do they really want to eliminate the estate tax?

Are all taxes bad? (There's a "wedge" question!)

Are any in the Tea Party beginning to suspect that they are being used by the rich to further the cause of gross inequity? Have they considered that issues such as abortion might resolve themselves in a society committed to employment opportunity, excellent education and health care?

Where are they on corporations exporting jobs abroad? Where are they with corporations that evade taxes and the laws that allow them to do so?

How comfortable are they with the corporate control of the Republican Party and its agenda? Likewise the Democratic Party? Could the same "wizard" be behind the curtain of both parties?

Do they feel the need for profound changes in our constitution in order to establish a truly democratic nation?

Do they really agree with the faith-based agenda of social conservatives?

Where are they on Gay rights? On human rights?

Do they believe in supporting human rights abroad? Do the believe we should end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Do they realize that the dependence compromises our support for human rights?

Where is the Tea Party on spending billions to support the militaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel — to say nothing of Iraq and Afghanistan? How about trade with thug-run China and Russia?

You get the picture.

Populists and Tea Party members need to talk.

Not yell, but talk — and listen.

If that means joining the Tea Party, however briefly, it might well be worth the time.

One thing is for sure: we are getting nowhere fast in the Democratic Party. And my suspicion is that a lot of folks in the Tea Party are thinking the same way about the Republican Party.

The more we realize the present two-party political system is rigged to favor the rich and powerful few, the more energetic, strategic disaffection will increase.

Jumping before it's too late

We’ve seen riots and demonstrations by students in Britain and in France but why not here?

Could we have an example of an American frog being slowly cooked in a pot whose water is gradually getting hotter?

You know the story. If the frog is thrown into boiling water, it jumps out. That’s what’s happening in Europe where there’s been a sudden shock of severe government austerity measures.

But in this country, the socio-economic water temperature has been rising ever so slowly for years. The increases in tuition have risen steadily for 25 years but have relentlessly far outpaced inflation. Likewise health care costs.

Likewise the slow but steady growth in the gap between rich and poor. Likewise consumer debt. Likewise the stagnation in the middle class. Likewise the decline in our schools. Our federal deficit as been building and growing for more than a decade.

The other reason young American frogs aren’t jumping around in anger is that they enthusiastically elected a president perceived to be a cool, rational progressive. The Obama presidency is not seen as “hot” waters, unlike the two terms of Bush/Cheney.

If there was an American jolt, it happened nine years ago on 9/11. After that, everything else was part of a national, irrational response. Talk about jumping around!

Because America has no draft, young Americans, particularly college students, took little or no action. Sure there were marches and demonstrations but with time that energy was defused and re-directed into politics (“The Politics of Hope” "Change We can Believe in!") and away from the streets.

As unemployment grows, the jobless have reason to be grateful for war. The military is this nation’s employer of last resort. Seen in this way, war is a our “healthiest” economic sector. And the military-industrial-financial-media ruling class is thriving while young, formerly unemployed Americans are “working” — and dying — far, far away.

The Obama administration simply transferred war from one dysfunctional nation to another. Opposition to the war in Afghanistan has been softened by the president’s very public hand wringing and media-staged, patriotic speeches to the hapless troops.

If there’s been a visible, angry reaction in this country, it has been that of the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been suffering from sudden stove-top heat (unemployment, foreclosures, mounting debt) of the last three years, but they jumped into the hands of a pseudo-movement cynically financed by the very forces causing the anguish.

In short, the Tea Party-goers were duped, as they are now finding out. Did the Tea Party faithful really want to extend the tax cuts for the rich? Did they really want to help out the Wall Street flimflam artists who made this mess, reaped billions from it and then plowed a share of their winnings into the Fall’s Congressional campaigns — and the Tea Party?

Did the Tea Party followers really want to end unemployment benefits? Did they really want to drive up federal deficits?

With less than two years to the presidential election, my guess is that the energy that might otherwise show up in the streets will be siphoned into various political campaigns. The corporate media are already shaping the “horse race.” The political windbags and pundits are already grooming candidates. Soon they will be slowly paraded from the paddocks to the starting gates.

You can be sure bets are being placed.

Expect left and right wing “extremist” candidates to tap into rising, but well-contained political energy. Also expect the primaries to result in “extremist” presidential candidates’ losing to “stay the course” middle-of-the-roaders, presented as cool, rational, “trust us” leaders.

Read: Obama, Bloomberg and Romney.

Congress, on the other hand, will continue to be a countervailing, unmanageable zoo of conflicting, implacable, hard-line interests. But that’s another story.

As for the frogs in the pot, us, the heat — literal heat, if you consider global warming — will slowly, ever so slowly, continue to rise. Will we jump before it's too late? And where, exactly, where we land?

The "ands," "buts" and "becauses" of politics

The front page of today’s New York Times carries a 19-word caption that says volumes about our values and our civic life.

The caption runs under a photo of Meg Whitman, the multi-millionaire former corporate executive who is running for governor of California. She is exhorting a crowd of rural supporters.

Here’s the caption:

“Meg Whitman, in Spreckels, Calif., on Thursday, has spent $141 million on her campaign, but is still viewed unfavorably.”

The word that jumps out off the page is “but.”

Why not “and” (and delete the “still”)?

“Meg Whitman, in Spreckels, Calif., on Thursday, has spent $141 million on her campaign, AND is viewed unfavorably.”

Or better yet, why not, “BECAUSE Meg Whitman, shown here in Spreckels, Calif. Thursday, has spent $141 million on her campaign, she is still viewed unfavorably”?

The story under the photo notes that the $141 million was Whitman’s own money.

And therein, reports the Times, is part of Ms. Whitman’s problem. As a CEO of eBay, she amassed millions in bonuses and she is now using that largesse to buy public office.

Polls show that California voters are hardly celebrating her goodly fortune or her attempted electoral purchase. She’s expected to lose on Tuesday.

But that caption reflects political conventional wisdom: Whitman’s deep pocketbook would be expected to buy success at the polls.

This campaign surprises me because analysts have been quick to call the influential Tea Party movement “populist.” If it were truly populist, it would be running from the Meg Whitmans of the world as well as corporations (the ones who send jobs overseas, or hide profits off-shore from taxes — we make up the loss — or purveyed quickie mortgages that brought the economy to its knees.)

Ironically, these are the very interests powering the Tea Party and the anticipated Republican tsunami on Tuesday.

The good news, reported in this story, is that most voters in California seem to be “getting it.”

But why aren’t “populist” voters elsewhere? Could it be prejudice, fear of the unknown, impatience, amnesia (who, after all, made this mess?), ignorance or just plain scapegoating?

Or perhaps it’s all about frustration over a lack of real political choices. The Democrats are only marginally better on these issues than the Republicans. Both parties feed at the same money trough. Those executives whose compensation packages are in the stratosphere make out like bandits no matter which party is in power.

What we need is a real populist movement coupled with a real populist party that attacks inequity, injustice and militarism, whose soldier/victims are the poor, uneducated and unemployed.

Above all, a different kind of populism would tear down and reform a political system rigged by the privileged rich and a corporate Darwinian culture.

Beyond one-dimensional politics

Politics in this country consists of well-fingered beads strung along a thin, frayed thread.

It is a short thread indeed. It stretches mere inches from liberal-centrist to conservative. We aren’t even sure what those terms mean beyond slogans. Most slogans in this political season come from the Right. “Big” government, "tax cuts," and “nanny state” dominate a campaign notable for its lack of serious, civil and thoughtful debate.

There’s plenty of reason for voters to be frustrated and angry. I’m one of them, but my frustration and anger are over this campaign season's lack of substance and solutions.

I’m also frustrated that the extreme political Right has managed to capture the support of my fellow frustrated and angry Americans by using bogus bromides that will only make matters worse. How do you lower the deficit by cutting taxes and fighting costly wars?

And I’m frustrated with the liberal centrists for their failure to stand for anything beyond tinkering with "fiscal mechanisms" and throwing gobs of our money at banks and insurance companies.

Our narrow, one-dimensional way of viewing politics doesn’t allow us to even frame the problems, let alone find solutions.

Where, for instance, does global warming and destruction of the planet fit along the spectrum? The oil interests would like to tar climate change as a “liberal” issue, and so, with large infusions of oil money, it has become politicized — to the peril of us all.

What about inequity in everything from schools to health care to income. Why isn’t the Tea Party taking on inequity? Instead of attacking reforms, it should be calling for more of them. Could the answer be that the Tea Party is paid for by the self-serving rich with their private schools, their platinum health care plans, their gated third homes, and their grotesque compensation packages?

The Tea Party folks need to ask who the real beneficiaries will be if the Tea Party wins in November?

(Full disclosure: I'm hardly rich but I've benefited from a private school education. I've used that education and my experience to teach at community colleges and state universities.)

With a former community organizer in the White House you might expect some discussion about community. This country was once seen as a nation of vibrant barn-raising communities. But what does it mean to be a community in today's Wal-Mart world? If communities really exist, how can they solve their own problems?

What about corporate control of communication? Is the control of media by corporations destructive of our society and its values? Have media brainwashed us into our narrow, dumbed-down thinking — political and otherwise? And I'm not just talking about FOX News.

The answers are clearly yes. but what can be done about it?

We need to get down to non-partisan basics.

Let's ask what would it take to make people in this country truly free. Free of poverty, free of ignorance, free from prejudice, free of war, free of debt, free of homelessness? What would it take to make this truly a land of equal opportunity?

Does government have a role in achieving these ends? If so, what should it be? And at what cost — to freedom and to our pocket books?

In this frenzied election season of frustration and anger, I haven’t heard a single political voice that is fresh and independent, that addresses my own frustration and anger. I haven't heard a single voice that poses basic questions offers innovative answers to the colossal problems we face.