Get by gridlock with a little help from voters

Former president Bill Clinton appeared on ABC's This Week With Christiane Amanpour on Sunday (Sept. 18) to talk government gridlock and the economy. He imparted two points that capture the crisis of our times.

Speaking to the question of what it will take for Washington decision making to break through the stalemate, he replied that it would require “a little help from the American people.” His answer followed with a reminder to voters of the crop of freshman Congressional nay-sayers elected in 2010--those who impeded such matters like raising the debt ceiling and opposed a balanced approach to the federal budget deficit. Clinton elaborated by saying, "It's very hard for the people in Washington who got there based on pure conflict, pure attack, pure ideology to take it seriously when their same constituents are saying please do something positive."

This is especially true of elected legislators who behave as if their sole mandate is to oppose President Obama. As far as anyone can measure, this agenda has yet to have any direct impact on creating jobs.

On that note about jobs and their 'creators' Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the same day joined the Fox News Hour discussion to cry 'class warfare' at President Obama's suggestion of raising taxes on millionaires (the White House calls it "The Buffet Rule"). Rep. Ryan also repeated the usual, fraudulent claims against raising federal levies on the wealthy and their impact on how jobs get created. Such arguments loop in the multi-million dollar S-corp. companies among that sacred class of small business owners that must be spared any increases.

His reasoning mashes down to "if you tax more... you get less. If you tax job creators more, you get less job creation." Rep. Ryan would be in the oddest position to explain with a straight face why Bank of America, a beneficiary of Bush-era tax cuts, is fixing to lay off 30,000 employees. All that may remain of Ryan's once-fervent audience is the low information voter.

Speaking of the low information voter, Bill Clinton's second important point emerges. In an attempt to account for the few bright spots of economic development around the country, he emphasizes how crucial "networks of cooperation" are to the success of a local market. As for the rest of the country's lagging economy, a significant disconnect prevails between "the way the economic system works and the way the political system works." In other words, we cannot expect economic success when the political system endures the legislative standstills of the magnitued we witnessed this past summer.

As for other disconnects that figure prominantly into our political dysfunction, the influence gap is one that rarely receives attention. Yes, there are those whining references to "campaign finance reform" that pepper some conversations about how to improve government, however, rarely, if ever, does anyone name the players or what is at stake. 

The influence gap occurs between two classes of citizens distiguished by their earning power. As troubling economic times have ginned up talk about class conflict, increasingly the two groups have been referred to as the elite 2 per cent and the everyone-else 98 per cent. Each election they enter into what has been  called here a zero-sum faceoff--the 2% being in a position to finance the media resources necessary to reach the remaining 98% through television, radio and internet ads.

Conventional wisdom drives Bill Clinton's caution that "until the American people make it clear that-- however they voted in past elections--they want these folks [Democrats and Republicans] to work together and to do something, there's going to be a little ambivalence in Washington."

For the millions of unemployed or foreclosed-upon Americans hanging to their wits by a tattered thread, relief will require something far bolder than conventional thought. 

What voters too often forget or fail to understand is the influence they wield when working in concert. If the 2008 economic meltdown has anything to teach us, it has to be how interlinked or mutually dependent our occupational and financial destinies are. Given that interdependency, won't survival require a serious reconfiguration of the influence gap? It would be up to the 'lower' 98 per cent to insist that candidates and elected officials alike, must honestly bear their concerns.

A decade of denial

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stood out over the 9/11 weekend--among the various civic nine-eleven observances and rote reflection-making for the tragedy's tenth anniversary--to rub salt, not in a national wound, but to smart the festering hubris of a select group of leaders. This swollen lesion belongs to the elected- and appointed officials who believed they could parlay nine eleven's moments of nation-wide panic and sustained uncertainty into decades of political advantage.

Mind the spittle in the reaction from neocon zealots and pundits. Judging from their rabid responses, the post-nine eleven fallout unfolded in way that merits absolutely no criticism. How dare you, Mr. Krugman, tamper our sanctimonious revery.

Former War Secretary... that is, Secrtary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went so far as to tweet canceling his subscription to the Times. "[R]epugnant..." he sniffed in objection to Krugman's piece. All very telling reactions from people who heaved and cheered the loudest for our military to invade a country that was a bystander when New York City and the Pentagon were attacked. Not a whisper or wince of regret for the one hundred thousand-plus Iraqi civillian fatalities; our dead, maimed and tormented soldiers; 'renditioning' and torturing innocent civilians; our nation's reputation worldwide, a tattoo-quality disgrace. Really, Mr. Rumsfeld, you certainly know 'repugnant' when you see it.

The indifference shown by Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the global catastrophe they set in motion, illustrates the dual-sided dimension of shame. One side is the regret, or at the very least second thoughts, felt by a person with a developed moral sense. He apologizes profusely for accidentally shooting his friend during a hunting trip, for instance.

The other side to shame is that of a deeply wounded dignity. Usually the unfortunate soul who, as a child, endures mistreatment or outright physical harm, receives the message from the tormentor what the debased value of his or her dignity is. Later on in life the person has one of two choices: engage the memory of the assaulted dignity or pretend that it never happened.

For the pretenders it's a life-long commitment to keep that memory locked away. To serve that effort, the denier may commit some act of hostility or torment against another person who does not deserve such mistreatment. Further, the pretender fails or refuses to acknowledge the impact his or her hurtful actions have upon other people. Otherwise the tormentor risks rousing his or her own memory of suffering.

Paul Krugman advocated the shame of a healthy, engaged conscience. Such an awareness does not indulge in games of pretend or denial. By writing about our nation's severe shortcomings, he reminded his detractors of their own pummeled dignities--and, inevitably it seems, they excoriated him for that.

Voters' zero-sum faceoff with wealthy campaign donors

(Article first published as Voters' Zero-Sum Faceoff with Wealthy Campaign Donors on Blogcritics.)

It's a national pastime for voters to badmouth any given elected official from the comfort of their disengaged and isolated perches. While most citizens gripe about politicians or "the system" for operating beyond their influence--do any voters understand the "how" and "why" when elite interests wield far greater force?

Recently I received emails from two members of Congress informing me of an important fund raising deadline. Periodically during any given election cycle the Federal Election Commission requires candidates and political action committees alike to report their fund raising results. The donation appeals sent to my inbox represented the exact same party-related political action committee. Each letter urged a contribution before the Aug. 31 deadline, to meet a specified fund raising goal. Doing so would enable said pac a show of party strength or, as one letter boldly stated, "to take this fight to" the opposing party in each district.

Such letters--perhaps one of hundreds that get mailed out each month--do not mean much in and of themselves. As a cog in the machinery of mega-dollars campaign financing, however, the letters represent a failure on the part of vote-eligible citizens. The shortcoming is twofold: first is the well-known indifference of that 40 per cent of voters who opt not to show up at the polls every election; second, and perhaps more crucial, is the group of voters who do participate, but take little notice of how candidates finance their campaigns or who contributes to them.

At this point, voters find themselves on the losing end of the bargain known as representative democracy. It adds up to a zero-sum faceoff with wealthy donors. Why? Because voters have not shown the initiative nor interest that offsets a campaign's need for large dollar donations; the kind of contributions that finance the television ads produced to manipulate under informed citizens. Also on the campaign tab is the army of pollsters and analysts--sifting surveys and focus groups for a candidate's penny ante political advantage.

The way torrents of cash saturate political campaigns, the most accountability can hope to achieve is talking-point status. What often looks like wilful passivity of on the part of voters enables a breach between what the electorate intends and what the highest bids for influence actually achieve.

Here lies the influence gap that privileges corporations and monied interests over everyone else. If you don't believe this gap is a meaningful factor in the poor representation we endure today, let's have a look at an interview snippet quoting Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) in his district's newspaper, The Birmingham News. The occasion for the Dec. 8, 2010 conversation was his appointment as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated," the congressman pontificated, "and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

Who can deny that the banks have been well represented by Rep. Bachus's persuasion? Given the generosity they have shown his campaign budget, who could expect the chairman to raise a fuss about trifles like preditory lending and robo-signing? When the committee he chairs isn't busy attempting to dismantle the modest transparency requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is marking time while the usual suspects from the financial services continue on, business as usual.

This nation is three years into a financial calamity that anyone has yet to see the end of. Home foreclosures and chronic employment continue to not only eat away at our national solvency, but also undermine the mutual full faith and credit Americans once possessed.

If this state of affairs received serious consideration, blunt honesty would require us to admit that we have the kind of government we deserve. As we have yet to produce a voter turnout that demands fair, unbiased representation, we, the people, will continue sending the likes of Spencer Bachus to Washington every election.

Indifference has already exacted a harrowing price in the diminished quality of life most of us must cope with. So, consider this question a modest proposal: if it's within the electorate's capacity to avoid selecting convicted felons or pederasts for public office, why not strive to restore our leadership's accountability to the greater whole of this country?

Begin by paying attention to the who, what, why and how of governing. Special interests already deploy a battalion of lobbyists and insiders with the right access to elected officials, so voters will have to exert an equally coordinated and engaged effort. Then they will be in a position to avoid candidates who've sold away their decision making responsibility--and, instead, support candidates who are accountable to all citizens.