We miss the core issue: liberalism itself isn't strong enough to force them to our side and interests. Where are our armies? Where? We're in the fight of our lives with a well-meaning if irresolute leader in Obama... But he is, for better or worse, the only leader we have. — Soleri
What is this election about? Government that is not broken but "fixed" by moneyed interests to their benefit and the destruction of the public good? Shocking income inequality with average Americans left ever further behind? The American promise of a good job and economic mobility for those who, in Bill Clinton's words, "work hard and play by the rules"? Arresting the continuous expansion of the Military-Industrial Complex and stopping America's endless wars, and with them the huge opportunity costs to the nation?
It is about all those things and much more. At its core, this election actually is about what kind of nation we will be. This is often a phrase tossed out by candidates between whom, as George Wallace would say, "there's not a dime's worth of difference." Or used in times of relative peace and prosperity when the stakes are less. Not this time. So, no, we didn't pick this fight, especially not baby boomers of a certain age who can remember another America, flawed and troubled but on the right path. But we're in it. We're in the fight of our lives.
The Republican Party has become so radicalized that Ronald Reagan couldn't win a GOP school-board primary. Yes, Barry, I do remember you as a liberal compared with this bunch. The Party of Lincoln and TR has become wholly captured by plutocrats, Christian fascists (as my United Methodist minister calls them), Playskool libertarians, racists, gun thugs and the creepily misinformed Fox/talk radio suburban mob that posts comments everywhere from AzCentral to my Seattle Times blog. The rhetoric of hatred and violence, implied or otherwise, is like something out of interwar Germany. No wonder the easily unhinged — Jared Loughner, "border militia leader" J.T. Ready — turn hot words into bloody actions. Here's is Ready's email rant to Talking Points Memo. (And I am waiting for the right, then the mainstream media, to explain away Ready's murderous rampage just as it did Loughner's political assassination attempt — nothing to see here, move on. Look, it's the Octomom!).
Their aims are not conservative in any way Burke, Kirk or Buckley would recognize. They are radical. One must come out and simply say it: radical. The political "center" has already been moved further to the right than at any time since the 1920s, even as the everyday situation of the nation has become much more complex, not to mention the challenges we face but largely refuse even to discuss. This is not enough for them, for their closed-end narrative requires followers to believe their side is always losing, always being oppressed by evil liberal-socialist-communists. "Rolling back the clock" is not enough, either, and thinking of them this way unwisely misapprehends their designs. The America they intend to create — backed by vast wealth, infrastructure, media and their own armies of the night — is one that never existed. They are operating on theories that have never been accepted here, and when they have been tried elsewhere have resulted in disaster. Parts of their ideology have no basis in reality, but, then, denial of reality is a key plank of the platform.
They intend to destroy the social compact: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. These basics of a minimal safety net are "socialism," which, a reader told me, "is killing America." They aim to ramp up the redistribution of income to the wealthiest through tax and, yes, stealth industrial policy. To implement theocratic laws and, if the courts intervene, continue to change the judges and even the Constitution. What has happened in places such as Arizona and Oklahoma will be coming to Washington. This is not just rolling back the New Deal and the Great Society, but the Nixon administration. At the same time, the corporate elites, particularly fossil fuels, finance, for-profit health care and Big Pharma, will get an irrevocable hold over the federal government. Government will not shrink much; it will grow as military adventures are launched in Jesus' name and the national security state expanded even further to control the "evil liberals." Austerity will happen, and much worse than we've seen so far. When reality bites, who they gonna blame? "Evil liberals."
The Republicans are dead serious — this is no mere red meat for the duhs and ignos. In their nominee, the private-equity multimillionaire Willard Milton Romney, they have someone who is white, looks presidential, has enormous financial backing and could actually win. He will do as he is told. And if you doubt my characterization of GOP aims, check them out in the states. Draconian measures regarding women's health and abortion. Voter-suppression laws. Destroy unions. Defund "government schools." Privatize public lands. Nullify federal laws. A war on cities. A war on science. Ban any restrictions on firearms in an already violent, urbanized society. Encourage the formation of extralegal "militias." Cut taxes even more — taxes must always be cut. Gut environmental laws. The states are laboratories, all right, and not necessarily of American-style democracy.
Mr. Obama is highly vulnerable. If he does win, it will not mean we nation-build at home and address climate change. If the Democrats don't get serious about Congress — and here again the Republicans long ago stole a march by gaining control of legislatures to redistrict — he may not be able to do more than block the worst excesses of the right. That may have to be enough for now. This doesn't mean Mr. Obama won't be called to account in this blog; Rogue doesn't operate like the right-wing propaganda machine. But sensible Americans everywhere have no choice but to support the president in 2012. It is the fight of our lives, and it will go on for the rest of our lives.
AMEN BRO
Posted by: cal Lash | May 02, 2012 at 09:56 PM
The macroeconomic indicators and stock market need to hold until after Labor Day for Obama to have a chance. It is a race between Wall Street soft(Obama) and Wall Street hard(Romney).
Smart money wouldn't place a bet just yet but forced to do so today it would be on Romney.
Posted by: jmav | May 02, 2012 at 11:53 PM
The long term rightward trend remains in full force. A political left has not existed in the US for a generation. All politicians need the support of corporate America to be elected. GE and Disney, the parent corporations of MSNBC, NBC and ABC, certainly don't operate leftist stations.
The American right is unbridled and right wing media is strong and essentially unchallenged.
The rank an file lifestyle will continue its decline. Relative to developing countries, the American workers can still be squeezed much more.
Posted by: jmav | May 03, 2012 at 12:46 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/inside-the-political-brain/256483/
When voting, elect yourselves. That is, vote for the tribe not the candidate. If you think the little you can do will result in a more rational, humane, and just society, simply follow that instinct. Obama is not the issue. We are. We cannot see around corners so it's a good idea to assume this battle now is the most important one you will ever fight.
The odd thing is that the irrational right gets this better than the cerebral left. We overthink the battle strategy, shrink our resolve, measure our commitment with teaspoons rather than lethal firepower. We look for the latest Ralph Nader to justify our squeamishness. "I have to get into bed with those people people?" Yes, you do.
The right is on the verge of a permanent victory. If Romney wins, the Supreme Court is permanently radicalized. Citizens United will be etched in stone for the duration of our civic lives. We will finally achieve the aristocracy the Founding Fathers fought against. And it's all up to you.
Posted by: soleri | May 03, 2012 at 03:21 AM
It still seems to me that Republican weakness with women and Latinos will be a drag they can't overcome. Granted, President O is not without weak spots, but none so glaring as the two I mention. Then there's the question about what O will do if elected . . and who will lead the charge. The Dems bench is woeful!
Posted by: morecleanair | May 03, 2012 at 07:02 AM
Included with friends, neighbors and family are the most conservative, right wing, closed-minded, mean-spirited people who share a common thread:
They all are recipients of, social security, military retirement, social security disability, military disability, retirement from firms who want to do away with their retirement.
None of them can see that they are supporting the people who want to take away their "safety net". All they know is that President Obama is not an American. Jan Brewer is the best Governor Arizona ever had. Joe Arpaio is the best. Fox News is their only source of information.
After a decade of me bashing their heads against a wall trying to get their attention and to open their eyes, I have had ZERO success.
None of them will read anything longer than a bumper sticker.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 03, 2012 at 07:51 AM
AzRebel, what you very accurately describe is the Fox News cult which has its origins in the Democrats for Reagan movement.
Posted by: jmav | May 03, 2012 at 08:13 AM
Every man for himself!!??
Posted by: cal Lash | May 03, 2012 at 09:09 AM
"We cannot see around corners so it's a good idea to assume this battle now is the most important one you will ever fight."
You might actually have me convinced. I confess, I am one of the squeemish. I have no choice but to admit that a Nader (or whomever) presidency will likely be as disappointing as an Obama presidency. Maybe this whole situation will have to get a lot worse before it gets significantly better, but I think you are right, we are all going to have to get dirty before we can have the space to make something "clean".
Posted by: Aaron Solorzano | May 03, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Bravo.
Even as I do listlessly sigh over the backhanded Obama endorsement (and not because it's backhanded.)
Posted by: Petro | May 03, 2012 at 10:50 AM
I really want to get off this merry-go-round. A vote for the same old choice of the lesser of two evils is no vote at all. And will Obama really be less worse. The damage done by legislation and memos and directives to a half-dozen amendents is bad enough. Wall Street is lining up behind Obama (again). Every central banker and China will be doing everything in their power to keep a recovery going until the election. I'm going to stick with Rocky Anderson. The Kooks began losing me with Reagan and the Wimps with "let me triangulate this" Clinton (well really, I've ever liked the Democrats -- Udall was good).
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 03, 2012 at 01:25 PM
While I can't disagree with anything you say, eclecticdog - I can't help thinking that Jon and Dem loyalists might be correct in their backing of Obama. I can't imagine the effects of sending Washington the message of a GOP win. I shudder...
Posted by: Petro | May 03, 2012 at 01:48 PM
I know Romney has a snowball's chance in hell (you heard it hear first, maybe). I think there is a (slim) chance the Whimps may even increase the herd in Congress.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 03, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Side note: new reply to jmav in the previous thread.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 03, 2012 at 02:50 PM
We're still paying steeply for 2000 when Al Gore was denied a clear-cut victory by Ralph Nader voters. It's really unlikely that history will repeat itself in that once-in-a-lifetime way, but you never know. So, just to lay this false equivalency of parties to rest, let's review what we got with the George W Bush presidency:
A hard-right Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United and may well take away health-care reform.
A war in Iraq that will end up costing us over $1 trillion.
Structural deficits that are now being used as a political lever to cut the safety net.
A hard-right turn to anti-rationalism in our discourse. Hostility to science, the environment, and a sane energy policy.
Religious chauvinism masquerading as religious freedom.
A national security state that is now a permanent feature of the imperial presidency.
Opposition to even market-based policies like cap-and-trade.
Opposition to mass transit and passenger rail.
A gun culture that is cruel, racist, and socially destabilizing.
Systemic anti-Hispanic scapegoating.
A financial sector that rules Washington, which means financial crises are now a permanent threat to our economy.
In all this, you can say Democrats didn't fight hard enough, or were co-opted. But when you look at the past decade, what jumps out is how George Bush won two narrow victories yet pushed this nation hard to the right. He did it because the American right has enormous financial and institutional advantages that liberals can't match. Our only hope is to win elections and maybe stem the right-wing tide. That's it. We're not going to prevail by sitting on our hands or being pure.
I'm not a "Dem loyalist". I vote for Democratic Party because they're sane if not always progressive. Republicans are insane. If you don't vote, or you vote for boutique candidates, you're effectively voting for insanity. Your country deserves better.
Posted by: soleri | May 03, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Nice essay, and I especially liked the warning comment by Soleri.
I'm just not convinced, however, that this isn't the same old thread of conservatism that dominated the United States in the pre-Depression 1920s and continued, albeit in a reactionary, diminished capacity in the 1950s, waning and waxing and biding its time ever since. (Eisenhower didn't warm against the military-industrial complex for nothing.)
Many of the constitutional freedoms as we know them today (free speech, desegregation, separation of church and state, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.) came into existence only after FDR and the alteration of the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in decisions which gave the federal government the ability to overrule the parochial, and deeply conservative attitudes prevalent in numerous states and localities.
Don't forget that the Democratic Party had full control of Congress from the 73rd (1933) through the 96th (1981), except during the 80th (1947-49) and the 83rd (1953-55). That was the period of greatest political progressivism. The Democrats controlled the upper house (Senate) even longer: from the 73rd (1933) Congress to the 104th (1994 ), with the same two exceptions.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
The country (including the Democratic Party) has been moving to the political right since then. Reagan and others changed the make-up of the federal judiciary and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, which has resulted in terrible decisions such as Citizens United which essentially sold the political system to anonymous plutocratic interests.
Understanding that those who control personnel control the system, neo-conservatives have also been active changing the make-up of the so-called permanent civil-service bureaucracy that oversees regulatory institutions, putting up barriers to effective enforcement of everything from labor law to campaign finanance law to environmental law. While the heads of institutions may change with new appointments by new U.S. presidents, the administrators, board members and others who continue to serve through the years regardless of which party holds the White House, have a strong influence, both as administrators and as advisors. Though ostensibly non-political, they are hires made directly or indirectly by political appointees nominated by presidents.
The same criticisms -- and worse -- heard today were spouted in the 1930s and again in the 1950s, and off & on since then. As conservatives gain power the center shifts and their push to the right simply becomes less restrained by external forces.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 03, 2012 at 03:45 PM
Well, Emil, as you've brought in some macro-analysis in this political season, you and others may find the latest Archdruid Report interesting. He speaks of a cycle-of-power (this excerpt brutally edited of course, go read the whole thing) The word is "anacyclosis":
Democracy's ArcPosted by: Petro | May 03, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Have any of you ever driven a pick up truck that was loaded too heavily, so that when you hit a certain speed, the front wheels lost most of their contact with the road and you could spin the steering wheel and you still went forward with no control of your direction. (It's a weird feeling and not advisable)
Anyway, our country is kind of in the condition like that pickup truck.
The load in back: Military Industrial Complex, Banking Industrial Complex and the heaviest of all, the Washington DC, Bureaucratic Bureau of bureaucratic critical mass.
The weight is too great. We change the drivers (President) and the passengers (Congress), but it doesn't matter, the weight keeps moving forward. There is no turning it.
We have bureaucrats out of control. When they get called in front of congress (their employers), They sit there and when questioned by congress, answer with a bird and a "go fuck yourselves". They are completely immune to normal rules of government.
DC has become a collection of many, many kingdoms. They have unlimited power because they have unlimited access to OUR money.
In the course of history, it has happened time after time.
We're referred to the Grand Experiment.
No, actually, we're the same old shit, different time.
Eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow we may die.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 03, 2012 at 04:09 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/obamas-not-so-hot-date-with-wall-street.html?_r=1&hp
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | May 03, 2012 at 06:17 PM
P.S. I meant freedom from "unreasonable" (not "illegal") search and seizure. Not enough time to edit that session.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 03, 2012 at 08:35 PM
An important point:
I noted Democratic control of Congress during the general period of 1933 to 1981.
So what about the two periods of Republican control of 1947-49 and 1953-55? The top marginal personal income tax rate from 1946 through 1963 never dropped below 91 percent.
Was this because Republicans were happy with tax policy? No. Among the first legislation they proposed in the 80th Congress (1947-49) was tax cuts. But there was plenty more, as Republicans attempted to undo FDR's legacy.
"Bent on dismantling the New Deal, the 80th Congress moved to limit the power of labor, lower taxes, and ride their successes on to victory in the 1948 presidential election. Not surprisingly, Truman clashed with the 80th Congress over a number of issues, but the most important was Congress’s attempt to regulate and restrict organized labor. Truman vetoed the controversial 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which banned the closed shop and restricted the power of organized labor in a number of other ways. The bill was passed over Truman’s veto, but his actions increased his standing with organized labor. Twice in 1947, the 80th Congress passed tax cuts only to watch Truman veto them with the claim that they favored the wealthy."
http://www.nj.gov/military/korea/biographies/truman.html
Democratic president Truman vetoed 250 bills, vastly more than any president in U.S. history before or since, except for FDR himself (635) and Grover Cleveland's first presidency (414).
Surprisingly, the same was true for Republican Eisenhower (181).
"Eisenhower's choice of cabinet members demonstrated his support for big business. Eight of the nine members of Eisenhower's cabinet were millionaire corporate executives. Three men -- Charles E. Wilson, Arthur Summerfield, and Douglas McKay -- had ties to General Motors, which prompted Adlai Stevenson to say, "The New Dealers have all left Washington to make way for car dealers"."
So why not tax cuts? During the Republican controlled 83rd Congress (1953-55) Eisenhower himself said in response to tax cut proposals that "government cannot afford to reduce taxes or federal income until it has in sight a spending program which balances income and outgo: otherwise higher taxes may result in future".
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19530218&id=4DBdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EVsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3075,253158
Additionally, a recession occurred from July 1953 to May 1954; and the United States was fighting the Korean War (the uncertain armistice lasting from July 1953 to November 1954). Cold War spending was ramping up, and Eisenhower had plans for an interstate highway system, among other things. The two-year Republican window of opportunity in Congress ended and it was too late.
Politics matters, folks. Vote Obama.
Tax rates: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf
Veto history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 03, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Income inequality. 1920s. Check.
Corporate concentration (finance, industry). 1920s. Check.
Deregulation. 1920s. Check.
Tax cuts. 1920s. Check.
This dynamic is known as "class interests". Nothing new here.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 03, 2012 at 08:45 PM
Soleri - For my part, I'm not convinced G W Bush won either election. ( Thank you Diebold! ). Didn't Sen McCain say years ago there's too damn much money in politics - in one of his more lucid moments? He could have been a bright spot for AZ, but will go down in history as a cranky old man.
Yes,its hard to foresee what will stop the right-wing train, even as millions of average income folks line up to vote against their economic interests!
But my vote's with morecleanair - the GOP cannot alienate Latino& women voters and win.
Posted by: pat L | May 03, 2012 at 08:52 PM
May the fourth be with you ...
Posted by: doYourMath | May 04, 2012 at 12:08 AM
I repeat, "To win the republicans have to cheat" but as noted above they can and will, they have control of where the mark goes no matter how you pull the lever!
Posted by: cal Lash | May 04, 2012 at 09:06 AM
Off Topic, but picks up on the discussions during secret society meetings, to wit, land ownership:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/how-can-herbert-spencers-1892-revisions-to-his-social-statics-help-us-understand-conservative-opposition-to-the-individual-mandate/
Look toward the bottom at the two endnotes.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 04, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Terribly sorry: I meant to have said that Democrats controlled the House (not Senate) from 1933 to 1994 except for the 80th and the 83rd Congresses.
Nobody corrected me.
They did control Congress as a whole from 1933 to 1981 except for the same two periods.
P.S. Note that Truman had only 12 of his 250 vetoes overridden; Eisenhower had only 2 of his 181 vetoes overridden. The Republicans who controlled the 80th Congress (1947-49) were passionately opposed to the New Deal but had only a six seat lead in the Senate. Eisenhower had only 2 of his 181 vetoes overridden; and in the Republican controlled 83rd Congress they had only two seats more than Democrats in the Senate. (In the 83rd, there were two independents, whose political leanings I am ignorant of.)
It takes a 2/3 majority of Congress to override a presidential veto.
Right now Democrats control the Senate by four seats with two independents. Even if Republicans win control of the Senate next election, they are highly unlikely to be able to override an Obama veto even with the help of conservative Democrats. Provided, of course, that he is reelected.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 04, 2012 at 03:24 PM
We knew what you meant Emil, hence no correction.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 04, 2012 at 04:01 PM
One thought comes to my 75 year old mind as I read through this discussion: the dumbing down of America has produced a generation of adults with child-like critical thinking skills. How'd this happen? Can anyone please help me understand this? What I'm seeing is an epidemic of corpulent folks in flip-flops who are mesmerized by their cell phones . . .
Posted by: morecleanair | May 04, 2012 at 04:51 PM
TV
Posted by: cal Lash | May 04, 2012 at 05:15 PM
"What I'm seeing is an epidemic of corpulent folks in flip-flops who are mesmerized by their cell phones . . ."
The record of Civil War letters shows clearly that the populace in the mid-19th century was generally more literate than ours. Yet, they couldn't prevent fratricidal slaughter. Perhaps, a society of dullards ensconced in a dispersed virtual reality is safer?
Why am I mesmerized by this blog?! Whoa, dude.
Posted by: Sonorous Cabalist | May 04, 2012 at 05:18 PM
cal: Newt Minow was head of the FCC when he created quite a stir many years ago when he described TV as a "giant wasteland". Wonder how would it be described now?
Posted by: morecleanair | May 04, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Excellent post by Mr. Talton.
AzRebel's post of 5/3 about the retiree's is spot on. Perfect.
Here is the deal. The retired folks want to draw a line. If you were born after that date, you don't get a pension, Medicare, or anything. If you were born before that date, you get your pension, your Medicare, Social Security, and EVERYTHING!!!
In Florida, the worst monsters that we have (the Tea Party NUTS) are typically retirees with fat pensions. They retired from the New York City Fire Department, and they RAIL and RAGE against pensions!!! But they insist that they earned their pensions. They hate the idea of pensions, Medicare, and Social Security for anyone else!!!!
Posted by: Mick | May 05, 2012 at 05:17 AM
Want to fight back?
Have bumper stickers made up that say:
IF YOU HATE WOMEN AND CHILDREN - VOTE REPUBLICAN
While the "silent majority" has and always will be a myth, you don't want to piss off women. The Republicans are pissing off women.
Latest- Brewski signing the latest anti-women bill. Arizona, the new leader in the new dark ages.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Clarification.
It isn't that the "silent majority" doesn't exist. They've just been mis-labeled over the years. They are the "apathetic majority".
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 11:09 AM
AZREBEL, U better drink a beer and watch a mud wrestling bout and take a nap before U have a stroke and UR widow sues Jon for getting you all worked up.
Posted by: cal Lash | May 05, 2012 at 12:15 PM
good call, cal.
You just about listed my Saturday checklist.
1. I got up at the crack of 10am.
2. Currently eating hot chicken wings.
3. Beer next.
4. margs, after that.
5. Nap
6. more margs.
7. Bedtime
Sometimes the life of a non-party Independent can be pretty good.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 12:36 PM
REBEL, at 72 I try and stick to the four basics (or maybe the four squares) RESS,
Readin
Eatin
Sleepin
Sexin
Posted by: cal Lash | May 05, 2012 at 01:22 PM
No idea what "margs" are. Don't tell me you're a margerine popper, AZRebel?!
I just read that our "no tax increase" Republican legislature has passed a stealth bill, HB2094, which creates a new excise tax of 0.8 percent "on the gross proceeds of sales from prepaid wireless telecommunications services".
This is almost as large as the 1 cent temporary sales tax reviled by conservatives, and is a tax on gross proceeds (not profits) from a sector with very large annual sales. However, the sponsors (Robson and Kavanaugh) asserted that the estimated revenue to the state will only be two to four million annually. Could they be lowballing this figure?
The tax is described as an "E911" tax which sounds as if it were designed to support 911 services infrastructure, but the infrastructure has already been built long ago and upgraded too. There seems to be a trend among states and cities, eager to piggyback onto a good thing (revenue-wise) that the federal government began.
The money goes into a "revolving fund" but it isn't clear whether this is raidable or transferable to the general fund.
The bill takes effect unless Brewer vetoes it. Could this be one part of a broader crypto-attempt to extend Arizona's sales tax revenue after the temporary tax sunsets, using things like specific "excise taxes" and fees?
I particularly like when arch-conservative Seel asks if this is a new tax (can't he tell, or is he merely covering his ass for the record?), and the sponsors "explained" that it isn't a new tax, it is merely "capturing one already in existence". (Seel goes back to balancing a ball on his nose.)
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/comm_min/house/012612%20ti.doc.htm
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 05, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Housing update: Catherine Reagor of the Arizona Republic wrote today that Arizona home builders reported a spec inventory of only 383 houses during the first part of April. These are the houses built on spec (i.e., built but not sold) of which there were 50,000 or more in 2008 "sitting across the region".
Mr. Talton talks about the prayers of the Real Estate boys for "just one more housing boom". Answered?
Meanwhile, the Republic also reports that home construction in Gilbert "continues to outpace every other Valley municipality" and is "on track for its most robust year in new-home permits since 2006".
Lest you thought this was off-topic, note that the Republicans (the Romney campaign in particular) is targeting "monied burbs". According to the Wall Street Journal, "the vote coming out of Patchwork Nation’s Monied Burbs is critical at general election time and the split between the parties is generally very close". See also the "Patchwork Nation" map at the end of this link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/13/politics-counts-can-romney-capture-the-swing-voting-suburbs/
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 05, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Meanwhile, when does the vision of a new urbanism come to pass, and to what degree?
USA Today reports that even with high gas prices, "downsizing is now a function of practicality or driving needs rather than an attempt to boost fuel economy...In fact, of all the (survey) respondents, only 7 percent of large-car owners traded for a smaller model -- barely more than in 2007."
Also, "Only 3 percent of consumer budgets go to gasoline. That's tiny," says IHS chief economist Nariman Behravesh said at last month's New York International Auto Show "But … they're seeing the prices every time they go to the pump."
IHS says "there's a 20 percent chance that prices could spike to nearly $6 a gallon" but spikes won't change long-term behavior; and while "a spike in oil prices to $200 or more per barrel (of oil) could do serious damage to the auto industry" it could also do serious damage to economies, meaning a decline in oil demand by China and other manufacturers, hence a plunge (again) in oil prices.
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Features/2012-05-05-PNI0505cars-gas-pricesPNIBrd_ST_U.htm
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 05, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Emil,
Standard line property and casualty insurance companies don't like to insure vacant buildings, commercial or personal. These go to the high risk insurance market.
We are being flooded from across the country with vacant properties. 100% vacant shopping centers, strip malls, office buildings.
We are being flooded by vacant homeowner associations. Associations with 300 to 500 VACANT homes.
The problem didn't go away. It's being ignored.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Only thugs, poor people, and lawbreakers use prepaid phones so pip from the Kooks.
Two articles I thought explain the dumbing down of Ahmurica:
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/thewrongstuff/2010/05/17/diane_ravitch_on_being_wrong.html
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/04/manufacturing-stupidity/#more-2860
Petro: That Archdruid site is amazing. Intelligent, thoughtful, and original.
I'll put my two cents in on the Jacobin site (one of the links above) - intelligent, thoughtful and original too.
Happy to see Washington State gave a big thumbs down to charter schools.
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 05, 2012 at 04:57 PM
P.S. The 50,000 unsold spec homes.
They are still there and they are still unsold.
We insure them.
Go ahead and steal the copper wire and the fixtures. We exclude that peril.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 05:00 PM
Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, April 1952
Another sign of decay: There is a new movie out this summer on Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter(I kid you not).
Now I'm off to get some copper wire and a prepaid phone!
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 05, 2012 at 05:04 PM
eclec,
I'll e-mail you the addresses so that you won't waste gas finding the vacant homes.
Get the garage doors open, use chains and hooks to pull the electrical boxes off the walls with your vehicle. This way you will pull out quite a few feet of wire.
When you take the boxes and wire to the scrap metal dealers, hand them a twenty dollar bill and tell them the reason you have 20 electrical boxes and wire is because you bought the wrong size box and Home Depot wouldn't let you exchange them since the holes were punched out.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 05, 2012 at 07:13 PM
To what end is all this discussion leading? Should we envision ourselves gathered around Moondog as he lulls us with renditions from the OO and the TRIMBA? Unfortunately "'Dog" now looks too much like Osama . . . so maybe time to seek another guru doomsayer?
Posted by: morecleanair | May 05, 2012 at 11:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondog
I wonder if I'm the only person besides Morecleanair who remembers Moondog. Not that my memory is particularly deep but I recall the sensation of a mock-Viking reciting doggerel over his own musical compositions. I assumed at the time that he was part of the same late '60s freak show that gave us Mrs Miller and Tiny Tim. Could an eccentric like Moondog arise in contemporary America? I tend to doubt it since there's no longer a dominant middlebrow culture providing the necessary contrast. Any hipster poet - or art student in a charter high school - reflects the debased currency of otherness. Once the other becomes mainstream, there's only so much irony left to explore.
Posted by: soleri | May 06, 2012 at 06:31 AM
Soleri said, "the sensation of a mock-Viking reciting doggerel over his own musical compositions. I assumed at the time that he was part of the same late '60s freak show that gave us Mrs Miller and Tiny Tim."
Soleri,
My girl friend who has a fine arts degree from NYU "dug" on your comments.
I read it three times and have decided to get together with AZREBEL to try and understand who these people were that you mention and what they did that might result in a better Margarita. I take it they did not go to an Arizona Charter brain dead religious whacko school?
Posted by: cal Lash | May 06, 2012 at 10:11 AM
PS, maybe U brain surgeons out there can provide me with an example of "Once the other becomes mainstream, there's only so much irony left to explore."
so I can better understand?
Posted by: cal Lash | May 06, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Cal, one of the pleasures of being alive around 1970 was experiencing the shadows of the American psyche as they emerged in pop culture, particularly music. The Dick Cavett Show, for example might juxtapose Lester Maddox and Little Richard. Mike Douglas could host Nico from the Velvet Underground. William F Buckley would debate Noam Chomsky. John Lennon was interviewed on Monday Night Football by Howard Cosell. The nation was waking up to entire subcultures it had previously marginalized and ignored. It was exciting and energizing.
And it's something we can't do today because there's no longer a sharp division between what passes for mainstream culture and youth culture. Today's would-be trailblazers might have more body piercings but they can't really say anything new because the new has been relentlessly explored and evaluated since the late '60s.
Even in the right's Culture War, there's an odd sense that the main battles are over, that they're simply stoking outrage over arbitrary things. When Rush Limbaugh is married and divorced four times, or when Ann Coulter is a practicing libertine, it's a sign conservatism lost the war. For all the scorn they heaped on hippies and liberals, the counterculture has essentially co-opted the mainstream.
Posted by: soleri | May 06, 2012 at 12:07 PM
But Buckley only debated Chomsky once (as he did Vidal). He never brought back anyone who could go head-to-head. The old man George Seldes tore him up.
I actually thought Moondog was the big lumox in the beach blanket movies.
When pot is legal and all those boys that are locked up are released, then I'll know that counterculture co-opted the mainstream.
To what end this discussion. Hopefully we'll just be seen as old cranks and the world will go on. Socrates complained about Greek youth and their horrible ways and everyone thought China would collapse under its population back when they had only 400,000,000 people (let alone two countries with a billion plus now). But nature has its own way:
They say history repeats itself
But history is his story
You haven't heard my story
My story is different than his story
My story is a mystery
My story is not a part of history
Because history repeats itself
Nature never repeats itself
Every sunset is different
Why should I have to repeat myself?
Those of this reality have lost their way
Now they have to listen to what myth has to say
Sun Ra
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 06, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Rhinoceros????
Posted by: cal Lash | May 06, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Had to YouTube Moondog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Bq_MvkUtU&feature=related
Posted by: eclecticdog | May 06, 2012 at 12:36 PM
AZRebel, the figure of 383 spec inventory houses was reported by Arizona homebuilders, not the industry as a whole across the nation. If you have evidence that this figure is not true, please post it. You could help break open a real story. However, anecdotal statements misapplied to national markets don't contradict this.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 02:22 PM
I have some serious problems with the new Front Page link, about the "Shadow labor pool".
First, it is not CNN: it is something calling itself "Moneynews" which refers to CNN as the source of its figures.
Second, CNN is not reporting 86 million discouraged workers. Here is what CNN itself actually says in a story two days ago:
"There are 12.7 million unemployed job seekers, and about 2.4 million more who say they want to work but are no longer counted in the labor force since they've stopped looking."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/06/news/economy/jobs-report-underemployment/index.htm
Just remember that the noninstitutional civilian labor force is 154 million and that the population of the United States is only about 300 million.
As far as I can tell, the 86 million figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which reports it as the number of individuals "not in the labor force". This is not the same thing as discouraged or marginally attached workers, as the Moneynews "story" reports, but consists of those who do not WANT a job. They are not discouraged, nor are they working part time and wanting full time; they are not individuals who have stopped looking despite the fact that they want work. They are individuals who do not want work. They include retirees, full-time students, housewives, and others.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Note that the broadest unemployment measure available, U-6, which is defined by BLS as including "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force", is 14.5 percent.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
That is 14.5 percent of the civilian labor force of 154 million, or 22 million individuals; and that includes the 8.1 percent of officially unemployed as of April 2012.
So, this Moneynews article is misleading nonsense. Note that there is a prominent "NEWSMAX" link on its homepage. NEWSMAX is a right-wing news outfit and they have every reason to propagandize about just how bad things are economically, prior to the general election.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Azrebel, I have evidence that Moon Dog is alive and at this momement having a Marg at the Duce.
Posted by: cal Lash | May 06, 2012 at 02:38 PM
eclecticdog wrote:
"Only thugs, poor people, and lawbreakers use prepaid phones so pip from the Kooks."
My understanding is that the term "prepaid wireless telecommunications services" included the use of prepaid calling cards, which are ubiquitous: but even if I'm wrong there is a fourth category who use prepaid phones, and that consists of individuals whose credit record makes a leased cellphone problematic or prohibitively expensive.
Walk into any Walgreens, Target, or Walmart, and you find walls full of prepaid phones and the minute cards that go with them. They are big money, and if anyone knows how much the national market in prepaid phones and/or prepaid calling cards is (gross revenues), please post it here.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 02:51 PM
P.S. Moneynews is definitely the business news arm of NEWSMAX: look at the big "N" at the front of the URL at both sites.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 02:53 PM
The list of NEWSMAX founders, investors, advisors, and board members looks like a who's who of right-wing villains:
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Alexander Haig
Richard Mellon Scaife
"In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party. Forbes noted that after just a decade of operations it had become a "media powerhouse" - and had surpassed such well known websites as the Drudgereport in web visitors. According to the magazine, Newsmax draws 3.8 million unique visitors monthly. Political analyst Dick Morris was quoted as saying that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 03:04 PM
@soleri:
That's a romantic take that I don't necessarily disagree with, but I'd like to add that it also signaled the mainstream capturing the counter-culture and taming it, thus putting a period on the sixties. Laugh-In, for example.Posted by: Petro | May 06, 2012 at 03:23 PM
"morecleanair" wrote:
"Unfortunately (Moondog) now looks too much like Osama . . . so maybe time to seek another guru doomsayer?"
How about Screaming Lord Sutch? Who can forget the 1990 Bootle by-election? (Don't answer: that's a rhetorical question.)
Time to write-in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate when you vote this November.
Of course, Sutch is dead. But you can't have everything in one candidate, and besides, his State of the Nation speeches should be appealingly brief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 03:42 PM
This could be his Shadow Cabinet:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/P4k3ff3C2nukhczh00YhD0tIo1_500.jpg
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Petro, I would think that all cultures, systems, religions, schools of thought, and art itself will interpenetrate in a vibrant market. One of the problems with "Americanism" is that we think the most capitalist of all nations can somehow choose what influences it will accept or reject. Sadly, no! So, the Culture War itself is nothing more than a siren song by which we would return to some lost paradise. In the case of the right, that's white power, Christianity, patriarchy, and an even purer capitalism than the one that created this pandemonium in the first place.
I remember the pathos of Nehru jackets, Ecology Now! bumper stickers, bell-bottom pants, and love beads. Yes, the mainstream co-opted the counterculture. But the counter-culture also returned the favor. We still have casual hook-ups, rock 'n roll, New Age thought, Tibetan prayer flags, and all the other things that suggest "alternative".
Even in the 19th century, there were transcendentalists, theosophists, communes, and pacifists. But they were distinctly minority flavors. Now, the flavors are as confused and mixed up as a Ted Nugent brain scan.
Posted by: soleri | May 06, 2012 at 04:08 PM
An aside about the Arizona housing outlook.
Don't forget that investors (whether converting to rentals or looking to flip, or both) have snatched up a large portion of Arizona's housing glut.
While crowding-out by investors has encouraged purchases of new houses by families who find themselves outcompeted in the foreclosure and short-sale markets, the size of that effect remains to be seen.
Also, there are many foreclosures pending in Arizona and many foreclosed properties that banks have yet to put on the market.
These factors, plus the possibility of home sales by investors wanting to cash out their gains, and the timing of such factors, make predictions difficult.
Additionally, if Arizona's supply of spec-houses has truly fallen to just 383, I'd like to know who has been buying them. Investors have been concentrated in the bargain market of foreclosures and short-sales. If I find out more about this, I'll post here.
From a recent news story:
"Before the recession, Arizona relied on the construction industry and growth driven by people moving to the state to generate jobs and economic activity.
"The state's construction industry lost one-half of its jobs during the recession. While construction jobs are returning slowly, the gains have been small compared with the jobs that were lost.
"...Education and health-service businesses are projected to add 21,800 jobs over the next two years, a gain of 6.1 percent. Murthy predicts most of those gains will be in health care, while the private-education industry will likely lose jobs."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/05/04/20120504ariz-boosts-job-forecasts.html
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 04:08 PM
P.S. AZRebel, the 383 spec-homes figure seems to refer to Metro Phoenix rather than Arizona. I seem to recall the hardcopy saying something about "Arizona homebuilders" but if so it isn't in the online version.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2012/05/03/20120503rebound-continues-rise-new-home-permits.html
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 06, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Moondog would probably like riding the light rail ("we built it, you bastards") not only because it is cool but also because he'd have an audience at least among the younger folks. I doubt that he'd be alighting to make his way to his stucco/red tile home however. Always envisioned him in a safari-like tent!
Posted by: morecleanair | May 06, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Emil,
You were speaking spec homes. I was speaking "shadow inventory" as a whole.
Let me explain how they are related and how they impacted the number you quote.
During the depth of the housing downturn, there were several large local builders who had a large inventory of spec homes.
After pulling their hair out for about a year they came up with this plan.
Through realtors, they located homeowners who had not been able to sell their homes. (if you recall, there were no buyers at all).
They approached these people and offered to buy their homes if they in turn would buy the homes the builders had in their inventory. They even helped with the financing.
The builders then went to the high risk insurance market and insured the now vacant homes they just bought. They did this with large schedules of vacant homes.
These large schedules of vacant homes are still out there, vacant.
So, you see, they "reduced" their spec inventory by creating a new vacant home in the shadow inventory. (they figured they had the time to sit on the homes and sell them in the future). That future hasn't arrived yet.
As you can imagine, like in a used car sale, they offered the homeowners very low prices on their homes, charged them extra on the spec home, and gave them higher than normal interest loans. Of course, there were many people who were dumb enough to fall for the scheme just so they could get that "new home smell".
Anyway, that's what happened to your spec home inventory. Now you see it, now you don't.
Posted by: AzRebel | May 06, 2012 at 07:38 PM
The ole Pea Shell game
Posted by: cal Lash | May 06, 2012 at 08:47 PM
It's a class war of attrition.
Posted by: Singing Closemouthed | May 07, 2012 at 06:17 AM
Le plus ca change....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/a-tale-of-two-elections_b_1495256.html
Posted by: soleri | May 07, 2012 at 08:00 AM
And we move from the Hunger Games to the Killing Games. Turn the lions loose.
Posted by: cal Lash | May 07, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Thank you, AZRebel, for that excellent explanation! I've saved your entire comment (attributed) for future reference.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | May 07, 2012 at 12:45 PM
For your collective amusement, Marc Maron has some first impressions after arriving in Phoenix last week for a show:
http://youtu.be/6YGYL58UYcg
Posted by: Petro | May 07, 2012 at 01:49 PM