Politicians

This is as much as I am willing to say about American politics this year.

It's tempting to conclude that our politicians are incapable of learning.

The Republicans could have seen this coming with the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic legislation that rearranged 18 percent of the American economy but did nothing to arrest the rising cost of healthcare.  Yes, it was a "win" for the Democrats, but it cost them their Congressional majority for the next three election cycles.  

But the Republicans are politicians, just like the Democrats, and they wanted a "win" of their own. They have passed something that leaves the hated US tax code just as Byzantine as it ever was and has handed the Democrats their usual talking points about hating poor people, which may or may not be true, but again, "truth" and "learning" and "politicians" aren't words often found in the same sentence.  

If these buffoons could do things in increments -- requiring family insurance policies to cover kids up to the age of 26, fixing the corporate tax rates to match those in other developed countries -- they could pick off support from the other side.  

This technique, known as "working together," could give way to shifting coalitions and responsiveness to popular concerns.  Could get more done with less noise.  

True, the opportunities for triumphalism would be fewer, but the genuine accomplishments over time might cause people not to hate politicians quite so much as they currently do. 

Trump Obsession

About 10 days ago, the leftish New Republic magazine published an article entitled,  "Is Trump Ruining Book Sales?"  The subhead:  "Authors and publishers alike are finding that it's hard to sell books in a political climate where truth is stranger than fiction."

I would posit an alternate thesis that does not involve the president:  It's hard to sell mediocre books, and most books these days are not particularly distinguished.  Plus, more authors are releasing their books online. 

I don't spend much time reading about politics, but I have been surprised this year at how absorbed the press is with the "Trump is ruining everything" theme.   Articles about seemingly unrelated topics -- book sales, history, sports, arts, fashion, whatever -- include everything from slipped-in slurs to wholesale detours to explain why Donald Trump is terrible in every possible way.  

Here are examples from just two days.    

-----

There’s a Monty Python sketch in which a man in a restaurant is frustrated because everything on the menu seems to have some rat in it. That’s how things are in the age of comrade Trump. It would be great if he would tweet, “I’m the reason you can’t have nice things. SAD! #inwayovermyhead.” No matter what good things happen, there’s probably a bit of Trump in it.

(The above is the first paragraph in what purports to be a review of the Fuck Yeah Fest!, a classy-sounding music event.  The article proceeds through seven more paragraphs about Donald Trump, four paragraphs about two bands, one paragraph about Iggy Pop and a concluding paragraph.)

Henry Rollins

"Enough Trump -- Let's Talk about How Great Iggy Pop Was at FYF"

LAWeekly

August 3, 2017

-----

"Old Walt is tasked with destroying the dark tower, which is the only thing stopping monsters from taking over the planet. Is this a metaphor for the Trump administration? Don't get your hopes up."

Peter Travers

"The Dark Tower' Review"

Rolling Stone

August 3, 2017

-----

Of course, the song’s success doesn’t mean that President Trump’s project will fail, or that cranky nativism will give way to happy multiculturalism. Plenty of people might be willing to watch a video by Puerto Rican artists and still not want a Spanish-speaking neighbor next door. (Although Puerto Rico is a United States territory, so if you’re American, get over it.)

Moises Velasquez-Manoff

"The Meaning of ‘Despacito’ in the Age of Trump"

New York Times

August 4, 2017

-----

Six months into Donald Trump’s presidency, Shkreli captured the zeitgeist of America. Like a millennial version of Trump, he was bombastic, defiant, politically incorrect, indifferent to social norms -- and, according to prosecutors, the truth -- while his expert use of social media attracted a legion of followers. Unlike Trump, he was banned from Twitter after harassing a female journalist.

Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou, Patricia Hurtado and Chris Dolmetsch

"Why ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli Is Swaggering Into Jail"

Bloomberg.com

August 4, 2017

Thoughts

The obsession with hating Donald Trump -- and it is an obsession -- is out of hand.  

If you really, really can't stand the guy, there are practical reasons to think twice before disparaging him every chance you get.

1) Assigning Donald Trump responsibility for everything that you don't like has the perverse effect of making him seem more important and powerful than he actually is.

2) Being unable to view general topics without applying a "Trump-bad/me-good" template limits your capacity for critical thought.

Not everything in this world is about Donald Trump.

Election Observations

As luck would have it, I was traveling on Election Day, which suited me rather well.  My political instincts are not good, and the charm of both parties' presidential candidates had eluded me, to say the least.

Since then, I have read up a bit on the national results.  What strikes me is how completely Americans seem to have segregated themselves into like-minded communities.

Some examples:  

--The District of Columbia voted 93 percent for Hillary Clinton and 4 percent for Donald Trump, a remarkable 89 percentage point differential.

--Tennessee favored Trump 65 percent over Clinton, who won 35 percent of the vote, mostly in Memphis and Nashville. 

--California voted 62 percent Clinton, and 31 percent Trump, but there were splits within the state.  The coastal areas favored the Democrat, and virtually every county north of Los Angeles and east of Interstate 5 (except Yolo County, which includes Sacramento and UC Davis) went Republican. 

--Another western state, Idaho, favored Trump, 59 percent to 29 percent.  Clinton carried only two counties -- one that is that home to the University of Idaho and a smaller one that encompasses the Sun Valley ski resorts.  

It is entirely possible in any of these states, or at least parts of them, that voters never encountered any people who had a different points of view than their own.  This may explain the name-calling that preceded the election and the protests that followed it.  

It's easier to demonize people you've never met, I guess.  Big as the country is, it feels at the moment like a bunch of walled enclaves.  



Ballot Measure Update

I wrote last week about a ballot initiative in Santa Monica, Calif., that would have required a public vote to approve every new proposal for a building taller than two stories.This was seen as a prelude to similar micromanagement efforts in greater Los Angeles and was opposed broadly.  It gathered only 44 percent of the vote, which seems like a sign of sanity.

Political Dread

I do not enjoy presidential election years.  Unfortunately, 2016, a presidential election year, is approaching.

Elections of course are the essence of democracy, a chance for people to indicate their preferences as to the direction of the country.  Elections are good for us.

But then there is our politics.   Maybe American politics was ennobling at some point.  No longer.

I follow issues -- at least to the watered-down, ill-informed extent that we have issues today.  By the time November 8 arrives, I will have selected my candidates and I will cast my vote.

But between now and then I am going to have to put up with a bunch of crap that I would rather avoid. 

I have left-wing friends and right-wing friends and, best of all, friends who do not wear ideological straitjackets.  Sometimes I discuss political matters with this latter group, but not often.  I suspect that they, like me, have grown wary of what passes for political thought in our country.

The rest of them -- the people on the ends of the political spectrum -- put me off.  

The left-wing people assume that any belief held by a person on the right is wrong and bad and must be denounced as spurious and stupid.

The right-wing people assume that any belief held by a person on the left is wrong and bad and must be denounced as spurious and stupid.

Genuine discussion does not seem to interest these people.  Even with my limited education, I can tell that history, economics and science seldom figure prominently in their reasoning, which seems driven more by emotion than logic.

Both sides read publications and follow television programs and internet sites that congratulate them for what they already think.  They are strikingly incurious about why other people might disagree with them. 

My left-wing and right-wing friends all seem to assume that I agree with them and that we are like the cool kids in high school who always know just what to wear.   

Like the cool high school kids, people on the left and right are proud with themselves. They are also smug. They make up nasty names for their opponents, whom they regard with genuine contempt.

I cannot recall a time when I was convinced to change my mind by someone who called me names and treated me with contempt.  This is why I suspect that people on either end of the political spectrum are not interested in genuine discussions, only making points. 

Not surprising, then, that I avoid political discussions.  I don't think I'm not the only one.

Now all we have to do is endure the next 509 days.