From Dave Barry's Year in Review:
"...In other political news, Joe Biden launches his estimated 17th presidential campaign, with the slogan: “Let Uncle Joe Give You A Great Big Hug.” Biden immediately becomes the leader of the crowded Democratic field based on the fact that his name sounds vaguely familiar..."
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
The Other Side of the Coin
Immigration to the U.S. is a topic that fills the news every day and it may be the most potent source of division in the country's political landscape. On the other hand, emigration and expatriation from the U.S. get very little attention.
While most U.S. expats appear to be motivated primarily by economics, I would guess that quite a lot of people in the Trump era have given at least a passing thought to looking for residence in a place that seems to more highly value rationality, equality and stability. Canada, Costa Rica and New Zealand come to mind.
It doesn't take a lot more imagination to realize that moving to another country brings with it a heavy load of complications. To cite just one, the U.S. taxes according to citizenship rather than residence, so moving abroad can result in some real tax nightmares involving the bureaucracies of two nations.
Of course, there is another moving option available in the form of internal migration. For instance, a lot of African Americans moved from the rural south to northern or western urban areas. The reasons in that case were based on economic and political issues. The logic behind such a move is irrefutable, but the consequences were seldom so clearly positive as might be hoped.
Despite some obvious drawbacks to picking up and moving to a new place for anyone, the idea still retains a lot of appeal, in most cases for possible economic improvements. In some instances it also seems likely some people may feel surrounded by a community which they feel is unsafe or hostile to their beliefs, and be looking for that reason to change their residence.
I'm staying put. Twelve years ago, I chose to move from rural southern New Mexico to Albuquerque, New Mexico's biggest city. While I have lived in quite a few places inside and outside the country, moving at this late stage of my life no longer seems like a useful or even viable option. Not that there are not local conditions which create serious concerns. Albuquerque has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the country. New Mexico is among the poorest of states and it is not likely that will change significantly in my lifetime.
Meanwhile, however, I live in a pretty quiet middle-class neighborhood. And, while I am appalled by the state of politics at the national level, the city, state and federal representatives which are responsible for my part of town are bright, energetic progressives who are working hard to make things better for their fellow New Mexicans.
I have been particularly impressed by our U.S. Congressional Representative, Deb Haaland, who is one of the first Native American women to reach that position. She has gone to great lengths to stay in close touch with her constituents through emails and town halls, and she has sponsored many progressive initiatives in her first year in Congress.
Even with some good local allies, of course, there is no guarantee that progress will continue on an unbroken course. Politics doesn't work that way. Still, I welcome the encouragement from activists who are younger and smarter than me. Also, I do think that lasting significant change has got to come from the bottom up.
What got me thinking along these lines were a couple of articles in today's Guardian:
Lauren Gambino's article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains very clearly how the youngest woman ever elected to Congress got to where she is.
Joseph Stiglitz's article about Martín Guzmán, Argentina's new minister of economy appointed by President Alberto Fernández, is encouraging because it gives a ray of hope to a country that for decades has experienced a rollercoaster ride of boom and bust. I had a first-hand view of the country sliding into one of the worst busts which led to a nightmarish dictatorship, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Fernández and Guzmán will at least prevent a repeat of that.
While most U.S. expats appear to be motivated primarily by economics, I would guess that quite a lot of people in the Trump era have given at least a passing thought to looking for residence in a place that seems to more highly value rationality, equality and stability. Canada, Costa Rica and New Zealand come to mind.
It doesn't take a lot more imagination to realize that moving to another country brings with it a heavy load of complications. To cite just one, the U.S. taxes according to citizenship rather than residence, so moving abroad can result in some real tax nightmares involving the bureaucracies of two nations.
Of course, there is another moving option available in the form of internal migration. For instance, a lot of African Americans moved from the rural south to northern or western urban areas. The reasons in that case were based on economic and political issues. The logic behind such a move is irrefutable, but the consequences were seldom so clearly positive as might be hoped.
Despite some obvious drawbacks to picking up and moving to a new place for anyone, the idea still retains a lot of appeal, in most cases for possible economic improvements. In some instances it also seems likely some people may feel surrounded by a community which they feel is unsafe or hostile to their beliefs, and be looking for that reason to change their residence.
I'm staying put. Twelve years ago, I chose to move from rural southern New Mexico to Albuquerque, New Mexico's biggest city. While I have lived in quite a few places inside and outside the country, moving at this late stage of my life no longer seems like a useful or even viable option. Not that there are not local conditions which create serious concerns. Albuquerque has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the country. New Mexico is among the poorest of states and it is not likely that will change significantly in my lifetime.
Meanwhile, however, I live in a pretty quiet middle-class neighborhood. And, while I am appalled by the state of politics at the national level, the city, state and federal representatives which are responsible for my part of town are bright, energetic progressives who are working hard to make things better for their fellow New Mexicans.
I have been particularly impressed by our U.S. Congressional Representative, Deb Haaland, who is one of the first Native American women to reach that position. She has gone to great lengths to stay in close touch with her constituents through emails and town halls, and she has sponsored many progressive initiatives in her first year in Congress.
Even with some good local allies, of course, there is no guarantee that progress will continue on an unbroken course. Politics doesn't work that way. Still, I welcome the encouragement from activists who are younger and smarter than me. Also, I do think that lasting significant change has got to come from the bottom up.
What got me thinking along these lines were a couple of articles in today's Guardian:
Lauren Gambino's article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains very clearly how the youngest woman ever elected to Congress got to where she is.
Joseph Stiglitz's article about Martín Guzmán, Argentina's new minister of economy appointed by President Alberto Fernández, is encouraging because it gives a ray of hope to a country that for decades has experienced a rollercoaster ride of boom and bust. I had a first-hand view of the country sliding into one of the worst busts which led to a nightmarish dictatorship, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Fernández and Guzmán will at least prevent a repeat of that.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Obama's Mistake
It is not unusual for politicians to talk about healing divisiveness and working across the aisle during their campaigns. The difference in Obama's case was that he actually tried to make that work after he took office. It was a great waste of time and effort. When he reached out, the Republicans were right there ready to chop off his hand and shut the door on his candidate for the Supreme Court.
I was reminded of Obama's unfortunate strategic error yesterday when I went to a Democratic ward meeting in Albuquerque. The up side of the get-together was the presence of some bright, engaged young people. One of the brightest and most articulate spent his allotted time talking about the negative consequences of confronting aggressive rants by Trump supporters, pointing out that their attitudes were likely due to some personal misfortune. For all I know that could be true, but is it relevant to effectively changing the way the country is governed?
I think it indisputable that people stressed by economic, social and emotional conditions will often turn for reassurance to authoritarian leaders. We are certainly seeing that now with the rise of Trump and other right-wing leaders world-wide. It is also important, however, to not lose sight of that fact that people over-all are becoming more liberal generally across the ideological divides.
Just look at attitude shifts in recent decades toward inter-racial relationships, gay marriage and marijuana usage. Some concrete statistical support for those trends was offered recently in an article at FiveThirtyEight. The article was specifically addressing the liberalization over the past thirty years of the Democratic Party, but the statistics also support the idea that liberalization has not been confined to the left side of the political spectrum. While the populace as a whole has moved leftward, governance has moved in the opposite direction.
So, the problem is not the natural age-old human tendency to look to support from right-wing authoritarians. Rather it is that the machinery of governance has been captured by corporate dark money which supports the politicians willing to sell out the real interests of their constituents -- and not all are Republicans. An obvious response is to just not support any candidate -- regardless of party or ideological pretense -- who accepts corporate campaign funding.
I was reminded of Obama's unfortunate strategic error yesterday when I went to a Democratic ward meeting in Albuquerque. The up side of the get-together was the presence of some bright, engaged young people. One of the brightest and most articulate spent his allotted time talking about the negative consequences of confronting aggressive rants by Trump supporters, pointing out that their attitudes were likely due to some personal misfortune. For all I know that could be true, but is it relevant to effectively changing the way the country is governed?
I think it indisputable that people stressed by economic, social and emotional conditions will often turn for reassurance to authoritarian leaders. We are certainly seeing that now with the rise of Trump and other right-wing leaders world-wide. It is also important, however, to not lose sight of that fact that people over-all are becoming more liberal generally across the ideological divides.
Just look at attitude shifts in recent decades toward inter-racial relationships, gay marriage and marijuana usage. Some concrete statistical support for those trends was offered recently in an article at FiveThirtyEight. The article was specifically addressing the liberalization over the past thirty years of the Democratic Party, but the statistics also support the idea that liberalization has not been confined to the left side of the political spectrum. While the populace as a whole has moved leftward, governance has moved in the opposite direction.
So, the problem is not the natural age-old human tendency to look to support from right-wing authoritarians. Rather it is that the machinery of governance has been captured by corporate dark money which supports the politicians willing to sell out the real interests of their constituents -- and not all are Republicans. An obvious response is to just not support any candidate -- regardless of party or ideological pretense -- who accepts corporate campaign funding.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Ignore Trump
He craves attention. The best way to deal with him is to just look away. He is, after all, just a symptom of what is wrong with the country -- the domination of government at all levels by the Republican agenda.
There is some satisfaction to be derived from exposing Trump's thuggish behavior in the impeachment inquiries. There is certainly also some value to exposing the hipocracy of Trump's congressional supporters. In the end, though, none of that matters if Democrats don't have an effective strategy for winning.
There is a good overview available at The New York Review of Books of how Democrats can regain momentum toward achieving control of the nation through a bottom up strategy. Joseph O'Neill reviews of couple of books which examine Democratic Party successes and failures, and he extrapolates their evidence to some hard-hitting recommendations for the long haul. Worth a read.
There is some satisfaction to be derived from exposing Trump's thuggish behavior in the impeachment inquiries. There is certainly also some value to exposing the hipocracy of Trump's congressional supporters. In the end, though, none of that matters if Democrats don't have an effective strategy for winning.
There is a good overview available at The New York Review of Books of how Democrats can regain momentum toward achieving control of the nation through a bottom up strategy. Joseph O'Neill reviews of couple of books which examine Democratic Party successes and failures, and he extrapolates their evidence to some hard-hitting recommendations for the long haul. Worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)