This is the most important presidential and congressional election in my lifetime. The trouble is, none of the major candidates is talking about the big issues. Or is it just me? President Obama and wealthy Republican challenger Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney are outdoing each other to please the Israel lobby. There's a fierce debate over alleged ill-treatment of the super-wealthy. Romney promises to increase defense spending; Obama cut it a little, maybe. What will get the economy going again: tax cuts and other Bush redux policies, or, as Obama seems to be saying, merely not electing the other guy. The gaffe watch is on high, of course. Are these the big issues upon which the fate of the republic hangs? The political press complains that it's a boring election. No wonder. The real issues, the serious matters screaming for intelligent responses, are kept hidden away:
1. Climate change. Despite a consensus among the scientists that actually specialize in this field that climate change is real, human caused, getting worse faster than anticipated and will produce far greater cost and harm than good, we're doing next to nothing about it. Try to write about it, as I did last Sunday in the Seattle Times, and you'll be marked on reactionary Web sites to be deluged with emails, all with the same wording and alleged research that climate change is a hoax, or at best unproven. The goal is to intimidate and confuse. I don't give a damn. I'll write about it every chance I get. But our leaders won't tell us the truth, won't campaign on policies that would address it and at least prevent the worse outcome. No issue is more important.
2. The (real) economy. Mass unemployment, stagnant wages, historic inequality, slow or no growth, the end of meritocracy. These things should be unthinkable in America, but neither candidate and few members of Congress will really lay out the policies to address them. The Romney solution, tax cuts and more deregulation, is a big reason why we're in this mess. We need a major stimulus focused entirely on creating jobs, especially by building large-scale 21st century infrastructure (not "roads and bridges"). And with interest rates and Treasury yields so low, there's never been a better time to borrow. Then we need to raise taxes, go after tax shelters and tax gambling in the capital markets that doesn't create productive enterprises and good jobs. Forget beating up China over currency manipulation; we need to play China's game in trade.
4. Israel and Iran. I'm not really sure it matters whether Tehran gets a nuclear weapon or not. Nukes are notoriously worthless beyond deterrence. Even at his most ideologically rabid, Mao didn't use his nuclear weapons. Brezhnev actually asked Nixon for a free hand to take out China. Nixon refused to allow it, not least because the fallout would have come over here. So I'm unconvinced the mullahs, armed with an A-bomb, would risk seeing Tehran turned into pit barbecue. My deeper concern is that nobody running dares say that our national interests not only don't tightly and always allign with Israel, but are actually damaged by our uncritical support of Bibi's regime. My god, even Tom Friedman gets it. But fearing the powerful lobbying group AIPAC, politicians cower.
5. The We Society. Washington state, which is more purple than blue, is removing tax support from its state parks; they will have to operate "like a business." And this is on the left coast. The trouble is that many goods in a society don't operate like a business, and shouldn't. Thirty years of this drivel and endless tax cuts are destroying the commons it took more than a century to build. This is a moral issue and also one of national morale. The exceptional America whose fumes even allow for these beastly Randian/Darwinian fantasies of the right was built on share sacrifice, shared opportunity, and, yes, heavy taxes on the wealthy and heavy restrains and counterweights on the powerful. The oligarchy must be pushed back into limits and face the rule of law. Until candidates will join Elizabeth Warren in articulating this, we're doomed.
No need to get deeper in the weeds. Best to keep the agenda short. A hundred issues and sub-issued exist, along with many prescriptions. But these are the big ones. I'm not worried about the debt and the deficit. Make the economy grow and they will be addressed. Institutional legitimacy is a big problem. But the first step in fixing it is to tell the truth, fearlessly and without ceasing. And progressive forces must win both the White House and both houses of Congress. Trying to sneak in without focusing on these big five issues, as Obama is mostly doing, or trying to take us back to the 1880s, as Romney and his puppetmasters would have it, keeps us on the same path: National suicide.
Two thru five dont matter if we dont take care of number one.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 03, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Chick-A-Fil just sold more chicken sandwiches in one day than ever before. That and Tom Freidman getting his head out of his ass are sure signs of the Apocalypse.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 03, 2012 at 03:40 PM
1. What is the vision for our nation.
2. Where's Mick?
Posted by: Not Mick | August 03, 2012 at 04:33 PM
"Tom Freidman getting his head out of his ass are sure signs of the Apocalypse."
And as his cranium slowly emerged, it was revealed to be yet another luxurious ass!
Posted by: Tommy Friedman | August 03, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Tom Friedman??
Posted by: cal Lash | August 03, 2012 at 04:47 PM
May be better to just come out and shout "POVERTY"? Certainly it is one of the 3rd rail subjects that elude both gutless candidates.
Posted by: morecleanair | August 03, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Just as Joe Bob Briggs liked movies that didn't let the plot get in the way of the story, we (apparently) like elections that don't let issues get in the way of the infotainment.
Posted by: Fearguth | August 04, 2012 at 09:19 AM
...... but, the issues get in the way.
but at least Friedman didn't say that "the next six months ....."
Right On Jon ...... keep up the good work.
Posted by: Bearsense | August 04, 2012 at 03:19 PM
friedman who?
Posted by: cal Lash | August 04, 2012 at 03:43 PM
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Columnist for the NY Times, husband of Ann Bucksbaum, heiress to a massive real estate fortune (shopping malls). Judging from the title of his latest, he's back to not getting it again.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 05, 2012 at 06:04 PM
Every Republican running for Congress in AZ is blathering about how eager they are to cut, cut, cut "spending". Except for defense spending. Not one precious hair on the head of the MIC will be touched. Again, "cutting spending" is code to voters that means "cutting welfare to lazy minorities" (they'll get to SS and Medicare too, eventually). The blogger Digby often describes the bloated defense budget as welfare for white men. I came to a similar conclusion myself when I was serving in the Navy and saw just how much was spent to keep those cushy defense contracts going. It's a form of public assistance that's very expensive and also demands blood sacrifices to make its recipients feel all tough and manly.
Posted by: Donna | August 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Donna, we watched as they came for "those" people.
now they are coming for you but
Not me, I had my ride.
Any thing more is just excess.
And a side bar.
Spent a few hours in downtown Tempe today. It's like a ghost town. Empty store fronts, broken glass, trash and dirt blown up against the doorways and sidewalks. A few people walking around but bars and restaurants empty, except Starbucks, students drinking water typing on their puters.
But the "Good News" is that eight folks (all over 65) showed up at the Valley Art Theatre for "Cartas a Elena", an excellent film, mi amiga and me thought, slow paced, romantic, realistic with some Mexican spirituality tossed in. The Arizona Republic only gave it one star but thats par for them. Got sand for brains.
A 12 state "global warming" drought?
The desert always wins.
Good nite ED.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 05, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Would someone please explain why this is "the most important ... election...", as though it will have some major effect on the ensuing list of issues being ignored by the political and media players before during and after the campaign? A bit of self contradiction, or is it blind faith in a dysfunctional system?
Posted by: Gaylord | August 06, 2012 at 01:40 AM
Gaylord, every election now is always the most important election because the political system and media have to drum up support to make the "voters" think they have a choice. Got a problem with an unending war, talk about gay marriage. Inflation? Talk about gun control. Income gap? Talk about energy independence. For the voters who still think it matters its blind faith. Until the corporations and rich are put on a leash, nothing will change though the pace of our re-enslavement may differ.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 06, 2012 at 08:58 AM
Here is a good reason why its an "important election"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/05/midwest-heat-wave-2012_n_1744504.html
but then most elections since 55 have been a joke and now that corporations are individuals, elections dont really matter anymore as City State barons are in charge. Financial barons and their corporations are the only real people on the planet, the rest of you are just commodities. Soon u will be Soylent Green sold by Soylent Pepsi.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 06, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Gaylord,
Even if the real issues are ignored, the Republicans are pushing a truly revolutionary agenda. If they win, we will fast-track national suicide. I'd rather buy some more time with Obama.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 06, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Jon, I dont think Romney can win without cheating. Watch the voting machines in a few key states. It's been done a number of times, Illinois, New Mexico and Florida for example. But even if Obama gets it, the financial Barons are in control of the planet. It's interesting as they Financial barons are global it appears to me that Obama is also, just with a different twist. But he may be the last chance to protect the environment even if his track record to date is behind even a president like Nixon.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 06, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Mr. Talton wrote:
"Try to write about it, as in the Seattle Times, and you'll be marked on reactionary Web sites to be deluged with emails, all with the same wording and alleged research that climate change is a hoax, or at best unproven. The goal is to intimidate and confuse."
I just read it. Great column, very informative. That explains part of the rabid reactionary response. You not only challenged their worldview in a highly effective and compelling way, you probably shook them up. Self-doubt can be discomfiting, particularly when it leads to a moral quandry. I especially liked the way you quantified the concrete consequences, not only giving numbers but putting them into a comprehensible context:
"According to the Sightline Institute, if all six Northwest terminals were built, they would have the capacity to ship 145 million tons of coal annually. That translates into 262 million tons of carbon dioxide a year when burned into the atmosphere. For comparison's sake, it's as much as a year's worth of gasoline burned in all the Western states plus the Dakotas."
The other factor explaining why some of the respondents got so hot under the collar is that you challenged vested economic interests. You can bet that the companies and major players who stand to gain if this goes forward, have professional spin-control working seven days a week, scouring the Internet and ready to shoot down any high-profile writer who threatens their profits; and the more effective the writing, the bigger the threat. There is a whole new class of public relations work that consists of nothing but monitoring and counter-propaganda on behalf of corporate interests.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 06, 2012 at 02:14 PM
I'd substitute health care reform for item four. Your first sentence says it all and unlike the talking heads I suspect that most of the public understands this: "I'm not really sure it matters whether Tehran gets a nuclear weapon or not." In any case, Joe Public doesn't wake up in the morning worrying about Iran, or for that matter, Israeli/Palestinian relations: Joe Public wakes up worrying about employment, wages, household debt, and health care, four things that directly effect his personal quality of life.
"...But our leaders won't tell us the truth..."
There is a big difference between leaders and politicians. Leaders not only lead, they create (or intensify, or shape) public opinion on important issues. Politicians are primarily concerned with the calculus of reelection. Politicians are driven by public opinion polls and focus groups, whereas leaders drive public opinion. Dynamic leaders view public opinion as the passive partner in the relationship; politicians think more like yachtsmen trying to hardness the wind. Would-be leaders lose a lot more often, but they often accomplish more when they win.
In order to do any of the things you suggest, first the Democrats have to get a supermajority in Congress, and second, President Obama has to be reelected so that Mitt Romney can't veto their legislation or force them to water it down. At the very least, President Obama has to be reelected so that he can veto Republican legislation should that party gain control of the Senate as well as the House. Would things be different if they accomplished this? Somewhat, but the problem is that there is always another election down the road, if not for a particular candidate (Obama can't serve a third term after all) then for congressmen and other politicians of his party; and today, party leaders control their candidates rather than the reverse. Party leadership determines who gets the nod, who gets the organizational and networking support, and who gets the funding. They not only insure malleable candidates that way, making sure they put the party's interests first, but they also control them that way once they reach office. There's a reason why the Democrats pulled the rug out from under Howard Dean:
"In March 2003 he gave a speech strongly critical of the Democratic leadership at the California State Democratic Convention that attracted the attention of grassroots party activists and set the tone and the agenda of his candidacy. It began with the line: 'What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?' " (Wiki)
Only 6.9 percent of private sector workers were unionized in 2011, according to the New York Times. Unions were the traditional organization and financial support of the Democratic Party during the post-Great Depression decades when their most progressive policies were enacted. What does that leave? Corporations and the wealthy. Financiers and moguls. Obama filled his cabinet and advisory panels with many of the usual suspects (e.g., Geithner, Summers).
You're only asking the Democrats to oppose the Military-Industrial Complex, corporations, and the wealthy, and to give Romney the chance to counter with a simple-minded but wrong counter-narrative.
Out of online time for today.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 06, 2012 at 03:05 PM
a reading of "A Tale of Two Crashes (parts one and two) by Emanuel Stoakes
followed by "The Resurgence of Purpose" by John B Cobb
may help!
Posted by: cal Lash | August 06, 2012 at 08:07 PM
I'm with cal Lash: watch for decertification of those pesky brown voters in key states! PA, OH, VA! A few votes, say 50,000 in each state, may be all that is needed!
Posted by: pat L | August 06, 2012 at 09:03 PM
decertification is still with us. After all it got an arizona attorney a supreme court seat.
But thats not what I meant. I meant how will the ballot mark you make be counted?
Posted by: cal Lash | August 06, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Emil: I totally agree with your contention that healthcare should be one of the 4 biggies. My knowledge comes from being "in the system" as a patient for over 25 years, during which time I've seen the good/bad/ugly aspects. And I've come to the belief that those who are the most passionate opposers to "Obamacare" are often the least knowledgeable about how our current healthcare system is so bloated and botched. Maybe they're healthy . . thankfully. Maybe they've "got theirs" . . luckily. But when a health emergency hits them or their loved ones, comes a rude awakening with several painful and predictable lessons:
1) We all need an advocate to help us run interference. The meek will not inherit the earth! Ask to talk to the supervisor if you're not happy. (I've just spent 2 hours on the phone getting 2 Rx's transferred from a retail pharmacy to my plan's mail order entity . . just before running out)
2) Our docs don't necessarily communicate well with one another. Some specialty practices don't have interlinking Electronic Medical Records, depending on faxes and other prehistoric BS.
3) There are often intrusive and expensive tests . .sometimes with shaky justification except their defensive value or revenue-producing quotient.
4) Wait times. Even with the vaunted Mayo system, there are long waits for appointments and diagnostics.
Enough said. Obamacare iS a 2000 page dog's breakfast but it is also our only real hope for taming the beast that's now costing us over 17% of GDP. Fine to tweak and improve it if we've got the huevos to beat back Big Pharma and Big Insurance and DumbAss state legislatures in the process. It won't be easy.
Posted by: morecleanair | August 07, 2012 at 09:18 AM
if we've got the huevos to beat back Big Pharma and Big Insurance and DumbAss state legislatures in the process. It won't be easy.
The Dumb asses are doable. Not sure we can ever grow huevos big enough to punk the Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 07, 2012 at 12:36 PM