Dream Log: Power

I dreamed I was in a huge enclosed space, so big that thousands of us were in there without feeling crowded. Most or all of the floor was carpeted. In the center of the space various sorts of fancy coffee were constantly brewed and dispensed. There were plenty of comfortable chairs and sofas and coffee tables. 

I and thousands like me roamed the space, men and women all dressed like executives: Presidents, Premieres, legislators, judges, lobbyists, chairpeople of boards, analysts, pollsters, strategists, financiers, entrepreneurs, party leaders, journalists, fixers, negotiators, some us having moved through several of those categories. We moved through this large indoor space making deals, breaking promises, forming coalitions, wheeling, dealing, moving, shaking. I had the impression that we were all pros, that no-one was there because he or she was born rich or became famous in something other than politics.

But I also wondered to what extent we might be fooling ourselves. Kings and queens have been known to believe that everything is just as it should be and every position deserved. There was no clearly-established career path I could see from truck driver, for example, to here.

I might have been tempted, in earlier eras, to call this place a "smoke-filled room," except I didn't notice anyone smoking. On the other hand, many of us seemed to have serious caffeine habits.

I made deals, strategized, huddled, sized others up and they sized me up. This was fighting with all but the physical violence. Some of the people in this room would no longer look at me or shake my hand. I assumed this was temporary in some cases, but not all. Trust was an asset in here, as much as political office and money. It was unwise to squander any of them. Or so it seemed to me at least. 

We struggled with each other, made alliances, shifted alliances, with the fates of corporations, markets, nations, the fates of many, many people at stake. Some of us world-famous, others always to be unknown to those many people whose lives we affected. Some of us, young and old, amazingly idealistic. Others amazingly cynical and heartless. Young and old.

On the perimeter of the space were doors with lighted signs above them: "EXIT" in orange letters. Now and then someone would come or go through ones of these doors. I had no idea where we were: Manhattan? London? The Central Asian steppe? I didn't know, and it really didn't matter to me. We were connected to the whole world.

And then I woke up.

 Buy The Power Broker by Robert A Caro at Amazon: https://amzn.to/3PiSCyJ

EV's and Politics

Some of the most prominent EV vloggers on YouTube say repeatedly that they want to avoid political statements, that their videos about EV's are unpolitical. One, who calls himself Electric Vehicle Man, which is also the name of his excellent YouTube channel, which has lots of EV road tests and lots of debunking of negative misconceptions about EV's, also says that he is sometimes accused of being an eco warrior, an accusation which he says is inaccurate.

 

Eco warrior? I was unfamiliar with the term before hearing Electric Vehicle Man repeatedly insist that he is not one. I googled what is an eco warrior, and the first definition I saw was "a person actively involved in preventing damage to the environment." Which Electric Vehicle Man certainly is. In fact, when he says I'm not an eco warrior, he usually goes on to say, Yes, I promote electric vehicles, and I choose electricity from my utility which comes from wind and solar, and I do other things to help the environment. So apparently different people define the term differently. Maybe Electric Vehicle Man thinks that you need to actually chain yourself to a tree, or live in a tree for a month or longer, or be very strictly vegan, or even all three, or even more, in order to be accurately called an eco warrior. Maybe he has already precisely defined what he understands the term to mean and why it doesn't apply to him in his opinion. One of the good things about his You Tube channel is the large amount of precise and detailed information he provides.

Electric Vehicle Man and I definitely define the term "politics" differently. As I said, many people who make a living -- or in some cases just a supplementary second income -- promoting electric vehicles on You Tube insist that their advocacy of EV's has nothing to do with politics. How can they say that? They're constantly mentioning how the prices of EV's include government rebates worth thousands of dollars or Euros or British pounds per vehicle, rebates which are much larger in certain places than others. And they know that politicians determine the size of those rebates, and that different political parties want the rebates to get get bigger or smaller. They constantly report on factories being built which will manufacture EV's, and the involvement of governments in making the construction of these factories easier or more difficult.

Electric Vehicle Man frequently mentions that using public transportation is even better for the environment than driving an EV, and that where he lives, in his part of Yorkshire in the UK, there is very little public transportation, and also very little public charging infrastructure for EV's. Oh, and he also mentioned, when he drove an EV up through Scotland for his video channel, that Scotland not only has a lot of public EV charging infrastructure, but also THAT EV CHARGING IS FREE FOR EVERYONE IN SCOTLAND. (Which is almost 100% true: sometimes there's a small parking fee for those Scottish chargers, sometimes not. Other than that -- FREE!!!)

I tend to think that everything is political. But leaving aside this opinion of mine for the moment, it seems particularly obvious to me that the poor state of public transportation in Yorkshire, about which Electric Vehicle Man complains, is a political issue. They even put the word "public" in public transportation to make it even easier to see how it's political. Does Electric Vehicle Man really not understand that if he and his neighbors there in his part of Yorkshire became more involved in political parties and were more active in promoting and criticizing the agendas of political parties, one benefit of that is that they might get much better public transportation? Among many, many other very good things?

Does Electric Vehicle Man really not grasp that? Really? REALLY???

Some say that if you don't at least vote, you have no right to complain about anything the state does. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do think it's self-contradictory to complain about government while not doing a thing to participate in it. And strange and quite sad.

By the way, I also think it's rather cheesy of Electric Vehicle Man to call himself Electric Vehicle Man while he not only currently owns an ICE vehicle in addition to an EV, but also intends to buy other ICE vehicles in the future. (Perhaps in large part because of the public transportation situation in his area about which he's always complaining, without seeming to DO much about it?) I think he's doing a lot of good by promoting EV's, but I think there are others who deserve that superhero title a lot more than he does, because they're a lot more committed to the cause. For example, the guy who hosts the YouTube vlog News Coulomb. It seems very clear to me that no-one is perfect, but calling yourself Electric Vehicle Man does definitely imply a level of purity. Calling yourself that and not only owning ICE vehicles, but intending to own more ICE vehicles in the future, is misleading at the very best.

Perhaps complaining about such things makes me an eco warrior in Electric Vehicle Man's eyes. And maybe that means that I and everyone like me is completely unbearable to him. Or perhaps it just means that a few things I do annoy him somewhat, without him thinking I'm a horrible person in general. Which would make the two of us about even.

Will Bernie Help Biden?

I would've much preferred Bernie Sanders to Joe Biden, as the Democratic nominee for President. But still, I would much prefer Biden to Trump as President. Now that it's gonna be Joe, is Bernie going to help out?

It's something which (eww!) politicians do, something known as (ewwwww!!!) politics: give and take. Give something to somebody, even if it's someone you really dislike, in order to get something. To save the situation from being a total loss. To help the possibility that later on, you'll get that something, the something you wanted but couldn't get right now.

I don't know what Bernie will do. I have no idea what goes on in his mind. But right now, he wields a lot of power, and he could use it to help someone he has a lot disagreements with, Biden, in order to help Biden beat someone who is much, much worse: Trump. Remember President Trump?

In 2016, Bernie wielded a lot of power after he had lost the nomination, and in my opinion he didn't do everything he could have done with that power, in order to beat Trump -- but right now 2016 and how well Bernie used his power and my opinion of what he did, none of that matters. Right now, what matters is Trump vs Biden in November. And Bernie can do a lot about that. Many of Bernie's supporters say they don't see any difference between Trump and Biden. Bernie could do a lot to explain the differences to them. If he wants to. If he sees the differences. Like I said, I have no idea how Bernie's mind works. He's a strange case to me: a politician who has spent nearly his entire career not engaging in politics, holding himself disdainfully above all of the compromises and horse-trading.

This would be a particularly bad time for him to keep holding himself above it all, instead of getting his hands dirty, helping something to happen which he no doubt sees as bad -- a Biden Presidency -- in order to prevent something which would be much worse: a 2nd term of Trump. I hope so much that he gets down into the dirt and fights, that he acts like a politician at last. The whole world needs all the help it can get right now, removing Trump from office. And that's not going to be done with idealism. It's going to be done if a whole lot of us hold our noses and vote for someone we despise, in order to stop someone else who is much, much worse. That's politics. There's nothing pure about it, never has been.

Great Caesar's Ghost

I began to feel a little bit of polylinguistic sophistication when I discovered -- don't ask me when. I'm terrible when it comes to remembering when various events of my life happened. It could have been 20 years ago, it could have been 30 -- not only that "Kaiser" was the German word for "Caesar," but that the Germans, although spelling it differently, were pronouncing the name correctly, while we Anglophones, with very few eccentric exceptions, were not. It was around the same time that I learned that both the Greek Byzantine Emperors, from the 4th century until 1453, and the German Holy Roman Emperors from 800 to 1806 called themselves Caesar, as did the Austrian Emperors from 1804 to 1919, and the German Emperors -- often the only ones meant by English-speakers when they say "Kaiser" -- from 1871 to 1918.

Some time after this discovery -- do not ask me how long after -- I learned that "Tsar" was Russian for "Caesar." Still later, I learned that the rulers of Bulgaria called themselves Tsars from the 10th to the 14th century, and then again in the 20th century, and that the last reigning Tsar of Bulgaria, 80-year-old Tsar Simeon II, who ruled as a minor in the 1940's and was Bulgaria's Prime Minister from 2001 to 2005, has not yet formally renounced the title of Tsar.

After the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman Sultans included among their titles "Qaysar-i Rūm," "Caesar of Rome."

To be clear: all of those leaders, those of Byzantium, of the Holy Roman Empire, of medieval and 20th-century Bulgaria, of Imperial Russia, of the Ottoman Empire, and of the Austrian and German Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, called -- and in at least one case, call -- themselves Caesar, not because they thought the named sounded cool or anything like that, but because they, and probably others of whom I am still unaware, were quite seriously claiming to be the political heirs of Julius Caesar.

Why? In this case, as with most questions to do with politics, there are few logical reasons. Julius Caesar was the sole ruler of Rome for less than 5 years. Ah, but his actions as ruler were unique? Name one. We'll wait.

Caesar's successor, his actual heir Octavianus, who changed his named to Augustus, and added Caesar to his name, beginning a long-lasting custom, was the sole ruler of Rome for over 40 years, and ruled in a much more absolute manner than Caesar had. Caesar's predecessors Sulla and Pompey each ruled longer than he did.

I think the first first part of the reason for the lasting nature of the power of Caesar's name has not to do with his rule, not to do with his life at all, but with his death. He was stabbed to death in the Senate, by Senators. Assassinations don't get much more dramatic than that. Augustus used that drama, as he so skillfully used so many things and so many people, to increase his own power. Augustus, without a doubt, ended the Roman Republic and founded the Roman Empire. It has very often been remarked that Augustus ended the Republic while constantly insisting that he was upholding it, fooling no one from his time to our own while achieving tremendous feats of change. If political titles were distributed logically, then thousands of years' worth of monarchs would have been known as Augustus -- and it's true that many of the Caesars were also called Augustus, but, with a lack of egotism quite rare among emperors, Augustus saw to it that Caesar's name was going to remain the most prominent.

Why? perhaps because, with an even greater lack of ego, Augustus saw that Caesar had been charismatic, and that he himself was not. This gave him the opportunity to enhance his own power by glorifying someone else. How many great politicians have ever been able to choose between power and glory? That choice is more one for a monk than for a politician.

But I'm just guessing, just as one has to guess whether Augustus foresaw the pax romana and valued an end to civil war over his power. Just as one has to guess so often about his motives.

There was a sphinx on Augustus' signet ring and in official portraits of him. Was this to commemorate his victory over Cleopatra? Yeah, maybe.

American Political Prose

"As the weakness and wants of man naturally lead to an association of individuals, under a common authority whereby each may have the protection of the whole against danger from without, and enjoy in safety within, the advantages of social intercourse, and an exchange of the necessaries & comforts of life: in like manner feeble communities, independent of each other, have resorted to a Union, less intimate, but with common Councils, for the common safety against powerful neighbors, and for the preservation of justice and peace among themselves. Ancient history furnishes examples of these confederal associations, tho' with a very imperfect account, of their structure, and of the attributes and functions of the presiding Authority. There are examples of modern date also, some of them still existing, the modifications and transactions of which are sufficiently known." -- James Madison

"Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many fine specimens of eloquence do, of types and figures -- of antithesis, and elegant arrangement of words and sentences; but rather of that deeply earnest and impassioned tone, and manner, which can proceed only from great sincerity and a thorough conviction, in the speaker of the justice and importance of his cause. This it is, that truly touches the chords of sympathy; and those who heard Mr. Clay never failed to be moved by it, or ever afterwards, forgot the impression. All his efforts were made for practical effect. He never spoke merely to be heard. He never delivered a Fourth of July oration, or an eulogy on an occasion like this. As a politician or statesman, no one was so habitually careful to avoid all sectional ground. Whatever he did, he did for the whole country. In the construction of his measures he ever carefully surveyed every part of the field, and duly weighed every conflicting interest. Feeling, as he did, and as the truth surely is, that the world's best hope depended on the continued Union of these States, he was ever jealous of, and watchful for, whatever might have the slightest tendency to separate them.

"Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first to last, was a deep devotion to the cause of human liberty -- a strong sympathy with the oppressed everywhere, and an ardent wish for their elevation. With him, this was a primary and all controlling passion. Subsidiary to this was the conduct of his whole life. He loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity and glory, because he saw in such, the advancement, prosperity and glory, of human liberty, human right and human nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen partly because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that freemen could be prosperous.

"That his views and measures were always the wisest, needs not to be affirmed; nor should it be, on this occasion, where so many, thinking differently, join in doing honor to his memory. A free people, in times of peace and quiet -- when pressed by no common danger -- naturally divide into parties. At such times the man who is of neither party, is not -- cannot be, of any consequence. Mr. Clay, therefore, was of a party. Taking a prominent part, as he did, in all the great political questions of his country for the last half century, the wisdom of his course on many, is doubted and denied by a large portion of his countrymen; and of such it is not now proper to speak particularly. But there are many others, about his course upon which, there is little or no disagreement amongst intelligent and patriotic Americans. Of these last are the War of 1812, the Missouri question, Nullification, and the now recent compromise measures. In 1812 Mr. Clay, though not unknown, was still a young man. Whether we should go to war with Great Britain, being the question of the day, a minority opposed the declaration of war by Congress, while the majority, though apparently inclining to war, had, for years, wavered, and hesitated to act decisively. Meanwhile British aggressions multiplied, and grew more daring and aggravated. By Mr. Clay, more than any other man, the struggle was brought to a decision in Congress. The question, being now fully before congress, came up, in a variety of ways, in rapid succession, on most of which occasions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all the logic, of which the subject was susceptible, that noble inspiration, which came to him as it came to no other, he aroused, and nerved, and inspired his friends, and confounded and bore-down all opposition. Several of his speeches, on these occasions, were reported, and are still extant; but the best of these all never was. During its delivery the reporters forgot their vocations, dropped their pens, and sat enchanted from near the beginning to quite the close. The speech now lives only in the memory of a few old men; and the enthusiasm with which they cherish their recollection of it is absolutely astonishing. The precise language of this speech we shall never know; but we do know -- we cannot help knowing -- that, with deep pathos, it pleaded the cause of the injured sailor -- that it invoked the genius of the revolution -- that it apostrophised the names of Otis, of Henry and of Washington -- that it appealed to the interest, the pride, the honor and the glory of the nation -- that it shamed and taunted the timidity of friends -- that it scorned, and scouted, and withered the temerity of domestic foes -- that it bearded and defied the British Lion -- and rising, and swelling, and maddening in its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge, the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious victory, all passed in vivid review before the entranced hearers." -- Abraham Lincoln

"A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

"Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

"A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." -- Barack Obama

"Obama is, without question, the WORST EVER president. I predict he will now do something really bad and totally stupid to show manhood! [...] I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke. [...] Everyone knows I am right that Robert Pattinson should dump Kristen Stewart. In a couple of years, he will thank me. Be smart, Robert. [...] Wind turbines are ripping your country apart and killing tourism.Electric bills in Scotland are skyrocketing-stop the madness [...] Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! [...] Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus????? ...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!" -- Donald Trump

Sexual Assault and Power

Women have come forward alleging that political journalist Mark Halperin sexually harassed and assaulted them.

It has been said many times that sexual harassment has more to do with power than with sexuality. Our Pussy Grabber-in-Chief has claimed, "When you're a star, they let you do it." Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly and Harvey Weinstein all used the control they wielded over women's careers to help them get away with all sorts of disgusting behavior. And that it has been considered disgusting rather than criminal, that they may have lost their jobs over it but not yet gone to jail -- that may have a lot to do with these men's power too.

And now Mark Halperin faces a dozen or more accusers. Halperin was not only a boss with power over female employees, power which he abused, he also seems particularly obsessed with the topic of power, and with having his own power acknowledged. Back in 2002, he started publishing The Note, a daily column which, although it has always been publicly posted on the ABC News website, seemed to be written by Halprin in a way which was intentionally difficult for non-"insiders" to understand. (Halperin has sinced moved on from ABC, but The Note remains there, written much less cryptically by others.) Halperin addressed The Note to the people he called the Gang of 500: the 500 most powerful people in Washington (according to Halprin). Mary Matalin has called Halperin "the insider's insider's insider." And his case makes me ask myself: what is power?

It seems to me that the power of individual people is a subjective thing. The more power people think you have -- the more power you have. To some extent, that is. You may be considered a powerful person by some, and not by others. I'm not a particularly big fan of John Prine, but one line in his song "That's The Way That The World Goes 'Round" has really stuck with me and given me food for thought, for decades. It's about a fellow whom Prine clearly dislikes quite a deal. Prine sings:

"He thinks he owns half of this town"

Back in the early 80's, that one line in a song I haven't felt the need to hear again told me that things like power are not as clear-cut as they seem to some people.

For one thing: is being a powerful player in Washington politics anything to be proud of, at the moment? Are the Gang of 500, including people designated by Halperin as SPIP (the smartest person in politics) and SSPIP (the 2nd-smartest person in politics) really worth all that much if all 500 of them together couldn't prevent the Trump Presidency? Is this the sort of thing which people who claim to be geniuses with vast influence want to take credit for?

For another thing: what is more powerful, being able to force yourself sexually on someone who doesn't want to be with you and get away with it, or having the ability to make someone want to be with you?

Does power make a man more attractive, as we so often hear from powerful men, or does it allow unattractive men to stay in denial about how unattractive they are, and in denial about certain powers which they have never had, powers which some other people have, who have been poor all their lives?

Do "insiders" really have the ability to accomplish amazing things? Or do they just have a mechanism to distract themselves from some deep inner insecurity, such as, for example, a fear that other people think they are anything but remarkable or amazing?

Think about Trump, Ailes, O'Reilley, Weinstein and Halperin. What have they done with their power? Do they and did they deserve it, is it and was it power well-spent? Of course not. Are we just going to let very similar monsters and mediocrities into the positions they vacate?

The Brightest Spotlight in the World

In a private conversation, Samuel Johnson said that politics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Surprisingly, the politician Johnson had in mind when he said this was Edmund Burke. James Boswell faithfully recorded the conversation, and published parts of it later, with Burke's name omitted, in his Life of Samuel Johnson. Johnson was very careful (this part of the conversation made it into Boswell's book) to say that he wasn't certain that this particular politician was a a scoundrel. But if he were a scoundrel, politics would afford him a refuge he did not deserve.

Johnson was notoriously hotheaded, he made all sorts of rash judgements which aren't generally accepted at face value, and I don't think we have good cause here to wonder whether Burke was a scoundrel. Even Johnson himself qualifies his damnation and says that maybe Burke is a scoundrel, as if he himself knows better than to say such a thing. I suspect that whatever Burke had done or Johnson suspected that he might have done to enrage Johnson, Johnson soon got over it or realized that he had only imagined the cause of his rage as having emanated from Burke.

And in any case, the great majority of the people who for two and a half centuries have heard and repeated the bonmot "Politics is the last refuge of a scoundrel" have never associated it with Burke, and just thought of it as a general warning about what politics can sometimes do when it is misused.

And it may have been a sound warning in the middle of the 18th century. But does it still hold weight today?

No, I really don't think so. I think it's much less true now than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 250. Media coverage of politicians has become so much more meticulous, and access to that coverage has become some much closer to universal, that politics today may be the last place where a clever scoundrel would run for cover.

Donald Trump has been a crooked, lying businessman for decades, that's what he's used to. As a businessman he didn't get away with all of his lies, but he got away with more of them because 1) people only did business with him when they chose to, unlike all of us having to deal with him being POTUS whether we like it or not; and 2) as a businessman he didn't have nearly as much media scrutiny. If you thought something he said was a lie, you couldn't just punch up a video of yesterday's board meeting to compare it to.

Who was it who first referred to the Presidency of the United States as "the brightest spotlight in the world"? Whoever it was, I don't think they were speaking during the Washington or John Adams or Jefferson administrations. Perhaps as recently as the Eisenhower administration, politics might have been a good place for a crooked businessman to run to after he had burned too many bridges in the private sector by burning to many customers and contractors and business partners. Perhaps.

Perhaps Donald Trump is so old-fashioned that he thought of politics as a good dark hole he could always scurry into when he wasn't getting with things any more with business as usual. Maybe he's so dumb that he scurried away to hide in the brightest spotlight in the world.

Be all of that as it may: the spotlight obviously isn't bright enough yet, or Trump never would've come near the Republican nomination, let alone the White House. Changing from the Electoral Collage to simple majority popular vote for POTUS would brighten things up a lot. And although my regular readers may be tired of me saying it over and over, let me say it again: proportional representation!

How To Get People To Stop Paying Attention To You And Shun You

The only thing wrong with that meme is that other vegans have been telling him the same thing and he always assumes they must be non-vegans because how could a vegan find fault with him? Him?!

JAMES: No-one who is not a vegan can call himself an environmentalist. (ACTUAL QUOTE!)

Class, what is going to be the effect of James' statement? Is it

A) More people will become vegans;

or

B) Fewer people will call themselves environmentalists?

That's right, it's

C) Fewer people will listen to James.

Which is a shame, because James was providing a lot of fascinating information about the food industry. And for all I know, James' information about the food industry may have been 100% correct. But James was wrong in his assumption about who is and isn't allowed to call him- or herself an environmentalist. And he's reinforcing the stereotype about vegans being judgmental douchebags.

I'm sure that if I dug through James' life I could find something which is less than environmentally-friendly. Instead, since I only have one life and I'm trying to use it efficiently, I'm blowing James off and moving on. It's not enough to be right in politics, and everything is political.

The Damage Isolationism Does

Back in the early 70's the Detroit carmakers were grinding out junk, crap on wheels: gigantic things with soft balloons for tires which guzzled gas and couldn't take corners much more nimbly than trains. Then there was the 1973 oil crisis, and much larger numbers of Americans bought Japanese and European cars because they used much less fuel, and the word finally got around to such an extent in the US that foreign cars were better, that the Detroit carmakers were forced to compete. At some point, Ford's official motto became "Quality is Job 1." That might still be their official motto for all I know. Before 1973, quality may have been Job 14 or so. Not that GM, Chrysler or AMC were any better in this respect. They were all able to get away with this because too few American car buyers knew enough about Japanese and European cars to know what they were missing. (In 1973 the Korean auto industry was still in its very early stages.)



How long will it take for word to get around in the US amongst people either agree with the stated goals of the Green Party or actually throw their votes away by voting Green that proportional representation in other countries means that the Greens and socialists and so forth actually take part in governing, that a vote for such parties is a real vote and not merely a protest? Because of proportional representation? How close to 100% will the total of Denmark's energy which is generated by wind, solar and other green technologies have to get before Americans become quite rightly envious of this aspect of Denmark and realize what chumps we've been to put up with oil companies and their mostly-Republican minions?

Or maybe the question is: what sort of a crisis will it take for enough Americans to look around and see what other countries are doing in terms of political representation and and green energy to make a difference in the way the US runs its government and generates its energy, the way it took the 1973 oil crisis for enough Americans to take a look at cars made outside the US to change the way American cars were made? I hope that's not the question.

Politics And Idealism

There's that great scene in Wall Street where Lou Mannheim (Hal Holbrook) tells Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) that money "makes you do what you don't want to do." One of two great scenes with Holbrook and Sheen.



Well, politics also makes you do what you don't want to do. Even more so than money. There's no way to get anything done in politics without behaving in an un-idealistic manner, without compromising, without doing something you find odious in order to achieve something you consider noble -- if, that is, you're the type of politician who cares at all about doing good for other people. It seems that politicians who are not that type can thrive. And you have to deal with them.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of politics, but as a criticism of idealism. It's correct that idealism is portrayed as the opposite of realism, because idealism avoids dealing with reality.

In Germany, where the Green Party started and where it wields great power, there have long been two factions known as the Realos and the Fundis. "Realos" translates to "realists," or to "realpolitikers," and "Fundis" to "fundamentalists," or "idealists." Joschka Fischer is the most successful Realo in the history of Germany's Green Party. He was one of the 3 most powerful politicians in Germany during Gerard Schroeder's administration, from 1998 to 2005, and he has often been #1 in polls of Germany's best-liked politicians. Who are some of the leading Fundis? Screw them, I'm not going to even do them the courtesy of naming them, because, like all political idealists, they're just morons who are in the way, who never help anyone but the other side. They accused Fischer of selling out for starting to wear suits and ties when he became Germany's Foreign Minister in 1998. Namby-pamby bullshit like that. They're in the way. Joschka Fischer, Realo, realist, real politician, an effective player who gets all sorts of things done, getting Greens into a state administration for the first time in 1998 being just one of a long list of things he's gotten done, Fischer realized that if he continued, as Foreign Minister, to wear the traditional Green uniform of jeans and sneakers, the way he dressed would impair his effectiveness as he met with the most powerful politicians on Earth and brought the Green agenda of environmentalism, gay rights, military de-escalation, etc, etc, with him. Fischer continued to kick ass, and didn't seem too bothered by the Fundis wailing that wearing Armani constituted selling out.

The Green Party has been able to achieve and hold positions of power, political elected offices, because Germany, like most countries, has proportional representation. An individual doesn't have to win a majority or plurality of votes in order to take office: Germans vote for parties, and if a party has more than 5% they're in. (Germany instituted the so-called "5% hurdle" after WWII to stop the proliferation of whacko fringe parties.)

Unfortunately for us Amurrkins, we in the US have winner-takes-all elections of individuals instead of proportional elections of parties, which means that there are no Green Realos in the US. The US Green Party has only hopeless fools, Fundis, idealists, morons who are in the way. A vote for Green in the US is a vote for the GOP, because only the GOP or the Democrats are going to win any election, and if you like Green politics you should vote for the Democrats because they're much closer to to your positions than the Republicans. Yes, some Democrats are going to do things and vote for bills which offend you. But Republicans are much worse, and you are responsible for them and their racist, sexist, anti-science, pro-oil politics just as much as any Democrat if you vote Green. If you voted Green in the US you gave up the real power of your vote in favor of idealism, which is a dream world. Greens in the US like to think of themselves as fighting the Matrix,



but in the US, the Greens are a part of the Matrix.

Hey There, Paul Krugman!

You didn't endorse Obama, didn't campaign for him, criticized him during the campaign with no apparent thought at all about whether the criticism came at politically inopportune moments, and the only Presidential administration you have worked for was Reagan's, that's right, REAGAN'S!

And now that Obama has managed to get re-elected by a wide margin even without you getting your hands dirty by helping him, you've got some advice for him.

Well I've got some advice for you too: sit back, relax, enjoy a nice steaming-hot mug of STFU and stop constantly stepping on the dicks of the political pros as they try to actually accomplish something. Because that's what politics is about, it's the part you never could handle, never wanted to have anything to do with: accomplishing things, doing what is possible, dealing with what is rather than lecturing the world about what should be. The latter is your job. Just please don't confuse it with politics. And please stop telling Obama what will and won't work politically. It's like a man blind from birth grabbing Picasso's brush arm as he tries to paint and lecturing him about art. Obama knows what he's doing, and it's difficult enough as it is. With "advisors" like you, he really doesn't need saboteurs. Please, Paul, at long last, take your appropriate place in politics: work for the Green party. Be Ralph Nader's successor, the Great Stupid Third-Party Hope. Unless and until the US gets proportional representation. Then working for the Greens won't be silly and useless at all anymore, and you'll have to find something else to do, something appropriate to your talents, as they say.

...and maybe 400

At ElectoralVote.com they have a Rasmussen-free electoral-vote map which shows 332 electoral votes going for Obama and 206 for Romney. But they consider only 138 of those electoral votes to be "solidly" for Romney. Six states are only pink instead of red, and a seventh, North Cackalacky Its Dangself, is only outlined in pink. Seven states where Romney's lead is less than lead-pipe-cinch certain. If Obama takes all the blue states on that map plus those seven he will have a nice round 400 electoral votes. In my opinion Missouri and and Arizona should be pink too, so make it 421.

What? All the "experts" are doing this all the time, except in the opposite direction, talking about how Romney could win if he won in all the red and pinks state plus every state that isn't dark blue. All except for Nate Silver at the New Times' 538.com. Everybody calls him a genius. But none of the other pundits seem to listen to him, let alone benefit from his good sense. Nope. It's just Nate and me, all alone in a sea of rubes.

Will 421 be enough for all of you people out there to stand up to those of your friends, families and neighbors who have embraced the bagger/birther/everything's-Obama-fault horseshit, and firmly tell them that they are stupid and that enough's enough and it's time for them to listen to the grownups and the brighter ones among the children? Would 421 give you balls enough to talk sense right out in public?

It's not enough for Obama to win. They have to really, really lose, once and for all.

350+

Is how many electoral votes Obama will take on November 6. Take that to the bank. Bet the farm.

There seem to be very few "experts" on the subject who can see that Obama is way ahead of Romney.

Okay, for one thing, is it really so hard to see that nationwide polls are completely useless in predicting an election which will be decided by electoral vote? These news stories claiming that the race is close keep pointing to nationwide polls and ignoring state-by-state polls. That kind of story defines the term "useless" about as well as anything I can think of. Not one electoral-vote projection based on current polling shows Romney ahead -- Huffington Post's Speculatron electoral-vote map is based on what Speculatron Boy has pulled out of his butt -- and some show Obama with as many as 332 electoral votes. The latter seem like the most sensible projections to me. I think there's widespread bias and/or incompetence among the "experts" who are calling this thing close.

Romney didn't get a bounce from the RNC convention. This doesn't surprise me. I know, my claim of not having anticipated a bump would have been much more impressive if I had posted it before the Republican convention. It seems to have surprised a lot of "experts," but don't expect a lot of articles and editorials with headlines like "OK, WE'RE IDIOTS!" Idiots can't admit to themselves that they're idiots. This is one of the reasons they stay idiots.

The "experts" predicted small post-convention bumps for both Romney and Obama. I'm predicting a big bump for Obama, big enough that the projection of 332 electoral votes will have to be adjusted upward. Maybe much higher.

And I predict that after Obama's big post-convention bump, the "experts" will continue to find a way to claim that this thing is close. I predict that they will predict that the bump will melt away quickly. I predict it won't.

Why are the predictions of the "experts" so far off, and why will they continue to be? I don't know. Straight-up stupidity, maybe. Maybe they don't care whether people will look at their performance as prognosticators when considering in the future to hire them.

Maybe there's some grand conspiracy here which would be easier for me to see if I were neurologically-typical. Anyway, what I'm predicting is that enough voters will be able to see the difference between a highly-intelligent centrist powerfully motivated to do the country good, and a pathological liar who chose another pathological liar as his running mate, and the difference between a campaign based on good ideas and one based on lies and irrational fear, to make this thing lopsided. Maybe more like 380 than 350.

"Betrachte die Herde, die an dir vorüberweidet[...]"

Herd behavior: people tend to believe all of the official stories about Roswell, the JFK assassination or 9/11, or to disbelieve all of them. Actual independent thought, it seems to me, would have produced more people entertaining conspiracy cases involving the Federal government in some of these cases, and not in others. But the great majority of people, seeing Federal conspiracies either in all of these cases and in other cases, or in none of them, seem to be choosing sides and following party lines more than thinking.

In politics, similarly, people tend to think that their side can do no wrong and that the other side are horrible people. This applies to independents too, from whom one might expect more nuanced thought. Instead, one encounters the stereotype of the independent as the lone voice of reason, with fanatical ideologues both to his left and to his right.

Even more so with agnostics and Buddhists under their simpleminded banner; "Everybody Else is Wrong." Recently I read an article, written by a Buddhist, under the title "Is Buddhism Agnostic?" I thought about that for a while and had to conclude that, yes, it is, and that that's why I dislike it so much. Like agnosticism, Buddhism is primarily concerned with smugly pointing out the misconceptions of others. What do they themselves believe? Weeeeelllll... certainly not what is usually said that they believe. And straight back to the everybody-else-is-wrong hobbyhorse.

Human minds are so complex. Almost everybody is actually right about a great deal. Even, say I through clenched teeth, those damned agnostics and Buddhists. Even when they're following a herd and so are only right by default. You may know someone for decades and never once see them make sense, but don't assume because of that you know everything about what they know.

Christopher Hitchens was a dingbat, but he was undeniably and admirably his own dingbat, clearly thinking for himself. (Did anyone else on Earth both support W's Iraq war and campaign for Ralph Nader in 2004? If so I'll give you good odds that they were just following Hitch.)

Anyway: follow me and help re-elect President Obama.