politics – Page 10 – Steven Savage

Civic Diary 6/25/2016

June 25, 2016 by Steven Savage

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr)

Another crazy week. 2016 is filled with a lot of unpleasantness. This time the Brexit.

The Brexit is pretty much a great example of how people do not do well in being civicly engaged when you see how many people didn’t get what the Brexit vote was about. With the UK economy hit (and the world economy taking a blow) and people seeing surprised at the same time, it’s a grand example of BS politics, propaganda, and ill-informed voting producing real problems.

Needless to say I’m 1) keeping an eye on the economy, and 2) even more focused on staying civicly engaged. I certainly appreciate my newsfeed more.

Remember my attempts to hook up with a local political party? Well that kept getting changed due to rescheduled meetings – I think some of that was the group wanting to keep some control over attendees since in-person political meetings can at times attract some pronounced personalities. So I basically did two things:

I went to the first meeting I could find without being selective, informed people there of my goal of getting more civicly and politically involved, and got some ideas and flyers. Fortunately my pick was a group who’s interests aligned with my own, so I may have found the right organization through luck.
Dropped by the office of the local political group and got a card for the person running it. I’ll be writing them soon.

So the big lessons here is:

In-person contact seems effective.
Some – probably a lot – of political groups have issues with recruiting. In fact, one I had trouble getting in touch with asks people singing up for contact want to help with recruiting. It reminds me a lot of the issues conventions have had in recruiting.

I’m wondering if a lot of political organizations are bad at recruiter, only recruit among limited populations, etc. It might go a long-way to explaining lack of civic engagement . . . and points to something I may want to do.

So next up is checking out these groups, attending some meetings (that I don’t expect to be cancelled) and seeing how I can get involved. But I’m one step closer.

Here’s a big lesson for civic engagement – keep trying to find the right group or groups for you. At least in my case it was hard.

– Steve

Civic Diary 4/24/2016

April 24, 2016 by Steven Savage

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr)

OK I got off a bit on posting on my Civic Diary by a few days. Pretty crazy week.

So if you’re new to this, this is my experiment in being a better citizen. I’m posting once a week. My current major efforts are to be more aware via joining organizations and following them, writing my representatives, and in general contemplating and analyzing what to do next.

So what did I learn

First it’s easy to think our representatives do the right thing, but sometimes they do stupid ones. To wit, Feinstein, one of my reps backed a pretty badly thought out security bill in Congress. So I wrote her specifically on that. Gotta take the good with the bad – and I’m glad my continued awareness led me to figure this out.
Secondly, as I follow politics the truth of the matter is that to affect politics you have to be in an organization or be involved in one. That’s it, end of story.. When you watch the protests organized by Democracy Now, or realize how people are involved in awareness and get-out-the-vote efforts, you realize people who get stuff done make the difference. Yes, these people may be “the establishment,” but you’re not going to change that establishment until you get involved and make a counterpart or become part of it and change it. Anyway, I think I need to ask more on how I can do my part organizing or being part of an organization – and Martin Longman puts it best, so just read this column.
Third, that question of “what more can or should I do” makes me realize the limits so much of us have – time. There’s a lot of different tensions in our lives, which is a pain, but at least we can be aware of them and find a resolution. Maybe you want to be an engaged citizen but can only do so much as you’re damn busy – at least you know it, admit it, do what you can, and maybe change what you do when life is less crazy.
Fourth, political activity is not a substitute for social activity. Community work, your friends, family, city, clubs are also important. I think there’s a kind of continuity we need to find between all levels of our lives to be good citizens . . . and it’s different for each of us.
Fifth, the more I pay attention to news the more I realize how much B.S. is out there. The news is a product and it’s meant to get your attention. Be selective in your news consumption, and look for real information.
First and foremost it’s about Citizenship as Nancy LeTourneau puts it. Read that column too.
A lot of these realizations are pretty humbling. Asking how to be a good citizen kinda makes you realize where you fail or are ignorant, and suddenly you don’t get so arrogant about your fellow citizens activities.

That’s it for me. Have you started your Civic Diary yet?

– Steve

The Trumping Ground

March 24, 2016 by Steven Savage

With Campaign 2016 proceeding with all the dignity of a parade of Chihuahua’s on meth, I’d like to chime in with a theory of what may happen to Trump and his supporters in 2016. It’s one that, the more I examine it, the more possible it seems, though that could be me deluding myself.

I think the Republican elites want to eject Trump and his followers from the party, and is willing to take the hit for the long-term gain. In short, the Republicans leadership is ready to jettison at least some of the angry white male base they’ve cultivated. These people (and Trump) will doubtlessly form a third party or pseudo-third party – think of it as a Dumping ground (or Trumping ground) for people too troublesome to keep in the party anymore.

I think that the Republican elites can see the value.

The Typical Trump Voter

OK we know the drill. Trump scores unusually well with the older, white, less-educated set that skews male. We’ve heard about it for awhile, and it’s clear that this demographic also tends to be pretty damn racist, which isn’t a recipe for long-term success in our diverse country. These are oft the people targeted by the Southern Strategy.

I’d also add that, to judge by what I see of Trump’s support, it’s also seriously into conspiracy theories. This isn’t surprising giving Trump’s birther past, but also not surprising as the Republicans and Fox News (but I repeat myself) have been pushing conspiracy theories for ages. However in time it seems that the truly riled up Republican Base has gone pretty far off the plan – and they’re more and more likely to get information from Alex Jones and his like, and will hate Megan Kelly on command.

This isn’t a demographic you can predict or control, and I imagine there’s a little buyer’s remorse among the Republican elite. I don’t think they actually like these people

What got me thinking that the Republicans may jettison them is the National Review article by Kevin Williamson (link to commentary as I’m not fond of the National Review plus it has limited access) that pretty much says that the uneducated white voters really need to get their crap together or their communities can die off. If someone in the National Review is saying this, then you know others are thinking it, the National Review just has a little less internal monologue. I suppose I have to give Williamson points for consistency.

And when there’s open talk of derailing Trump, its pretty obvious members of the party don’t want to deal with these folks anyway.

So Let’s Game This Out

So if Republicans stick with the Trump contingent (probably a good 1/4 to 1/3 their numbers) and let them drive the election, the Republican party ends up enabling a voting bloc they don’t like and is easily manipulated (by people not them). They get a president who, let’s be honest here, would be a disaster (as the Economist notes). They drive more people to theDemocrats (if only out of fear) and finally brand themselves as being everything that . . . a lot of people thought they were anyway.

Racist, promoting ignorance, conspiracy-theory crazed, potentially violent, bigoted. If Trump gets the nomination, Republicans will suffer a branding problem that may be the most epic failure in American political history. All for people that the elites and some of the general public doesn’t like.

Now roll this effect not just into the presidency (where a Clinton triumph would be a refutation of some 20 years of hating her), but the downstream races. The senate is within grasp of the Democrats, and the House might be conceivable (if only by next election). Trump would also cement a hideous image of the Republicans for many people, including young ones who may be imprinted for life.

The elite are left with a humiliated rump party. Sure they have many states and governorships, but that may be next (and as I’ll note they have their own problem).

So why not jettison these voters now – if not directly, by doing everything to get Trump to leave and having them follow.

What The Gain Is

What’s in it for the Republicans?

A Republican party seemingly jettisoning the above baggage would be a different animal entirely. Less beholden to the various – well, let’s be honest – bigots – they enabled, they’d have room to move. A pro-business, pseudo-libertarian approach, nearly neoliberal, would go over well in many quarters. A direct rejection of Trump and a few reformations of policy would probably draw in voters.

Secondly, the Republicans get to run against the Trumping Ground rejects. They can do the whole “we refute these people, oh how did they get there routine.” Though we may all remember Willie Horton and the Southern Strategy and the like, this approach will gain ground as they will be saying the right things. They will be rejecting the Trump contingent directly, that will get at least some to trust them.

It’s hard to argue that someone is a bigot when they’r reject bigots. Hell after all this the elites may mean it.

It may head off problems on some downstream races, and though they’d almost see two Clinton administrations, the Republicans could re-position themselves for 2024. This is the party that got ahold of a lot of state governorships so they are pretty good at organizing (though with Louisiana and Kansas falling apart, that may be a problem that also bites them Trump-like).

Considering the choices, and the complete lack of affection, the Trumping Ground strategy may be the best bet for the Republicans. And I figure the party has enough smart people to see that.

What Of The Democrats?

Here’s the funny thing, the Democrats would love seeing the Republicans dump Trump and company as well.

First, it’d shatter the Republican party, handing them a victory for 2016, probably 2018, and maybe 2020.

Secondly, as this would confirm all the things people have said about the Republican party, there’d be the satisfaction of seeing it.

Third, they’d also be able to run against the Trumping Ground. It’d be a contest to see which party can run more against the cast-offs.

Of course that means the Democrats may have to split their efforts – even more if a Republican split emboldens the further left. But I imagine the gains are too much to even worry.

Everyone wins. Except . . .

But What About Them?

But what happens to the people dumped into the Trumping Ground?

I’m not sure.

Look, the Republican leadership doesn’t like them. The democrats don’t like them and it’s personal considering the racial and bigotry issues.

Some of the folks that’d be dumped. They live in shattered communities, they’re behind, it’s hard not to feel empathy . .. but sympathy is a bit hard to come by when they supported Trump.

I imagine they’d end up having a kind of angry, chaotic far-right party. Some would clearly end up violent, but the party that’d form would be the kind constantly turning people off – along with members probably getting arrested. It’s likely some would go for outright violent, racist groups and get involved inc criminal activity, lashing out.

I don’t see a good end unless someone prone to social help – namely the Democrats – helps them deliberately or as part of a larger process of social reform. I don’t know what may come or if it will.

They really won’t have any place.

So That’s The Game

So that’s something I see more probably – originally I’d have given this 30% chance of happening. Now I’m to 50%. We’re going to see the Republican party reject Trump, and hope to push him and his constituents out, with them likely to form a third party. If Trump gets the nomination, they’ll blame him for the inevitable failure and do the same.

If Trump quits then they’re gone, shattered to the winds. If he stays around or has an inheritor, then there would be a third party. Certainly various media interests, writers, far-right politicians and so forth, would find them fertile ground,t his new party. It might not be successful, but it’d be profitable for the grifters it’d attract.

But t’s not a party that could govern. T’d be a part of anger. It’d almost certainly be a party attracting and cultivating violent elements. They’d be more easily exploited.

In the end, it doesn’t end well. Maybe they’d break, fall apart, enough members would be involved in violent activities to get law enforcement involved, don’t know. But it doesn’t end well. end well.

Especially for the people left in the Trumping Ground.

Steve