The Right Ask for Dems Today: 10 Year Plan

The Democrats are concerned about Trumps tactics, and about how stupid the wall is. They are also concerned about the plight of millions of people hurt by Trumps shutdown. Here is the right counteroffer to end this thing now and get inoculated from a repeat anytime soon:

  1. A total of $5.7B for border security, a portion of which can be used for new fencing in areas selected by a blue ribbon bi-partisan group of border experts, smart fencing in others, in exchange for DACA and TPS programs restored to their state as of January 20, 2017, and held there in law for a 10 year period.
  2. Parallel 10 Year Moratorium on Shutdowns And Debt Ceiling fights in this form:
    1. An automatic C/R active till 2029 that kicks in in the event of a failure to fund operations at current levels;
    2. Waiver of debt ceiling till 2029

Trump gets his fence and then some, DACA gets made into law instead of an executive order only, everybody looks tough on the border without building too much stupid fence in the wrong places, and the American people get 10 years of relief from this hostage taking approach.

Give Trump Two Wins Right Now

wall 2018

A word of praise for big helping of democratic sacrilege with their new House power in 2019:  not only should the democrats now give Trump something he can claim as a win on his wall pledge, they should give a second win on another big campaign promise of his – be seen to clean up the swamp.


Why be so generous  with new democratic power in a new year?  To prove to the country but especially independents that democrats lead and govern following classic norms and do so better than republicans, whose corruption as a governing force is profound, especially if we can double down on more democracy and less voter suppression.


Here’s how you give the second win to Trump, and to take advantage of a proper crisis:  Trump wants a win on the wall so much (which could easily be funded as a traditional border fence and he’d still call it a win) he’s willing to agree to just about anything.  So go bold.  He’s also repeatedly claimed he wants to clean up the swamp.  How about in exchange for a few hundreds miles of fence Trump can put his name on (we already have 700 miles of fence what’s another 200 or so)  Democrats should take their planned first Bill, H.R. 1, The Elections and Government Reform Package, adjust a tiny bit so that is it real legislative proposal with the wall money added in, and get Trump to not only support it but to ask him to force the Senate to pass as part of clean up the swamp story.


What is the the sweeping anti-corruption Bill H.R. 1?   There are three main planks the bill covers: campaign finance reform, strengthening the government’s ethics laws, and expanding voting rights.  Democrats should change the title to “Donald J. Trump Open Government and Cleanup the Swamp Act” if he agrees to push it through the Senate and sign it in exchange for the $5B of new wall-fence he can stand in front of next year in a photo-op.   And there is little in H.R. 1 that would upset Trump’s base or for that matter Trump (as long as they make the President’s tax return stuff only apply to future Presidents).  In fact, since the main sources of opposition to it are currently empowered political elites, Trump could be the ideal salesman, at least to his core constituency.  He might even be able to roll Mitch McConnell in it!


Would Trump take this offer in a rush with this shutdown clock ticking all the time?  Who knows, he’s something of a nut-job and a terrible negotiator.  But putting this offer out there changes the conversation from who should own the shutdown and who is better on border security, to ground that’s better for not just democrats but for democracy: how do we govern the country in a more fair and less corrupt fashion than ever before.  Further, this is what the democrats wanted to talk about first – so let’s do more than talk, let’s propose legislation and pass it day 1.  Attach an open the government rider to H.R. 1 with the $5B of wall-fence money.


Arguably the biggest risk here would be allowing Trump to be perceived as more electable in 2020 by making him out to be a winner on some fronts like having built more fence than the last guy. But compromise between political actors is a not a sin if the policy outcomes benefit the people, and taking the fence (not idiotic concrete barriers) from 700 miles to 900 miles is not a major sin – in fact, modeling compromise that benefits the country is what political leadership should be seen doing.  And if new house leadership stands up day 1 with this kind of a bold immediate solution, a lot of voters will notice the refreshing change from all-republican rule, especially independents.  In the end, as long as the democrats put up a competitive candidate in 2020, no small amount of new wall-fence is going to get the Russian stooge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue another 4 year lease on power – the 2018 mid terms are a great data point there, with democrats wining 8.5% more voters nationally than republications, in the cycle when their voters typically do not come out.


And if we can knock dark money and extreme partisan gerrymanders way back, do public campaign finance, add national automatic voter registration, restore the Voting Rights Act, that is a win for the ages for the country.  Which is why now is not a bad time for some democratic sacrilege: give the art of the deal man some wall, just make sure he pays a price for it with benefits deep and widely shared by all Americans.

Call For Fresh Deep Political Questions 1

Our technologies have collapsed the universe of political life deep questions that we tackle together down to a single one, and this time unfortunately, we picked the wrong one.

Deep political questions go beyond issues of the day.  Once upon a time in America, before McConnell and god-help-us Trump, when information flows between groups and persons were more constrained and gradual, it took a whole host of deep questions to distinguish the political beliefs and consequent actions of the one major group from the other.  In the last few decades, and especially in the last few years, as the lubrication at an individual level of internet-driven communication media like as Facebook grew to massive scale, and politically homogeneous television news channels captured the mind-share of millions, the matrix of questions needed to distinguish a political action plan for the two major political parties in the United States has collapsed down to one, and that question is the primacy of self versus the primacy of community.

As any thoughtful person learns well at an early stage, this question of self versus community interest does yield a single universal answer.

An absolutest view of self-interest when applied to political systems produces proposals that include anarchy or levels of power decentralization and ethnocentrism which border on the feudal or the tribal, and cannot meet the needs of complex societies of hundreds of millions of interested persons who desire levels of well being that are best met by socioeconomic models with high levels of interaction and interdependence.  The current U.S. interpretation of an unbound individual right to bear arms is a case in point here.  30%+ of the gun sales in the United States take place without a required background checks of any kind, allowing the most home-front protecting rural mothers side by side with the most heinous criminals and psychotics to amass unlimited collections of deadly armaments.   The predicable result of this approach is the highest death-rate from gun violence in the world, due to a simplistic reliance on the selfish right to collect unlimited deadly weapons and ammunition versus the collection value in not infusing society with such a massive uncontrolled array of death-dealing tools.  Yet our political leaders refuse to change this system, even though it is rather unpopular when polled.  Trump calls this winning, by the way.

Equally ludicrous are the solutions of the absolutest community-first answer, which accelerate rapidly towards totalitarian control and the near absence of individual rights whenever they might conflict with a hypothetical model of greater good.  In a system where the needs of the community always come before the needs of the self,for example,  there is not much room for individual ownership of property.  Yet there is scant reason to believe and great reason to be skeptical of public systems taking complete ownership of all land and wealth.  Few of us would want to depend on the government to authorize the resources needed for our next meal, let alone the roof over our head.   We are animals that demand a certain level of control and agency over aspects of our lives that we cannot and will not in good conscious yield up to the community in abstract, to say nothing of a far away bureaucracy.

Thus the effective response to any deep question of self versus community is nuanced and invariably outcome-determinative based on an eventual consensus reached through a balancing test – sometimes it is one, and sometimes it the other, most often it is a comprise.  This is a complex and slow process in all but the most simple cases.  So why has our discussion been reduced to this single question that resistant to easy answers?

The unfortunate truth here is that this single question, self versus community, has emerged as the single most effective means of generating political capital and control.

By training its adherents that less taxes (the self wins) is in all cases better than the alternative, republican party leaders allow the release of strong emotions with little required thinking.  Who needs to spend time analyzing the question of which is better, having more money or having less?

By training its adherents that reductions to income redistribution systems of any kind of stealing from the poor and less fortunate, the democratic leaders release strong emotions without asking their adherents to consider questions such as whether or not a given program is allocating resources fairly or efficiently, or if a given policy might indeed be undermining self reliance that could benefit the individual and the community more in the fullness of time.

This said, there is a grave asymmetry in how effective this single question, self versus community, can be used as a means of generating political capital for its proponents.   Because the self is a visceral and immediately accessible concept to all, and community is abstract and easy to lose track of, a political culture that passes every issue through this single filter is likely to yield far more capital on the selfish side than the community side, at least in the near term.

A land where republicans more or less rule, or at least those who ally with the most successful proponents of self over community, which certainly also include a few others.

Over the longer time horizon, excessive political capital on selfish answers, let’s call in the McConnell model, will create a distorted political culture which under the most gentle set of assumptions brings vast inequality and widespread suffering, and following several well traveled historical roads, eventual revolt by the community whose needs, while more abstract, not quite real.

Therefore, the time has come to start asking different political questions, perhaps ones that require more thought and engagement from each of us to reach more rich and satisfying answers alone and together.  Let us choose the new set wisely.

See part 2, when it/if comes.

 

(c) 2018 ClownTower

 

 

 

 

Trumpelstiltskin

trumple1In a certain mid-western state once lived a poor farmer who had a very beautiful daughter. She was moreover exceedingly shrewd and clever; and the farmer was so vain and proud of her, that he one day told a powerful and grizzled senator who lived as a king of the land that his daughter could spin gold out of straw. Now this motley local king, like many such kings, was very fond of money; and when he heard the farmer’s boast, his avarice was excited, and he ordered the girl to be brought before him. Then he led her to a chamber where there was a great quantity of straw, gave her a spinning-wheel, and said, “All this must be spun into gold before morning, as you value your life.” It was in vain that the poor maiden declared that she could do no such thing, the chamber was locked and she remained alone.

She sat down in one corner of the room and began to lament over her hard fate, when suddenly the door opened, and a misshapen-looking orange man with tiny hands hobbled in, and said “Good morrow to you, my good lass, what are you weeping for?” “Alas!” answered she; “I must spin this straw into gold, and I know not how.” “What will you give me,” said the little man with a salesy voice, “to take care of it for you?” The poor girl had little more than the clothes on her back. The misshapen man stared at her with wolfish eyes. Finally, having no other thoughts, the maiden replied, “my stockings.” She removed them from her legs and handed them to the him. He then set himself down to the wheel; round about it went merrily, and presently the work was done and the gold all spun.

When the pseudo-king came in the morning and saw this, he was greatly astonished and pleased: but his heart grew still more greedy of gain, and he shut up the poor miner’s daughter again with a fresh task and an even more huge pile of straw. Then she knew not what to do, and sat down once more to weep; but the little man presently opened the door, and said, “What will you now give me in deal to do your task tonight?” “My brassiere,” she replied, knowing that was all she had left without losing her final dignity. She turned around and removed her brassiere and then handed it to her little friend, who took it and flashed a disturbing toothy grin. Then he began to work at the wheel, till by the morning all was finished again.

The king was vastly delighted to see all this glittering treasure; but still he was not satisfied and took the miner’s daughter behind a great wall into an incredible large room filled to the rafters with straw, and said, “All this must be spun to-night; and if you succeed, you shall be my queen.” As soon as she was alone the dwarf with tiny hands came in, and said, “What will you give me to spin gold for you this third time?” “I have nothing, left,” said she. “Then promise me,” said the little man, “your first little child when you are queen.” “That may never be,” thought the miner’s daughter; but as she knew no other way to get her task done, she promised him what he asked, and he spun once more the whole heap of gold. The king came in the morning, and finding all he wanted, married her, and so the farmer’s daughter really became queen.

At the birth of her first little child the queen rejoiced very much and forgot the little creepy man and her promise; but one day he came into her chamber and reminded her of it. Then she grieved sorely at her misfortune, and offered him all the treasures of the kingdom in exchange; but in vain, till at last her tears seemed to softened him a bit, and he said, “I will give you three days’ grace, and if during that time you tell me my name, you may keep your tasty looking child.”

Now the queen lay awake all night, thinking of all the odd names that she had ever heard, and dispatched messengers all over the land to inquire after new ones. The next day the little man came, and she began with Ronald, George, Hubert, Abe, and all the other names she could remember; but to all of them he said, “Believe me, that’s not my true name.”

The second day she began with all the comical names she and her messengers had heard of, Bandy-legs, King Leer, CheetoVoldemort, The Lyin King, The Human Tanning Bed Warning Label, Adolph Twittler, The Angry Creamsicle, and so on, but the little gentleman still said to every one of them, “That’s not my true name, loser.”

The third day came back the last of the messengers, and said, “I have not heard of no one other names; but hear me out — yesterday at last light as I was climbing a high hill among the trees of the forest where the red fox and the gray fox bid each other good night, I saw a sad little hut, and before the hut burnt a fire, and round about the fire danced a funny little man upon one leg, and sung,

trumple2

Merrily a child feast I’ll make,
To-day I’ll brew, to-morrow bake him;
Merrily I’ll dance and sing,
For next day will a tasty stranger bring:
For little does my lady dream
Trumpel-Stilts-Kin is my name!

When the queen heard this, she jumped for joy, and as soon as her little visitor came, and said, “Now, lady, what is my true name?” “Is it Vladimir?” asked she. “No!” “Is it José Jiménez?” “No!”

“Can your name be Trumpel-Stilts-Kin?”

“Some witch told you that! Some witch told you that!” cried the little man, and dashed his right foot in a rage so deep into the floor, that he was forced to lay hold of it with both hands to pull it out. Then he made the best of his way off, while everybody laughed at him for indeed he was a man who talked way too much at all hours for his own good, and everyone by now had finally had enough of that.


The moral of the story my young ones: Don’t trust Trumpelstiltskin around any of your children, he will pretend to bring them great deals and fortune but in his true heart he is out to debase them or eat them for his own supper, and he may do so to yours, unless you are both clever and lucky.
(c) 2018 ClownTower

Risen asks the right question: Traitor or Dupe?

Is Donald Trump a Traitor?

Most pundits in Washington now recoil at any suggestion that the Trump-Russia story is really about treason. They all want to say it’s about something else – what, they aren’t quite sure. They are afraid to use serious words. They are in the business of breaking down the Trump-Russia narrative into a long series of bite-sized, incremental stories in which the gravity of the overall case often gets lost. They seem to think that treason is too much of a conversation-stopper, that it interrupts the flow of cable television and Twitter. God forbid you might upset the right wing! (And the left wing, for that matter.)

But if a presidential candidate or his lieutenants secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason.

Worthy read!

The Donald Trump baby balloon takes flight over London

The already-legendary Trump baby balloon has taken flight over London
Demonstrators fly a blimp portraying U.S. President Donald Trump, in Parliament Square, during the visit by Trump and First Lady Melania Trump in London, Britain July 13, 2018.
baby trump.jpg

 

President Donald Trump presumably never wants to be seen wearing a diaper, and least of all while floating over Britain’s Houses of Parliament. But—right at this very moment—the now-fabled Trump baby balloon is soaring high, close to the historic Palace of Westminster in London.

via Photos: The Donald Trump baby balloon takes flight over London — Quartz

Donald Trump Really Doesn’t Want Me to Tell You This, but … | Vanity Fair

I spent a long, awkward weekend with Donald Trump in November 1996, an experience I feel confident neither of us would like to repeat.

He was like one of those characters in an 18th-century comedy meant to embody a particular flavor of human folly. Trump struck me as adolescent, hilariously ostentatious, arbitrary, unkind, profane, dishonest, loudly opinionated, and consistently wrong. He remains the most vain man I have ever met. And he was trying to make a good impression. Who could have predicted that those very traits, now on prominent daily display, would turn him into the leading G.O.P. candidate for president of the United States?

His latest outrageous edict on banning all Muslims from entering the country comes as no surprise to me based on the man I met nearly 20 years ago. He has no coherent political philosophy, so comparisons with Fascist leaders miss the mark. He just reacts. Trump lives in a fantasy of perfection, with himself as its animating force.

via Donald Trump Really Doesn’t Want Me to Tell You This, but … | Vanity Fair