Maybe I’m just a pessimistic old curmudgeon, but it seems to me that the real losers in an election, federal, state, or local, are the voters, the American public.  Here are some scenarios and some reasons.

Elections are generally close, unless a candidate is running unopposed (alas, that often happens in states of one color or the other, or in “safe districts” the politicos have gerrymandered in such a way that an opposition candidate has no chance).  By close, I’m talking about winning margins of sometimes just hundreds of votes on a local level and just thousands for a national office.  Majorities are too often simple.  There are no mandates.

Some people would just say, “That shows the two-party system is alive and well.”  Maybe.  But with our national discourse so polarized, the problem is exacerbated.  The two parties are strong, pander to their own base, and insult each other.  There are politicians who step above the fray, for example, the imminently sage and reasonable Colin Powell, a Republican who endorsed Obama.  He stands in stark contrast relative to daffy Donald Trump whose “October surprise” was yet another attack on Obama’s race and claim to U.S. citizenship.

(more…)

[For those on the East Coast of the U.S.—basically from North Carolina to Massachusetts—you have enjoyed, or are enjoying, the gentle caresses of hurricane Sandy + energetic cold front from the West + jet stream adding energy + astronomical high tides = wild banshee storm.  However, if you have power, you might be reading my posts this week, although I’m scheduling them early in case of I have to get out of Dodge myself.

Here’s the post schedule: today “Invisible Issues,” a post about the issues both parties have ignored; Wednesday guest blogger Gina Fava comments on last summer’s Cape Cod Writers Conference;  and Thursday I’ll on post an op-ed, “How the American Public Loses Elections.” Enjoy if you can.  I pray that you and your family are safe if you can’t—actually, I do that anyway, but I’m talking about that monster storm, of course.  There will be no post on Election Day.]

Mr. Romney has received much criticism for being short on specifics (my paraphrase:  we’ll make up those seven or eight trillion in tax cuts and increased defense spending by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions—just ask us after the election what they are).  Mr. Obama hasn’t been much better (my paraphrase:  give me another four years to complete my agenda—don’t fret yourself with the details).  The candidates’ five-point plans are jokes, bullets on a Powerpoint chart without any substance.  I’ve seen enough of that.

(more…)

[Note to readers of this blog:  Due to the date of the presidential debate this week, I might not have an op-ed ready for Thursday.  We’ll see.  There will be one tomorrow to lead into the debate and, either Thursday or Friday, I will post a book review.  Good reading!]

Item: Dynasties….  I hate’em.  They’re generally associated with royalty, or greed, or privilege, or money…or all of the above.  Two irksome examples are political and sports dynasties.  Of course, the potential for a Romney dynasty is part of the national debate right now (although, at the level of state governors, it’s already established).  Mittens is an example of a pampered, spoiled, and out-of-touch member of the rich elites primarily because he’s a member of a dynasty.  But let’s consider some other examples.

Let’s talk about the Yankees first.  They definitely fall in the all-of-the-above category (well, maybe not royalty, depending on your definition).  The owners (I assume it’s the entire family now after that old curmudgeon died) are definitely in that famous 1%.  Moreover, almost every player is.  I loved the fact that old millionaire A-Rod sits out doing nada while his team wins their division.  He’s the most over-paid non-producing player in the history of baseball.  And these guys are Boring (that’s boring with a capital B).  With their budget, they should be winning every game.  Kudos to the Orioles for giving them a run for their money.  Yes, I’m a Red Sox fan, but not rabid about it.  I’m more a fan of anyone that beats the Yankees.  The latter are the quintessential sports dynasty.  (I’m sorry Derek Jeter is injured.  He’s A-1 in my book, especially compared to A-Rod.)

(more…)

Ah, Ohio, that rust-belt decider of American elections.  John Kerry must remember it with affection.  It just might be Barack Obama’s Waterloo too, although, if you believe the numbers game, he should be a shoo-in because the average unemployment level is below the national average and much improved over 2008.  Kerry’s loss, though, was due to the GOP putting gay marriage on the ballot.  Riding in on the shirt-tails of that debacle, was Fox News commentator John Kasich, who became governor in 2010.

Bordered on the North with old manufacturing towns and urban wastelands, its once thriving farming communities have been laid to waste by agribusiness and born-again fundamentalism.  Johnny Appleseed passed through here but didn’t stay.  His Swedenborgian philosophy would have been like matter to the modern day anti-matter of Fox News ranting.   Amish clans practice new barberian warfare and Mennonites are the new entrepreneurs.  Small-town America meets big-city America.  Here racism, homophobia, and the war between the 1% and the 99% are daily realities in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus and spill across the Ohio countryside—the 1%, though have already laid waste to Ohio.

I’m not writing this to blast this umbilical feature of modern Americana, this state once connected to the birth of a nation, and present-day hernia.  It is what it is.  Like many states in our federal system, states’ rights and lack of interest by the federal government have resulted in progressive rights legislation passing Ohio by as fast as a 747 in route from JFK to LA.  While human rights are also a concern, I’m speaking about animal rights here.  Ohio is the land where not even Jack Hanna has clout.

(more…)

In my post about health coverage last week, I mentioned that immigration has also disappeared as a 2012 electoral topic.  Immigration policies are complex and their appearances on the political stage have often degenerated into a lot of heated rhetoric.  Moreover, there is a health care policy component to them.  At the risk of making some readers furious with me, let me throw out some ideas.  Caveat emptor:  I’m no expert.  However, the politicos have buried their heads in the sand once again on this issue, leaving the soapbox to others, so here goes.

There is legal and illegal immigration into the U.S.  There are things wrong with both of them, although the first doesn’t generate the debate the second does.  However, it is imperative to consider the things wrong with the first that cause some of the wrong with the second.  Moreover, percolating through all this complex strata we find economic and health care issues (these are also economic to a large extent).

(more…)

The cynical readers of this blog will think I’m being cute here…oxymorons-squared to end the week, anyone?  A more abstract question:  Does a President have to be a moral person to be a good President?  When we think back to some of the escapades our Commanders-in-Chief were embroiled in during the first hundred years or so of this country, it’s clear to me there’s not a high degree of correlation between moral behavior and leadership skill.  I’m not just talking about dalliances with women either.

When we get into the 20^th century, especially the latter half, scurrilous behavior seems common in the Oval Office.  Kennedy had his alleged affair with Ms. Monroe and rumor has it that Papa Joe bought the election for him by creating a coalition between the mob and the unions (see The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh)—maybe that’s why the mob was so pissed when Bobby started going after them.

(more…)

I’ve been back over a week from our trip to Alaska.  I’ve been debating what to say about it.  I’m not much into travelogues (go buy a Fodor’s), so I’ve been thinking of something clever and different to say.  So, here goes—maybe not clever, but probably different.

(more…)

Nowadays it seems that a wide sociopolitical spectrum describes the set of U.S. independent voters.  The techniques for defining them and counting them seem nebulous at best.  Of course, it’s hard to do the second if you haven’t done the first.  There are true independents, people who will not make a decision until the day of the election, for parties or people, although they will taunt you by saying that they tend to lean one way or the other.  There are the shifters, people who say they are Dems and vote GOP or vice versa.  Others will vote in one election and not another or not in primaries (in some states you can’t vote in primaries if you haven’t declared a nominal party allegiance).  Finally, some are third party voters who don’t vote unless they have a candidate (Socialists, Libertarians, etc)—they’re for an “independent party.”

(more…)