Politics and policy

Another ‘election’ over, time to consider some radical ideas

November 9, 2014 by Clay Bonnyman Evans

It’s always so bittersweet, isn’t it, when Election Day has passed? After Americans come together in a unified show of civic pride and duty, fully informed about the issues and candidates to pull the lever — excuse me, attach the stamp (stamps!) — and the sleek, well-oiled machine of this little experiment called democracy hums toward a brighter future.

Not your experience? Hmm. Your mood Wednesday morning was probably determined in part by whether your “team” won. But don’t worry — they’ll all get back to the business of refusing to work together for the betterment of the nation soon.

As a booby prize, here are some political reforms I’ve seen batted around in recent years. All are imperfect, would be savaged by one team or another (or both) for conferring partisan advantage and are utterly unimaginable in the current political atmosphere. But the system is broken; I’m all ears.

A single, six-year term for president. Under the current system we almost always get eight-year terms: Since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s final term, just two presidents who sought a second term — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — have been rejected (Truman and Johnson didn’t run; Kennedy was assassinated). Presidents spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money, and calculate their every move with an eye toward re-election. Meanwhile, second terms are notoriously subject to scandal, antsy voters’ mindless need for “change” and finally, “lame-duck” status.

Eighteen-year, staggered term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court. We blew past the old argument for lifetime appointments long ago. The court is anything but “non-partisan” (research data on one-vote majorities) and partisan courts haven’t served us well. We currently have one justice who won’t speak during oral arguments, whose vote is 100 percent predictable —a big middle finger to a country he believes treated him poorly during his confirmation process; he’s only 66 — he could easily be with us another quarter century. And as one proponent wrote in The Week, “Since the Supreme Court is already a mostly political body that has taken upon itself to legislate, it only makes sense to treat it like a kind of legislature.”

Forget “bipartisan” elections. Ever voted for the “least bad” candidate? Ever been disgusted at the “choice” you have? California did away with traditional primaries in 2010 (except for president), opting instead, all candidates appear on a single ballot. The top two candidates move on to the November election, regardless of party affiliation, or lack thereof. This sometimes results in two Democrats or two Republicans on the final ballot, which supporters say forces them to differentiate and run a more issue-oriented campaign.

Better yet, some kind of “preference” voting. Australian ballots list all candidates and parties. Rather than just check one, voters number the candidates in order of preference. If any candidate gets 50 percent of the primary vote, he or she is elected. If not, the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and those voters’ next preferences are distributed to the other candidates. This continues until one has at least 50 percent plus one vote. The system ensures that the winning candidate has the support of an absolute majority of the electorate and opens the door to “third” parties (the term itself is telling), who under the current U.S. system have no chance of election. By the way, voting is compulsory in Australia — dirty Commies.

Public financing of elections. Citizens United and big money have been an unmitigated disaster for American democracy.

Drive a stake through gerrymandering. Crass manipulation by equally culpable political parties has resulted in 90 percent or more of Congressional districts being all but uncompetitive (and, interestingly, has resulted in a majority that was elected by a distinct minority of overall voters). States should establish standing, nonpartisan committees of non-politicians to take the process of redistricting out of politicians’ hands.

Do away with winner-take-all elections. Blowhard politicians can claim to “represent the people” with 50 percent plus one vote, but that leaves 50 percent minus one vote unrepresented. Under proportional representation, a 10-member congressional delegation from a state that cast 40 percent of votes for Party A, 50 percent for Party B and 10 percent for Party C would be split 5-4-1.

Congressional term limits. One possible consequence would be to increase the clout of parties, but worth discussing.

Four-year U.S. House terms. Giving House members 4-year terms might reduce the influence of big money and reduce the need for constant campaigning and triangulation.

Owning war. American citizens no longer make any sacrifice when politicians and generals send troops to war. Fewer than half a percent of citizens serve in the military and the cost of wars of choice are put on a deficit card, quite literally kept off the books. This results in the misuse of those who serve in the military, as an unbeaten string of ill-considered wars demonstrates. So, no more skirting the War Powers Resolution: Presidents must win Congressional approval for all overseas military action longer than 60 days in a formal vote (everyone except the people, and the troops, would hate this, since presidents love waging war and members of Congress are deathly afraid of going on the record about one that might just turn sour). Just as important, pass legislation requiring that once troops have been in the field for 90 days, an across-the-board tax increase on individuals and businesses — no loopholes — kicks in to pay for prosecution of the war and care of veterans.

National service. The all-volunteer military has become a plaything of politicians and generals that results in the misuse of soldiers. The system makes it more likely that troops will be put in harm’s way for dubious wars of choice and literally endangers our democratic system. Two-year mandatory national service with both military and non-military options will give citizens a greater stake and voice in decisions about war. Read a longer essay on this topic.

Feel free to comment below or email claybonnyman (at) gmail.com.

Creeping secular Calvinism in 21st-century America

October 16, 2014 by Clay Bonnyman Evans

Back_to_the_Future_25th_Anniversary_Trilogy_scene_with_Jennifer_Marty_and_Doc-sixhundred — Why all this fire-breathing nastiness toward the disadvantaged? Why now? To paraphrase Michael J. Fox’s character in “Back to the Future,” have we just become a******s or something?

The United States is in the midst of a flinty, secular Calvinist revival, judging the poor, the disadvantaged and the unemployed.

You may have read House Speaker John Boehner’s recent remark, “This idea that has been born, maybe out of the economy over the last couple years, that, you know, ‘I really don’t have to work; I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around.’ This is a very sick idea for our country.”

It might be, if it were true. In fact, the percentage of unemployed Americans receiving benefits is at a record low. And according to Politifact, there are about three times as many people looking for work — not counting the millions who have simply given up — as there are jobs available.

Are there lazy people gaming the system? Sure. Same goes for from barons of finance and titans of industry to McDonald’s fry cooks — some people cheat. But most don’t.

Boehner, of course, is just spouting the same twisted, Ayn Randian “maker” vs. “taker” brand of social Darwinism now inexplicably embraced by millions of conservatives. It’s just nasty, brutish Calvinism in an economic context: If you are poor or unemployed, it’s evidence that you deserve to be poor or unemployed — the economic gods hate you.

I have some older friends who have recently found themselves unceremoniously unemployed, fired not for cause, but “efficiency.” Now in their late 50s or even early 60s, they are doing their best to find work. It’s unlikely they’re going to find the kind of steady, valuable work they had been doing, in some cases for decades, for decent pay and benefits. For this some label them lazy losers.

It’s worse for the young. The unemployment rate for men 24 and under has been in double digits, three or four times as high as older men, for years. Meanwhile, according to the Pew Research Center, wages for men age 25-34 with jobs have fallen by about 20 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 1980 (that date is no mere coincidence).

Well, sneer the judgers — and jury members who would happily sentence them to a living hell — they could find jobs if they really wanted to. And if they can’t, well, tough — they are obviously not among the elect.

Bent on finding moral fault, such people are blind to realities. For example, bounding technology and globalization a) are permanently removing good-paying jobs from the economy and b) mean that large corporations can find consumers in Brazil, Indonesia or wherever, so they don’t really need an American middle-class any more. Meanwhile, they are sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash — they don’t want to invest or hire.

I predict that in the next couple of decades, the United States is going to see an enormous swell of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, even 70s, who can’t find a job, whose pensions were canceled to please shareholders and replaced with bogus 401(k) non-retirement plans, and staring at the tatters of a once-solid safety net. Those who can’t move in with grown children may have to form communes and tent cities. (Comedian Albert Brooks has written a pretty good novel on a similar scenario, “2030.”)

Too bad we can’t get these finger-pointers, trickle-down dead-enders and blind moralists to notice the pulsing, bloody gunshot wounds on their feet.

For example, there is a lot of crossover between the scolds and those who fancy themselves advocates of family values. Don’t they know that lousy job prospects and low wages not only cause many divorces, but have literally helped drive marriage rates (except — if this doesn’t get ’em, nothing will — among GLBT Americans) to historic lows? (Again, according to Pew.)

And while corporations can find cheap labor and consumer markets overseas, there is surely a tipping point at which they are going to regret having made it so difficult for Americans to find and keep decent-paying jobs. I’m not talking about revolution in the streets (yet) but simply that there won’t be anyone left at home to buy their stuff.

Lest I come off as a mindless partisan, I’ll just add that the Democratic Party, while not actively hostile and demeaning to the non-elect, is not the advocate many liberals fancy. They’ve utterly forsaken the great equalizer of labor organizing; held individual mortgage owners’ feet to the fire after the 2008 economic meltdown but bailed out the big banks; they’re lousy on consumer protection and have no more interest than their buddies across the aisle in cleaning up a Kafkaesque, Byzantine tax code that rewards tricks for the wealthy and corporations but punishes the great unwashed without access to loopholes and fancy lawyers.

But why all this fire-breathing nastiness toward the disadvantaged? Why now? To paraphrase Michael J. Fox’s character in “Back to the Future,” what, have we just become assholes or something? Could be.

But studies have actually shown that the rich are more selfish — they even shoplift more! — than the “losers” lower on the totem pole. As for non-rich secular Calvinists, could they be projecting their own fears of being unceremoniously booted from the blessed ranks of the elect?

Americans have been goaded into the ISIS crisis

September 22, 2014 by Clay Bonnyman Evans

I wonder how many Americans remember 1960s philosopher Marshall McLuhan or his most famous words, “The medium is the message.” That’s the idea that every form of media —monk’s scribblings, movies, YouTube — is as important as the content of its communication.

But the Islamic State — the brutal Sunni movement that has shocked the world with its ascension in Iraq and Syria, brutal tactics and intention and bloody efforts to cleanse its “caliphate” of infidels — seems well acquainted with McLuhan’s message. ISIS, as its also known, fully grasps the potency of the internet, particularly YouTube, in sending its terrifying message to the world. (If you watched the video beheadings of two American and one British noncombatant just know that your single view gave them more credibility and power.)

“All that we have to do,” bin Laden observed in 2004, “is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east and raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note.”

ISIS wins round one. Even Barack Obama, who clearly hoped to disentangle (forgetting, for now, his drone attacks) the United States from webs like those bin Laden and ISIS have woven, has now succumbed to public outrage spawned — and promulgated — by the medium of pundits, uninformed online commenters and message that ISIS is uniquely awful and we must act now. It’s just the latest bogey to have been cast as the existentially evil and threatening entity or figure whose defeat will, at long last, make us safe. Einstein on insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

So on Sept. 10 a weary-looking president announced a prolonged bombing campaign, along with attempts to build a coalition to wage a long fight to “degrade” and “destroy” the group while insisting that there would be no major ground operation. Six days later, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was talking about — surprise! — a ground campaign.

Is ISIS dangerous? At present, not to the United States, according to official counterterrorism and intelligence estimates. Might it become a threat if allowed to thrive? Possibly, but not imminently. And while disillusioned or delusional Westerners, including Americans, have joined ISIS, there is no evidence of “sleeper cells” or terrorists sneaking across U.S. borders. And no, there have not been any child beheadings; don’t believe everything you read. Coordinated action is perhaps warranted, but not at the point of a terrorist’s knife on YouTube; there is time.

The usual bombers, reflexive hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, have gotten their wish. Gen. Colin Powell says this isn’t America’s fight, but no one’s listening or considering his sensible “Powell Doctrine,” which demands an achievable goal — Obama’s is vague, at best — a plausible exit strategy — there is none — and a clear-eyed analysis of the likely consequences of action vs. inaction.

Some informed pundits, libertarian-type conservatives and liberals have called for Obama to submit this nebulous new war for Congressional approval. In our dreams. Parties at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue love the system just as it is: the president, no matter which party, gets to do as he pleases and nobody in Congress has to take a stand, which could damage their all-important re-election and fund-raising campaigns. A despicable symptom of a failing, craven system that serves everyone except taxpayers — and too often, those who serve in the military.

ISIS poses a more immediate threat to U.S. allies in the Middle East, Turkey, Saudi Arabia — which of course finances Sunni extremism — Iraq and other states. Non-allies like Syria and Lebanon also face danger. But not one of has agreed to a vigorous role in the coalition to date. And why should they? The U.S. has trained them and scores of other allies around the world, from Australia to Japan, Germany to Saudi Arabia, to act as if American taxpayers will foot the bill for their defense.

I was in Australia at the end of 2013. A big issue was the problem of Muslim “boat people” arriving from places like Iran, Sri Lanka and India who often pass through Indonesia, which has caused heightened tensions between the two nations. I was startled at how often I heard or read Australians confidently asserting that if there is war with Indonesia, they needn’t worry because the U.S. will protect them.

Aussies — who love us Americans — spent about $893 per capita on defense in 2013, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — compared to $2,141 for Americans. A sampling of U.S. allies: $1,594 for Saudi Arabia, $244 for Turkey, $558 for Germany and $28 for Pakistan. Sweet deal if you can get it.

That’s why American taxpayers foot the bill for a military budget (which does not even include things like homeland security, intelligence or costs for ongoing conflicts) that represents about 40 percent of global defense spending. In second place, China is estimated to spend anywhere from a quarter to a ninth as much.

It’s insane, but American military and political leaders use “defense” to exert control over allies. Whether this buys much loyalty, or we can afford to continue letting allies off the hook, is doubtful. Asking allies to take on more of the costs of their own defense isn’t isolationism; it’s realism.

Sons of bitches — can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em

August 19, 2014 by Clay Bonnyman Evans

One of the more unflattering qualities of American political debate is the tendency to see everything in the world through a lens of U.S. partisan politics.

Thus when the radical Sunni Islamic State — or, if you will, the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS — suddenly emerges from the ongoing chaos in Syria and Iraq to pose a seemingly dire threat to the region, too many Americans just want to talk about whose “fault” it is, along strictly partisan lines.

Donald Rumsfeld Meets Saddam Hussein In 1983 — Former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein shakes the hand of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, years before Rumsfeld helped prosecute a war to eliminate the “evil” dictator. Associated Press photo.

President Bush and company led the United States into a dubious, idealistic — and disastrous (I need not add “in hindsight,” for like millions of others, I objected months before it began and clearly saw where it was likely to lead) — war in Iraq on the basis of lies in 2003, but complaining about that history gets us nowhere. There is plenty to debate about President Obama’s role — not to mention the wishes of the Iraqi government — in pulling out of Iraq and his seemingly rudderless foreign policy, but who cares? Sand under the bridge.

International politics is complicated. And almost by definition, hypocritical.

Left-leaning idealists tend to demand that the United States uncouple from unsavory autocrats, dictators and villains like Saddam Hussein, but as Franklin Roosevelt allegedly declared of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia, “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

dead diem — Ngo Dinh Diem, former president of South Vietnam, for whom being an American son of a bitch didn’t turn out so hot.

Of course, being America’s son of a bitch is a dangerous game. Just ask Saddam or Ngo Dinh Diem.

Meanwhile the John McCains of America are all realpolitik and seemingly no discernment, eager to unleash bombs on every perceived enemy or sign of instability around the globe, it’s the details that matter. New-style libertarians like Rand Paul — not as libertarian as he would like everyone to believe — counsel less involvement all around.

But what would those armchair right-wing screamers and morally outraged liberals have us do?

Take Saddam. The post-Ottoman fiction that is “Iraq,” with borders practically scratched out in the sand to suit the imperialistic whims of France and Britain in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 and forcing together three wildly disparate ethno-religious populations, always required a “strongman” to hold it together, whether an invented king or a Baathist dictator.

ISIS is even more illustrative. Obama’s critics, from McCain to Hillary Clinton, blast him for not choosing sides in the confusing civil war in Syria, most notably for failing to arm the rebels opposed to President Bashar al-Assad, inarguably a dictatorial thug.

Bashar Assad — Bashar al-Assad – will he soon be America’s son of a bitch?

But guess what? Assad, and his father before him, Hafez al-Assad, represent something much closer to Western values than any of the rebels opposing him. Though certainly willing to use religion to his advantage, he’s essentially a secularist. ISIS, so violent that al-Qaida keeps it at arm’s length, has roots in al-Qaida in Iraq — which did not exist before the U.S. invasion — and the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.

Now, as ISIS seems to be the most virulent enemy on the scene in Iraq and the Levant (basically, Syria and Lebanon), suddenly Assad looks like a “son of a bitch” we might want to deal with. Ditto for the other bogeyman in the region, Shi’ite Iran, which has an incentive to fight Sunni ISIS. Oh, and the long-time American “son of a bitch” Saudi Arabia bears enormous responsibility for helping to create Sunni radicalism and terrorism.

As Joe Klein wrote recently in TIME magazine, “It will require a strategic rethink of who our friends and enemies are in the region. We may find that Iran is part of the ISIS solution rather than part of the problem–a problem that Saudi Arabia’s support for Sunni extremism helped create. We may even find ourselves on the same side as Syria’s disgraceful Bashar Assad: ISIS is the greatest threat to his continued rule.”

I certainly don’t have the answer to such questions, and there probably is no “good” answer. I’m sympathetic to Paul’s view that the U.S. needs to disentangle itself from such situations, stop carrying the Western world’s military water and recognize where our true interests lie. Yet there is danger in isolationism, too.

But here’s something I do know: When it comes to incredibly complex international conflicts that go back decades, centuries, even millennia, finger-pointing over current American partisan politics is an incredibly arrogant, myopic waste of time.

Pages

New Posts

FOLLOW US

Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war

Pages

New Posts

FOLLOW US