AstroTurf Media Bubbles Encouraged by the International Populists

Blue states live in blue media bubbles exclusive from the unreported deaths from expecting mothers not receiving correct and timely medical care for emergencies in post Roe-v-Wade states that have failed to protect female liberties.

Red States live in a different media bubble not reporting those same deaths, either, and living under "right to work" laws and other labor unfriendly regulations, such as Only National Minimum Wage, which is still $7.25, amongst other oppressive anti-Liberty laws, often too busy to engage in politics.

There are many points where the two sides may imagine that they meet, but it is an illusion of the mind drowning in modern information and local context. A mirage.

We are a great nation of States, and under the current Republican Supreme Court we will continue to further attribute many powers to the States.

International AstroTurfing influenced the MAGA thought, 'it's a win if we win, or a steal if we lose the election.' That was a ridiculous, childish and unsporting mentality. Do you have no faith in the American people to operate as a Nation of Laws?

Blue State people thought Harris was a 55% chance to win candidate. That means she should have won by 50.4% to Trump's 48%? Not really, even a 99% candidate has a 1% chance of losing.

Just those two examples among so much else, was all because of mass media bubbles, selective reading, and social or micro media silos.

The MSM, Main Stream Media, or mass media has Corporatist interests and have been supporters of Neo liberalism and International Capitalism, since Reagan deregulated them.

Reagan is spinning in his grave now that the Republicans are Populists in cohoots with Russia and our adversaries.

As Reagan pronounced it, we are in the Information Age. As such, we are reduced to cross referencing summaries of complexities, each a tragedy worthy of study, into neat one liners, encapsulations and sound bites. Memes. What of the average citizens?  Everyone has an account and anyone can have an opinion!

In response to this overload, the average citizen is only able to consume a small, predigested portion from the outstanding events on this planet filled by 8 billion of us- let alone each in their own lives happening daily. How much does any one person's opinion matter?

Moreover, what are we meant to make, or do, about the cascade of facts and tragedies presented in manifold ways at all hours through communications?

For one thing, International Political AstroTurf can be imported and exported. Taking advantage of the A) Macro Corporatist Communications environment, each State in our Union, or at least it's media market, can be manipulated to normalize, both-sides, and sportify the messaging. There's apparently a playbook.

Within that context, the other end of the environment. B) Bloggers, pundits and reporters, like your humble author, drowning in facts, optimizing and contextualizing. C) Aggregators like upstart social media organizations are messaging and formulating the opinions. D) influencers helping are like waiters to select our diet, digestion and sometimes detritus. E) Social media companies applying algorithms for gratification and commercialization. F) Individuals sharing with others are varnishing the messaging with a personal flourish of subjective truth. "Social media ecosystem."

Except:
Why did we have proto-MAGA crowds in 2015, chanting "lock her up?"

In introducing the poisonous International Populism, aside from the personality cult figure, early on, the concepts of jailing a political opponent, the opposite number is the enemy, and my team over your team at all costs- the sportification of politics - was novel. That was some 'Banana Republic' stuff.

American Institutionalism was in the end cooperative. I would be a Pollyanna to suggest politics in the past was pure and ethical.

Rather, the International Populists playbook has unfolded, and nine years later in earnest members of our American franchise from the left were, and still are, honestly of the decided opinion that the AstroTurf candidate to be installed, should now also be "locked up."

Next week we should find out....

To whit, even now we are digesting the International Populist Red Pill we collectively have chosen to swallow, again. 

The Populist candidate has made a mockery of decorum, honor and becoming behavior, thus undermining the Institution of the Presidency.

Be clear, China moved to mixed Communism, and there are Chinese Billionaires. There exists in Russia a Cleptocracy of Billionaires who have profited from the collapse of the Soviet Empire. International Populism is in fact a Rump Lemon Corporatism to cater to the Aristocracy of existing Billionaires without borders!

These strange nominations for cabinet ministers are by design sowing Chaos in and of themselves, but also if those grossly underqualified individuals are appointed, surely mass chaos should ensue.

I was watching UK Prime Ministers Question Hour, and someone said Torys (Rightists, Republicans and now Populists) only introduced Austerity and Chaos, whilst in power. That led to the Labor landslide this year, and now recovery from a dozen years of deferred maintenance for Great Britain begins in earnest.

Why would the International Populists want that Austerity and Chaos here and abroad? If the government is non-functional, chaotic and bribable, then the International Billionaires, are freed up from regulation (and taxes) to make even more wealth with the Economic engines of state.

Unfortunately, for Democrats, the sentiment around the world after the response to Macro Economic COVID-19 recovery efforts was to vote out the incumbents.

Fortunately for Democrats they should have a hard swing of the pendulum back to them after two to four years of Populist's willful neglect, as we saw in UK.

Unfortunately or fortunately, the Republican Populists now are the proverbial Dog who caught the moving Car. What will they do with the three branches of power? 

Whatever happens in these next many years shall be the sole responsibility of the Republicans, and they won't be able to scapegoat or blame anybody else for the outcomes!

Unfortunately, we now must probably endure the hardships of chaos and Austerity. I hope I am wrong.

Democrat Big Tent Dissembly

Well, the Democrats didn't win.

There is a simple solution: Set up a Grand Party exosketon that the coalition agrees to assemble, form quarum, and vote to nominate their National Presidential Candidate. Beyond that local Measures will come into being as primary priorities, because at the end of the day operating government is a responsibilty we can't have people take lightly and must start locally.

Here are nine simple categories to create along simple Social Liberal to Conservative, and Fiscal Liberal to Conservative lines that can all simultaneously pursue their goals and objectives at a local and states level, while voting mostly under the Democratic Big Tent. I would like to suggest that each Working Party fashions environmental policy at the local level, but also everyone in these parties hopefully accepts Climate Change as a True fact that should be a part of all Democratic Grand Party Budget Proposals.

Of course there would be the opportunity to have simple one issue coalitions, the proposal here is for these to be autonomous parties that sign a pledge to vote for the Democratic National Candidates, but do their own thing at the states level:

Democratic Republican: Social and Fiscal Conservative;
These would be people who occasionally vote with Republicans

Democratic Centrist: Social Conservative and Fiscal Centrist
These would be people who occasionally vote with Republicans on Social Issues, but believe in some Government Safety net.

Democratic Socialist: Social Conservative and Fiscal Liberal
These would be people who believe in affording a big safety net with balanced budgets.

Conservative Democratic: Social Centrist and Fiscal Conservative
These people would look to afford safety net programs within some austerity.

Democrat: Social and Fiscal Centrist
This would be the party that would take all the information from the other eight and determine a median policy in both fiscal and social matters.

Centrist Democratic: Social Centrist and Fiscal Liberal
This would be the party of people who believe spending on social saftey net programs is something we need to afford.

Democratic Libertarian: Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative
This would be a party faction that would caucus with Libertarians, but also believe in rules and regulations to achieve free market ideals.

Social Democrat: Social Liberal and Fiscal Centrist
This would be a group who believe in affording social programs, but also expect debt and negative spending is an option to support social programs.

Liberal: Social and Fiscal Liberal
Believe that social programs are primary priority regardless of financial outcomes.

Forget Beer, It's Time for a Fender Bender

Presidential Elections are the most famous popularity contests in the world.

 

Famously, we like to think we are voting for an Angel, rather than settling for a Devil by the thought exercise, “which candidate would you rather have a beer with?”  (Yes, like a good American grammarian I ended the survey question a preposition with.)

 

Except, we are in extraordinary circumstances:

 

Hundred Year Pandemic

Chronic Systemic Deferred Maintenance

Climate Change Proven beyond a Doubt

Reconciliation of Civil Rights a precipitous necessity

Worst Economic statistics since measurements began from The Great Depression

 

You can see how people might be willing to choose the best devil in such terrible circumstances, rather than the nicest angel.  Whose Executive Administration will be able to handle the massive macroeconomic issues?

 

Almost makes you not even care if you even like the person, so long as you think they may help?

 

So, which Candidate would you rather get into a low speed fender bender with?

 

 

Thought Exercise

 

You are driving your crap auto called US, and the timing belt needs adjustment, tires are worn, and the brakes have been squealing for months, but like most Americans you don’t have an extra $400 to fix them.

 

As you approach an intersection at the speed limit, you anticipate a yellow light ahead and begin your squeaking brakes.  As the light turns, you are a quarter mile from the stop line, and of the two cars ahead of you the car directly in front of you, a new silver Mercedes-Ferrari Electric Hybrid, has stopped about 500 feet away.

 

Your brakes engage, squeak as loud as you have ever heard, and for one reason or another you hit the $456,000 four door sedan that tops off at 155 MPH in 12 seconds.  The bumper, replacement cost your annual salary, after installation, is broken.  Don’t ask for details, it just needs $45,000 worth of work from a 15 MPH fender bender.

 

Out comes (A) either driver, Presidential Candidate (take the test again, and replace with either Major Political Party), and from the shotgun position (B) a Secret Service agent who will witness and back whatever Mr. A says, no matter how awful.

 

Two more facts: 1. They are self-insured, so they have no Insurance, if it is their fault; and 2. Mr. B pressed the emergency oil slick button as they drew to a halt at seven miles per hour—thus it is 100% their fault.  Oil is everywhere, and the Intersection Camera clearly can show the before and after.

 

Which one of these two gentlemen would you then like to encounter in what, without the super tip-top-secret auto, (a) wouldn’t have been an accident, nor (b) be considered potentially your fault and liability? 

 

That is a more accurate measure for where we are today.

 

 

Lest we should consider this the Junior High School election, remember that the Executive of the USA typically administers directly to a force of hundreds of thousands of people, lest the millions directly commanded.  So, which group do you pick... go ahead take the thought exercise a third time, and remember to Vote!

President's Question Time

An incredible display of the evolution of democracy and accountability was put on by President Obama this week.

To me, this was a culmination of what I am only assuming was fine political calculation.

My assumption, based on absolutely nothing other than life experience alone: This kind of "Prime Minister's Question Time" was something candidate Obama had on his Transparency Wishlist.

But President ranks somewhere between King and Prime Minister here in the USA, so the UK model isn't totally apt; besides this was ('would be' goes the imaginary explanation to then candidate Obama) a radical step which needed to be timed correctly. I cant imagine how much more apt this exercise's introduction to the dialogue of transparency and accountability could have been.

Remarkable points;

(I) Had Obama done this earlier, in say August, the flux af the situation could have greatly distorted outcomes of the various vitriol of the time (people yelling at politicians in town halls about false rumors).

(II) By waiting a full year to watch as the Congress fiddled while the US was burning, Obama has now set himself apart from their poor favorability-- all parties.

(III) Having all but lost this first match (in what is expected to be a three to eight match game) in the health care issue, in spite of many accomplishments by the Congress, the culture of Partisanship was writ large by the election of the Junior Senator from MA. Obama's final answer hammered home the point about no one talking with one another, looking only to score rhetorical points, and the active schadenfreude by both parties and their mouthpieces-- including the acts and deeds to extend and further that attitude of blame and buck passing.

(IV) Responding to the situation of somehow 51 Senators no longer being considered a majority, rather that the threat of cloture and filibuster was so persistent by this sessions Republican's now 60 barely qualified as a majority, he held this first televised question time with the Republican's. He had earlier held question time with Democrats, but did not televise that. This partial version of the UK PM?T, essentially broadsided the Pubs into having to answer for the elephant in the room (pun intended), that of the obstructionist tact.

(V) Finally, like a breath of fresh air, this display of scholarly brinksmanship, artful rhetoric, and skilled debate highlighted the features of a qualified President! It does not matter what that President's policies are... the question is do we have an Executive truly capable and qualified to be the Chief? A command of details and issues, clarity in thought and actions, and accurate language to reflect the inner mind of a political genius. All POTUS' are by definition political geniuses (sorry rabid detractors of Bush II), because somehow they got there to the station of our republic's modern Ceasar. If somehow Obama makes this a regular feature of our modern 21st Century 24 hour News democracy/political cycle, then we can expect it, like the State of the Union, to be an essential set piece for the abilities of any future POTUS or would-be POTUS-- much as it is already standard form for any PM or shadow Minister to be able to stand the hot seat of the multiparty question time held in the UK's House of Commons almost weekly.

***

SO my humble suggestions:

(A) Next time, treat it exactly like the PM?T and have all members of either the Senate or House (not both at the same time, but from all parties) voluntarily attend the televised question time. This will then promote a semblance of dialogue, because by then calling from the various parties and factions in alternate, there approximates the status of a political conversation or national dialogue (NOT DIRECTED BY THE MEDIA!).

(B) To be fair to everyone, let's have these events as more or less scheduled set pieces, no sudden TV cameras in the room at the last minute. That said, probably one of these per quarter is more towards our Corporation style republic model, as opposed to the weekly meeting of Ministers and MPs in just the lower house version in UK. (Also, probably best to have these set about two to three weeks after recess has ended so (i) the members would have fresh info from constituents, (ii) any changes from elections and such would be more or less in place, and (iii) everyone was making a fresh start-- more or less.)

(C) Like PM?T, maybe have some Cabinet Members available to be referred to for details? I think in the case of our financial mess, this would either secure Geitner as a great choice or put him on the fast track to join the millions of unemployed!

(D) Like the UK, sometimes the PM cant make it, so why not Pelosi, Reid, or even >gulp< Biden to make interim question times?

+++

Kudos to Obama, and I think anyone from any party, who believe transparency and accountability is important for our nation and its political system to begin to heal and repair itself, would have to agree!

One Man's (Humble) Opinion: Regarding Who Obama Picks for VP

I am not a bettor. I enjoy watching sports when I haven’t made a bet, and in the rare instances I have bet (or “punted” as the British and Aussies would say) on sports, I tend to enjoy the game so much less.

Nothing could be higher stakes right now than our Government here in the US. Therefore, I will not hold back, nor will I bet; I feel it important to make my (one man’s) perceptions known, simply as a matter of record—if not simply for my own piece of mind.

First my political affiliation: I am a social Moderate, and a Fiscal Conservative. I actually registered Republican to vote for Paul, and have been sorely disappointed by some of Paul’s inability to follow through and capitalize on the real grass roots energy behind a true conservative campaign, which would reduce the role of government in the economy and people’s liberties. I consider myself a quasi-Green-Socialist-Libertarian-Progressive, but I think like many thinking adults that I am not easily defined by either of only two parties.

I endorsed Obama in March, when the Clintons clearly were using race as a tactic to divide the electorate, and Paul was by then a non-factor. I would have withheld some judgment would McCain version 1999 have been in the race with non-Bushee advisors. But ‘tis not so, and that horse long left the barn.

That out of the way, I am determined that Obama be free from the Politics of the Past, and his administration be given every chance to recreate the possibilities of American Civil Society, Citizenship, and Liberty… even if I may not totally agree with him on tax policies among several other potential items.

Vice Presidential selection will say a lot about whom Obama is, or more accurately those he already surrounds himself with and whom they would deign to find the most politically economical choice.

I believe this means he cannot pick Hillary Clinton, and should avoid anyone from the Clinton administrations. The Clinton’s and their ilk have proven so divisive that they are essentially a third rail for Obama personally and politically.

In my opinion, no Senators should be up for the Veep job with another Senator. Aside from already losing last cycle as the VP, that would preclude Edwards.

Although tempting, recent converts to Dem ideology should also be ruled out. So, double-plus un-good for Webb, and all his baggage .

I like the thought of a military Dem, but could only find a list of four reasonable candidates. Maybe because I do not know who is who in the Military, but some non-Clintonian Dem with tons of Executive Military experience would seem to be a very good choice. I identified the following Clintonian Military Candidates;

Barry McCaffrey
Wesley Clark
Louis Caldera

And the semi-non-Clintonian (sort of) candidate is Anthony Zinni . However, I feel his political chops are probably not quite ready for prime time, and he is my choice for Secretary of Defense.

That leaves Governors. I think only Governors on their last Term should be considered, with solid Democratic replacements, and some political advantage to gain. Some small state governors are also off my list, and also a couple of the older less charismatic ones don’t show up here either. That leaves:

(Female Governors)
Jennifer Granholm
Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius

(Male Governors)
Bill Richardson
Mike Easley
Ed Rendell
Phil Bredesen
Tim Kaine


A good list to choose from, but Rendell and Easley are Clintonians—throw the babies out with the bathwater. I like Granholm, but she was born in Canada.

THE LIST:

1*. Bill Richardson. Absolutely the most experienced of all the choices, and would only be trumped in that category by Al Gore himself. Would help to shore up the Catholic Vote; Consolidatse the West, but has the same issue as Napolitano (NM is already leaning towards Obama, and a Western governor may only serve to solidify the votes in WA, OR, CA, NM, and CO)— no real pick ups except maybe NV and MT; Possibly he could be the Latino Galvinzator, so to coin a phrase, to help win FL and dare I suggest TX? Negatives: Like Al Gore he is technically (Clinton) Old Guard; He also has made enemies of the Clintonians, and the idea of not picking a Clintonian is to also not pick someone potentially offensive to that Clinton Old Guard; and finally, although I truly think he would be quite an excellent choice (why I listed him as number one with an asterisk), he does not assuage the de facto racists . But the question is do we need to try to assuage them ? My pick for Secretary of State.

2. Kathleen Sebelius. Fits the profile: Non-Clintonian that has not offended the Old guard; (White) Female who can reassert some of the gains Hillary made for shattering the glass ceiling (and possibly heal some of the rifts between Clinton and Obama supporters); A unifying force in a Red State with a good and well documented bi-partisan track record; and can help to shore up the Catholic Vote while solidifying the Mid-West (IA, KS, maybe MO, others [IN, MI, WI]) states. Like most governors who are not Bill Richardson, we have the downside of no real International Experience. My choice for VP.

3. Tim Kaine. Probably this is one of the safest possible choices, as he has extensive Executive experience. He would not lose votes, may help shore up Catholics, some Southerners, and to a lesser extent that “white male” voting block. Most clearly one could expect he would shore up VA… maybe SC and IN. International Experience is again the downside. Anyone for Webb should rethink and consider Kaine instead, unless they like the military credentials then go back to Zinni—just not Webb !

Honorable Mention

4. Janet Napolitano. Excellent and as experienced as she may be, she is not as charismatic in my humble opinion as Sebelius or Richardson, who cover the blocks (Female or West) better. They are Catholics, and she is a Methodist… not that it matters all that much, but the North East Catholic block seemed to be elusive to Obama in the Primaries. Like Richardson, if he weren’t to have traction with Latinos, she doesn’t represent enough of a pick up, because states she might assist in like CA, NM, and CO are already leaning or in the Dem camp… so AZ (maybe… remember McCain is from AZ) becomes the only (potential) pickup, unless she can help swing NV and MT. She is my pick for Sect of Interior.

5. Phil Bredesen. Another “safe” Southern-White-Male pick. He is not as Experienced as Kaine, he’s not Catholic, and we already had a VP from TN (think vague Clintonian afterglow). This choice may only help to offset some potential Southern prejudice, maybe assisting in picking up TN, MO, SC and maybe some Appalachian bump for OH and PA.