Why I Think Obama Was Adequate At Best

draft

Being POTUS is a nearly impossible job. Those who were great at it in our history have had a number of things going for them that were extraordinary, had accidents of history on their side in some sense, and still made enemies who were bitter thirty years later. Like the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, a great Pope or a great President is very hard to predict in advance, and even they make enemies.

I do not think Obama was a great president; I think he was an adequate president. He and his administration was certainly better than any Republican administration since Eisenhower, and possibly better than any Democratic one since LBJ, but that is faint praise. LBJ, as flawed as he was, had elements of greatness in him.

In the following, I admit that there are many issues below that quite possibly could never have gone “our” way, or at least the way I would have liked. But I felt that he could have tried harder, made more of a stink, rallied the troops, and generally raised hell. This is the POTUS after all, it is an impossible job and judged by impossible standards.

The following is in no particular order.

1. He needed to fight harder for our supreme court position. He should have raised bloody hell in the morning, and then complained about it at night. He should have shut the government down, pulled our troops home, and stopped spending money until the Congress did its constitutional duty. The damage to our republic will last for decades and may never be repaired.

2. Someone needed to lead the Democratic party to deal with redistricting in the states. That is only part of the problem that the Democrats need to face to regain control of Congress but it is an important part. He needed to lead the Democrats to at least formulate a plan.

3. He continued the bipartisan neoliberal economic policies that have destroyed manufacturing, destroyed employment for whole sections of our people, and destroyed the unions. He tried to pass the TPP which represented everything bad about the discredited neoliberal policies. The Democrats abandoned the working man and woman. Some say this was inevitable and nothing could be done. Fine, then enjoy your time with Trump because that is what you get.

4. He squashed criminal indictments against Wall Street for the economic meltdown. No new laws were passed to see that corporate malfeasance was punished.

5. The decision not to prosecute the Bush administration for their use of torture disgraced this country and set a bad precedent.

6. He did nothing to address inequality in this country.

7. He did nothing to address the way the tax code, exemptions and loopholes favor the rich.

8. He did nothing to address economic inequality in this country.

9. He did nothing to improve support for the poor.

10. He did nothing to improve how we finance education for the poor and middle class.

11. He did nothing to stop the civil asset forfeiture insanity that is being perpetrated by our local police forces. The Justice Dept briefly halted it, but then allowed it to continue.

12. The Affordable Care Act was adequate at best but did not address the issues of greed in the medical and pharmeceutical industries. These industires need to be nationalized or become not-for-profits. Doctors should be paid what teachers are paid.

13. The policies towards Russia were, in my opinion, unrealistic and certain to cause more conflict.

14. His response to China's cyberattack on this country was inadequate.

15. His response to Russia's cyberattack on this country was too little, too late. 

16. Finally, he was behind that UN resolution that is causing so much glee for those who would destroy Israel. He did so against objections in his own party and as a deliberate f*ck you to some of his strongest supporters.

I have a problem with these things.

I liked his style and manner. I thought he was a first class communicator. And compared to what comes after him, I thought he was a bloody genius and a saint. As our first African-American president, I think he is a credit to his nation.

But he was not the advocate of change that I feel we needed then and now.

Tim Kaine Notes

First of all, Tim Kaine is not from Virginia, he is from Missouri by way of Harvard. This is good and bad but no one from Virginia would for a moment think he was from Virginia, so you should know that. Second, he is not old-school Southern Democrat. That is good. Third, he is not a racist. Most of my ignorant west coast friends think all Southerners are racists. Fourth, he has been elected to political offices on a regular basis in a state that is heavily gerrymandered, has a large African-American vote, but which is a very conservative state, in the classic sense of the word.

Kaine is not in any way a radical, a progressive, or anything else along those lines. He will reinforce the Hillary Clinton approach to things, which is to say, a Rockefeller Republican approach. He may help to trivially increase education benefits. He may understand how hopeless the poor and the minority population is in this country, but he is not likely to stick his neck out too much unless Hillary tells him to, which I doubt. When it comes to foreign policy, he will be a solid American representative and will not embarrass us.

I can not emphasize the following too much. Kaine is a representative of the Harvard/Washington elite. If you have been happy with that elite's governance of America, then vote for him. If not, dont vote for him. He is not unlike John Kerry, if you will.

I dont think that voters in this country have any choice in who they will have to vote for in November. And I am not at all happy about this. Do not think that these people represent a big chunk of America just because they win in November. We had a gun to our head, and you know what I am talking about here.

I will update this post with new information about Kaine as it comes in.

Autobiographical note.

For what it is worth, I was born and grew up in Virginia (and California). A Californian friend of mine recently told me that Virginia was the Deep South. Another friend was angry that they had to have votes from the Southern states, e.g. that the South had votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate. I didn't have the heart to tell her that this was not the fault of the South, they did not want to be part of the Union either. There was a war about that, recall? It is my impression that most of my friends out here don't know much about the South but are completely certain that they do, a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Why People Should Not Worry So Much about Donald Trump

Many Americans are experiencing panic attacks about the possibility that Donald Trump might become president. Some of them are literally spinning in place and spraying obscenities in all directions. Its embarrassing and I hope they will calm down. I think they have very little to worry about, at least, that is, about Donald Trump.

I think that when we look at what is required for a candidate to win the general election and then look at the specifics that we have in play in this election, that it will become clear that Trump has very little chance of winning. Yes, the Democrats could throw it away, but they would really have to work at it. I cant imagine that too many people would care what I think about this, but in the off chance that this might reassure some of my very worried friends, here is what I think is going on.

In the following I am necessarily going to paint a picture in broad strokes and of course I realize that people are not stereotypes. There is no single position for Hispanics in this country, for example, or women, or African-Americans, but even so there are some things that we know about how different interest groups in this country will see the upcoming general election.

In general, for the Republicans to win a national election, they have to do three things. They have to get a strong voter turnout from their core. They have to attract a certain number of those voters unaffiliated with any party, the so-called Independent voter. And the Democrats have to be ambivalent about their candidate or for one reason or another not be able to get a strong turnout on election day. The Democrats have what seems to be an easier task but in practice it has not always been so easy. They need a good turnout of those who say they are Democrats on election day and they also need a certain number of the unaffiliated voters to vote Democrat, or at least not vote Republican.

There is also a famous joke about who wins presidential elections that goes something like “the candidate that makes the fewest mistakes wins”. There are lots of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, or the head, on the way to the White House. One or two really stupid mistakes or unfortunate events can lose the election.

Now lets review some issues specific to this election.

1. Donald Trump has worked very hard to make the Hispanic Americans hate him. It is possible to win an election without the Hispanic American vote, or at least some of the Hispanic vote, but it makes things much harder.

2. The core African-American wing of the Democratic coalition has been remarkably loyal and supportive of the Clinton campaign. There is every reason to think they will continue to do so into the election.

3. Contrary to what you have read or may believe, not all women unreservedly support Hillary Clinton for president. But no doubt a great majority either do support Clinton or dislike Trump or both. We have every reason to think that many unaffiliated women voters will vote for Clinton.

4. Although many people who run businesses in this country have traditionally been Republicans that is not always true. In general, such people are interested in such things as stability and “free trade”. Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a Rockefeller Republican we have seen in this country for a long time. On the other hand, no one knows what Trump might do if he became president. I think it is extremely likely that Clinton will therefore get a certain number of these "business" votes that would otherwise have gone to the Republican candidate in a more typical year.

5. Many Democrats are enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, but certainly not all are. But even those who are at best ambivalent about Clinton, such as Bernie supporters like myself, will freely acknowledge that Clinton is far superior to Trump. There is a pretty good chance that “fear of Trump” will result in a solid Democratic turnout.

6. Ask yourself the following question “Who is more likely to say something stupid in public, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?” I think it is pretty clear that it is the Donald who is likely to say something that will really piss off certain elements of the American voter. One of the criticisms I have about Clinton is that if anything she is too careful, too calculating, too concerned about not annoying someone. This is not a totally fair criticism, but it is certainly at least partially true.

I could go on, but I think this is enough to be convincing. Some pretty dramatic things would have to happen between now and November which elevates Donald Trump and gives him respectablity that he does not currently have, and Clinton would have to make a fair number of stupid mistakes for her to lose this election.

Famous last words, I know.

But really, as these things go, I think that there is very little to worry about.

The Sword of Hillary

I have recently experienced on Facebook the fate of anyone in this society who would dare to question Hillary Clinton's right to be the next president. The abuse from people that I would normally consider friends who happen to be female is quite, well, extreme.

For example, I researched on the various Hillary sites what her position was on such things as minimum wage and H1B visas.  And I reported what I learned on Facebook and was told that it was "all lies" and that, by implication, I was a liar.

There are other examples as well.  It seems to be a general phenomenon.  I suspect that it is caused by a generation of women who woke up one day and realized that Hillary Clinton was their best chance for getting a woman as president in their lifetime.  And they went on the warpath such that anyone who would dare doubt Hillary's perfection had their ethics, morality, intelligence and experience attacked.

I call these people "The Sword of Hillary", soldiers whose self-appointed job is to attack and destroy anyone who does not confess to the true faith.

Well, we all have our own road to take, and choose how we express our opinions. I think it is a good thing for people to get involved in the political process, and work for the candidate(s) of their choice.

But consider, always beating up the opposition may not be the best way to get their support when the Primary season is over and we approach the general election.  Engaging in a discussion where people are treated with respect and where the facts are reviewed and discussed is one thing. Hitting them with a big rock and trying to knock their brains out is not the same thing.

As of now, I think it is pretty clear that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, although that is not absolutely certain, but it is likely.  And ideally the party would pull together and work to get her elected.  But to do that, people have to be comfortable with the candidate and believe that voting for her is not voting against their interests.

Beating people up and slandering anyone who dares run against Queen Hillary is not the best way to do this, in my humble opinion.

Some of this is not Hillary's fault by the way, exactly.  Some of my dissatisfaction with Ms. Clinton's position comes from the last 8 years of the Obama administration.  Obama is, I think, the best we can expect from a middle of the road, well-meaning, Democrat.  While I appreciate his efforts, his administration has also convinced me that this is not enough to begin to fix the problems that this country faces. And I do not expect that Hillary will be as good as Obama, even. So instead of attacking me or others who doubt HRC will be the “president from heaven”, who will bring about the new Millennium, that in fact she is the second coming of The Christ or, depending on your point of view, even the first coming of the Messiah, your efforts would be better used to understand why people doubt her and work to improve both her positions and any democratic platform.

The TransPacific Partnership and the Inalienable Rights of the Corporation

draft

When will American's wake up and realize that it is the noble corporation, the keeper of all that is right and just, that must be the focus of all our laws and institutions? By enabling and encouraging the large corporation, mere freedom and liberty is transcended by providing greater profits to the shareholders. America is based on this fundamental principle in spite of the whining of little groups of failed so-called upholders of liberty. They should realize that the only liberty that matters is the liberty of the large corporation.  It is from these corporations that all the good in our world originates.  Our entire political system is dedicated to empowering the large corporation.

As the movie, Network (1976), so presciently puts it, in putting words into the mouth of the Chairman of the Board of the eponymous network,

A lecture on Globalization

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today."

And so, with this so clearly expressed back in 1976, why do we have to listen to mere Noble prize winning economists like this Joseph Stiglitz who is running down the Trans Pacific Partnership? Who is he to say that this is the "worst treaty every negotiated"?  President Obama had the interests of all Americans at heart when he tried to steamroller this treaty through congress without discussion.  Sure this treaty was negotiated in secret without the input of the citizens of the various nations but so what?  Look at what Globalization has brought to all the citizens of this great nation: poverty, the destruction of organized labor, the exploitation of enslaved people around the world.  Shouldn't that be enough to establish a little trust here?

Joseph Stiglitz going on and on about economic inequity again

In America, our entire political system is dedicated to empowering the large corporation. As it has always been. As it will always be.

Its for our own good.

You can read about Dr. Stiglitz's rant here:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

The IMDB page for Network (1976) is here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt