If You Are a Traditional Republican You Should Be a Democrat Today

Some may disagree but I think that most historians would say that the American experiment in democracy was a liberal experiment. The early American leaders were heavily influenced by ideas of unalienable right of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, due process in law, equality under the law, and the like. These were ideas gleaned from 18^th century thinkers mainly of the Scottish Enlightenment such as David Hume, Adam Smith along with John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and others.

In America this grew to include graduated income taxes that tax the wealthier more than the poor, welfare programs to aid the poor, major government spending on education, job-retraining of the unemployed, equal opportunity and expanded civil liberties.

Along side this in our country conservatives had strong beliefs in tradition (particular Christian religion traditions), traditional ideas of families, opposition to gay rights and abortion, favoring lower taxes, support of states rights, and a strong military and aggressive foreign policy. You can add to this believe in a small government, limited regulations, school prayer, capital punishment and the like.

When the country was small, little government was needed and free enterprise worked well as communities were smaller and a lot of self-regulation took place.

In the 19^th century and a few large companies began to flex their muscle we found violent changes taking place in the economy with most of the income going towards the power brokers; about the same amounts as we have today. That ended with the stock market crash.

Folk on both sides of the political aisle found Keynesian economics (supply side economics) helped them out of a yo-yo economic by putting government policies and regulatory agencies into place. Monopolies were broken for a more fair play in the market and government spending (and debt) spurred growth in the economy and the American Dream seemed viable to almost all Americans.

In the North you had more Democrats than Republicans with the Democrats base in education and unions. Republicans then as now were supported by business. The South was primarily Democratic but with significant conservative beliefs – Dixie-Crats. The moderates of the South and the North made for Democratically dominated congresses but they reflected diverse and similar values.

Then beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan the parties began to become more separated and combative. Reagan still reflected some Keynesian beliefs along with most of congress but supply side economics began to take hold. Lower taxes for the wealthy, and deregulation began to emerge and the to dominate but there were enough moderates to keep healthy debate alive.

As I mentioned in an earlier piece the civil right movement and policies taken during the Lyndon Johnson administration alienated the Southern Democrats, which began to align themselves with their ideological cousins in the north. And, Republicans became better organized politically than the Democrats giving them congressional power.

I am currently reading Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. It is a major read but I believe gives a lot of clarity to the political situation we find ourselves in today. A situation where a large portion of the country does not clearly understand as they did not have the experiential history of the years when we were not so politically polarized and did not have winner take all politics and all that goes with it.

Hacker and Pierson see this form of politics generally taking place in the 1990’s, when radical conservatism began to dominant national discussion. It is essentially the George W. Bush years yet I don’t think he is the one we should focus upon as I believe he just got caught up in the flow but was not a major architect of this style of politics.

I think we have to look at the South, perhaps in particular Texas (but not only Texas) to find the origins of this movement. The movers and shakers seem to be Tom DeLay “The Hammer” and “born again Christian who became the Rep. House Majority Leader in 2003-2005; Newt Gingrich who was Rep. Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999 known for his “Contract with America” (one also might want to recall the Jack Abram scandal of this era); Dick Armey, Rep. House Majority Leader 1995 – 2003 known as an engineer of the “Republican Revolution”; Mitch McConnell Rep. Minority Leader of the Senate 2007 – now; Trent Lott, Rep Senate Majority Leader 2001 Jan – June; Bill First, Senate Majority Leader 2003-2007. Add to these Bob Dole from the Mid-West, Senate Majority Leader 1995-1996; and John McCain of the West.

To get a feel for the new Winner-Take-All agenda look at the platform of the Texas GOP Platform of 2000 which included: a return to the gold standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, eradicating minimum wage and social security (the later over time), repeal of the 16^th amendment (taxes) and the elimination of the IRS. Major players here include George Bush, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, and Phil Gramm.

Now comes along the Religious Right with newfound political clout with interests in tax support of private schools (after desegregation), no to abortion etc. Jerry Farwell was happy with his Moral Majority, which got lots of press in little impact, and Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition, which rated politicians voting records according to their agenda. They boosted the Republican ranks with more intolerant positions.

Bit the big players here come from the business world. Small business had difficulties with regulations that were mere irritants to big business. The National Federation of Independent Businesses had 600,000 members at its peak. Also the Chamber of Commerce became more radicalized particularly against the Clinton Health Plan. [e.d. I never understood this as it was in business self interest to have a single payer plan that would save them money.]

That’s a lot of stuff and I’m not half way through their book. But what does seem clear to me is that the entire country has made a major shift to the left, Republicans and Democrats and the Winner-Take-All mentality is real and destructive to the country and to debate.

The Democratic Party has contributed to this mess as well. The Democrats have climbed into bed with big business, Wall Street and the Banking community to get the dollars to get elected and helped continue deregulation to the benefit of business at the expense to the people.

Government is supposed to be of the people and for the people. The Winner-Take-All mentality has a total disregard for this major democratic principle.

When we will be able to elect political representatives that represent the people not special interests?

I’ll keep on reading as see what these fellas have to say.

Oh yes, back to the title. I am convinced that if you follow the trends in both parties you will find that the traditional Republican values of the 50's and 60's are far better represented by the Democratic Party today than the Republican Winner-Take-All party. But you have to understand the history and the ideology then and now.

As for the old Democrats or Progressives like myself; we are a lonely lot, with the wild idea that all of us should be winners and non of us losers in the republic.

I Stand/Sit for Regulated Toilet Seats

At a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Ted Cruz says the federal government thinks it has “authority to regulate our toilet seats.”  PolitiFact says he is right.

Well, I for one want to go on record as favoring regulated toilet seats. Who in the right mind would want a bunch of unregulated toilet seats running amok in the nations bathrooms doing untold damage to our nations behinds? Stop such atrocities now! If you think waterboarding was bad, think about an out of control toilet seat. It makes my heart flush just to things of such unbridled madness.

Lamont, excuse me, Shadow agreed as he just strolled in front of monitor. He is a very smart cat though he prefers litter boxes himself, he does have human standard ideals.

Now I would not go as far as Cruz in saying this is a significant reason why we have $16.5 trillion in debts. But for the sake of future generations gluteus maximi I maintain this is a worthwhile cost for a civilized nation. If light blubs can be regulated, and they should, certainly toilet seats should be regulated.

In spite of the great horseshoe toilet seat scandal of the 1970s I stand my ground, or rather sit above it in safety. For the sake of historical accuracy one should note that the shape of toilet seats has not been regulated since the 1980’s. We’re not extremists here.

 

If it is good for the French (this model), it's good enoughtfor us.

If the 10^th amendment stands against regulated toilets seats then in should be struck down in the name of common decency. May all those unregulated toilets seats rise up and smack Cruz on his unregulated ass.

What’s next unregulated toothbrushes or hand soap and heaven know what?

Addendum, if Paul Ryan's budget passes perhaps only the rich will be able to afford toilets, let alone seats anyway.

The Shadow Knows

Some feral cats, a mother cat and three kittens, started appearing around our house last summer. Cute little buggers. The mother cat apparently tried to outrace a passing motorist and lost, then there were just the wee cats.

Mistake number one, my wife started feeding them. Mistake two, she named them: the solid black male Shadow, the two females with a bit of calico on an eye, Patch,  and the one with calico on the paw, Paw. This started with dry food. Then this escalated to nice moist canned food in the evening.

And then it got colder. So we bought a heated watering bowl. I took a tote, cut a hole in it and made a rug gate and put a heating pad on its bottom so they could stay warm. I further covered the patio table with plastic and put blankets for a larger warm spot.

Then evil struck with the event first of a possum who decided the tent and food was his. He was successfully scared off. Then came in succession two huge other feral cats the size of saber-toothed tigers that frightened our (oops they were called our cats) wee cats.

As a result I scooped up the endangered felines and deposited them in my office, which is a building separate from our house complete with a fireplace, a small shop and multiple computers and hundreds of books and many hiding spots.

Now came daily feedings, petting, playing, cat toys, catnip and scratching pads and the like. Shadow particularly likes to walk in front of the monitor while I write my blogs. He particularly likes the mouse pointer jumping around the screen.

Our cat companions continued to grow and so we cleaned their ears with ear cleaning goop, two types. We rid them of fleas, wormed them, thanks the supplies given to us by our granddaughter the vet. Then we took them to the Humane Society to have them neutered and given their shots. They clip feral cats ears to mark them as such or they can charge you much more if they do not clip their ears. Guess which we opted for? Yep, the ears are unclipped. We brought them home in their drunken anesthetic state (different anesthesia is used if they are not feral cats.) All seemed to return to normal as they began their recovery.

Then they disappeared! Cats are good at hiding in my office, which is officially known as the Schackteau, but we knew them all, and looked and looked and they were not to be found. We contacted hopeful witnesses, and we became very sad expecting that cat-nappers had had their way with our feline friends. We suspected that perhaps they their hair had been dyed and were being masqueraded and friendly skunks. Or, maybe they had been sold into cat slavery while cat pervert took advantage of them. Many dire scenarios came to mind. All seemed lost.

Then one morning while at the computer I looked up and there was Shadow (who real name or secret identity as some may know is Lamont Cranston.) It turned out the Shadow/Lamont had found an opening in a setout we had made for better insulate a decaying brick foundation, which was filled with insulation. Out of the corner of my eye I had seen a flutter of movement where he had emerged. A flashlight revealed four more eyes peering at me from the deep recesses of this ingenious hiding place. Eventually all came out and I sealed this escape passage. Shadow/Lamont, who had been squeezed by too much hugging upon his emergence by the lady of the house and myself, remained aloof for a bit but is now sitting in front of the computers screen as I type.

To lighten up from the political and religious scene you may find a few cat stories creep in here. I believe they have secret lives I am determined to discover.

Our intent is to find good homes for these adventuresome feline felons who are completely tame by now and insist on frequent petting and attention. This would be more in keeping with our vagabond ways, but is getting more difficult with each passing day.

Lobbyists Get Sneaky (Sneakier)

According to a report released by the Center for Responsive Politics we have less lobbyists in Washington and they are spending less money.

Some believe that this is because of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was passed in 2007, to make lobbying more transparent.

And so it looks according to this chart

Don’t believe it. According to the law anybody who spends over 20% of their time lobbying has to register as a lobbyist. But who is to say how much time they spend lobbying? Lobbyists ~ those sneaky folk who try to manipulate the government to do what their employers what them to do.

Conclusion: Lobbyists just are not reporting themselves as lobbyists as much or the amount of money they are paid for lobbying. Here we have just another example of the ethics of expediency.

Funny that this happened about the time the Supreme Court’s Citizens’ United decision. So, corporations just give their money to super PAC and 501©(4)s instead.

Hey Big Spender, Spend a Little Time with Me

This chart from Forbes magazine, a battalion of conservative values says volumes.

One thing all new presidents have to deal with in their first year in office of the spending practices of the previous president and that was certainly true for President Obama and the attacks on his spending to begin he presidency. But taking a longer look changes things significantly.

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

·       In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

·        In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

·       In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

·       Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Rich Ungar who wrote the article with this information for Forbes notes that conservatives may want to credit the GOP especially the Republican House of Representatives for these reductions. Fine, but Ungar points out that you can’t have it both ways.

Nevertheless Obama has the smallest spending record since Eisenhower.

Now I have often gone back to the Presidency of Ronald Reagan as the beginning of the financial inequality we have in this land, which I believe is true. He made promises that could not possibly work but sold them to the public and then spent like crazy and began this whole trickle down economy that has messed us up ever since. Couple that with the ill-advised Iraq war under Bush basically paid for by borrowing, accounts for our huge deficits for which Obama gets the blame; or as Ungar says, you can’t have it both ways.

But there are other factors also at play over the last 3 plus decades. First, Lyndon Johnson pushed through a lot of important civil right legislation, which was of great benefit for the country and especially minorities. But he knew that it would weaken the Democratic Party, which relied on the South for majorities in congress that Democrats had enjoyed for some time.

Coupled with that the Democratic Party didn’t have a clue as to how to organize against Reagan. Reagan may be called the great communicator but I could never see why unless you buy into simplistic answers for complex issues, which folk are prone to do. But I think what really happened to change things was William Brock who in essence remade the Republican Party. He did what Republicans do, raised money, he just did it better, with mass mailings thus he was able to outspend Mondale and other Democrats by a huge margin. Plus the unions, big money backers for Democrats historically were losing power and numbers and money so corporate America could outspend them two or three to one. Also Republicans contributed to a central fund where they could back specific candidates to gain control of important and vulnerable congressional seats and the same was true for state campaigns. On the other hand for Democrats it was each candidate for himself, with some candidates ending up with surpluses and others with debt. In fact, Democrats as a whole could not raise enough money to compete and so they borrowed leaving huge debts that had to be paid before the next campaign. Bad policy. Charles Manatt was the chair of the Democratic Party from 1981 to 1985; he didn’t do well nor his successor Paul Kirk.

Despite majority of party members in the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party, they were out organized and defeated. Plus there were a lot of moderate Republicans in those days. Better funded campaigns could get the independent swing votes and thus victories in the congress Republicans continue to enjoy.

Things have changed somewhat. Obama did the Internet fund raising and beat the Republicans at their own game in fund raising. But now the Republican Party has become so extremely and inflexibly conservative it is difficult for anything to be done in congress – gridlock.

In my opinion even though Democrats have more popular support the Republicans have a bigger political war chest and better overall strategy for working on key elections. If the 99% find a voice and a better organization then the game will change significantly but right now the cards are stacked against it.

The figures at the beginning of this article are illuminating but the conservatives make them sound the opposite of what they are very successfully.

As P.T. Barnum (actually David Hannum) said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.