iklan

Democratic Future, Black Holes, and Obama Polls

Back in the 1960s British Cosmologist Fred Hoyle, who coined the term 'Big Bang', wrote a series of papers theorizing that life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere) began out in the seeming void of deep space. His peers thought he was delusional.

Until along came Lew Snyder, then of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. He asserted that Hoyle had the right idea and that prebiotic molecules (molecules believed to be involved in the processes leading to the origin of life) could not only evolve in deep space, but could also be distributed throughout the universe enduring the unimaginable torment of interstellar travel.

Furthermore, he could prove it.

Seems that many compounds have a unique and identifiable radio-wave signature - something that can be detected with the use of radio telescopes.

With this method, they theorized, you could point radio telescopes at the cosmos and by measuring the radio-wave signatures you could determine the molecular compounds that exist in the targeted region. This would tell us if complex, organic and prebiotic compounds are created and endure in deep space.

Sure enough, in 1969 they discovered interstellar formaldehyde - a complex, prebioitc compound. Since then, astronomers have discovered more than 150 molecules in deep space. Most interesting of these found is acetonitrile, a molecule structurally similar to glycine - one of the building blocks of biological proteins.

All this is profoundly important as it sets the stage for validating a once-absurd theory - that life on Earth (and perhaps throughout the universe) may have been seeded from deep-space chemical reactions.

This cold-sounding theory of our origins clearly runs counter to cherished beliefs that we are God's children or that we have a special place in this universe. Such a possibility could prove profoundly unsettling to many to say the least.

But there is no worry here. Not because the possibility doesn't exist. It does. The reason not to worry is that people en masse tend to see only what is in front of them and only that which is most emotionally comfortable.

For most people, such things are far too arcane and intangible to seriously consider. What they see before them and what they've been taught growing up is all that they know and all that they care to know.

And that is the way it is with most things - with evolution, with global warming -- and so it is with ideology and politics.

Whatever is before us is all that there is. The economy is a disaster.  There's a war in Iraq. The jobless situation is devastating. The housing market is in shambles. Obama is the president. And the Democrats are in charge.

That leads to an obvious conclusion for most - that Obama and the Democrats have brought this upon us - that they are the ones who must pay the price for our pain.

Never mind that Republican deregulation has provided the unambiguous infrastructure for most of the financial devastation; the joblessness, the real estate collapse, offshore tax loopholes, job exports,  the general lack of corporate accountability. Never mind that. They weren't in power at the moment of this election. Democrats were. That is what is before us. So let's blame them.

Intellectually, people might have the information. Many do not, nor do they care to. But making the connection, the true cause-effect connection, in a way that supersedes emotional reaction and translates into sensible self-sustaining action? That rarely happens.

Many millions of Americans still don't believe that Obama is American despite all the evidence - evidence that likely meets or exceeds the amount of evidence each disbeliever could present to prove their own status as a natural-born American.

And no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. Part of that is because they only see what is already part of their worldview. Part of it is that the narrative that sits in front of them - that he has a Kenyan father and was raised in Indonesia - supersedes the more mundane evidence (Hawaii birth certificate, contemporary newspaper articles documenting his Hawaiian birth) available to them.

Emotions and those things that appeal to emotion (rumor, urban legend, mockery, innuendo, mythology) nearly always overrule analysis and intellectual assessment - regardless of the outcome.

This is what we're faced with in getting Democrats empowered, and Independents back on our side in 2012.

Lets' be honest. If the Unemployment rate (a powerful emotional stimulant) was at 5.5% and not 9.5%, little electoral damage would have unfolded for the Democrats and Obama would be lauded as one of the most accomplished presidents in his first two years.

Let's be doubly honest. As much as the media and the Republicans have been successful in tying Obama to this catastrophic recession, the fact is that not only did he have NOTHING to do with its creation, but rather he was responsible for saving our asses from a total depression. Instead, it was the Republicans' policies of deregulation and unaccountability that brought these cataclysms upon us - and yet they were the ones rewarded with the House of Representatives Tuesday night.

True, the argument that 'it could've been worse' has never been an effective argument - reality notwithstanding. It really doesn't appeal to our emotional side.

And the electorate is far too superficial and emotion-driven to properly attribute blame or credit. They can only look in front of their faces and semi-consciously associate whatever they see before them.

Thus, we have Obama -- accomplished, prolific, charismatic and able to do things that Democrats have been promising and failing to deliver for decades before him - incorrectly, inexorably and inevitably tied to the economic malaise that envelops us.

And this is where we come in and begin the process of GOTV 2012 - by ensuring that both credit and blame are properly attributed across the political spectrum.

First, we need to come to terms with some things:

1. We, the Democrats, are still in power.
2. Neither Obama nor progressive policies are responsible for the collapse of the American economy.
3. Obama and the Democrats SAVED the US from total economic destruction.
4. Progressive policies are consistently and clearly more popular amongst the American populace than their counterpart policies of conservatives.
5. President Obama's record shows a high-achieving, promise-fulfilling, intellectually curious, visionary leader. (Yes, I like him.)
6. The reality is that neither President Obama nor the Democratic Congress make decisions in a vacuum. The opposition is ever-present and willing to do whatever it needs to in order to undermine the progressive agenda. That is why compromise - often ugly compromise - is usually necessary.
7. Given that forced compromise, it is amazing that, in only 24 short months, the Obama Administration has succeeded in implementing "the most ambitious energy legislation in history" as well as the "most significant federal education initiative ever" They  modernized health records. And they "Averted a Depression", "Sparked a Recovery", "Saved the U.S. Auto Industry", "Reformed Health Care in America", "Cut Corporate Welfare", "Restored America's Reputation", "Protected Consumers", and "Launched a Clean-Energy Moonshot". They also funded stem-cell research, ended the war in Iraq, enacted historic healthcare reform, turned the U.S. toward a path of energy independence, regulated financial markets, led the world in nuclear non-proliferation, opened Cuba to family, and eliminated bank middle-men from federal student loans.

And that was just in 24 months!!

Our job is to reignite Obama's flame - to ensure that the public is aware of his and the Democrats true and positive impact on America. Additionally we must remind America that we have endured this suffering over these last years because of the TIRED, OLD REPUBLICAN policies and ideologies.

We need to remind the people that the hate-frenzy that the Republicans are so awesome at stirring will not help us. Instead, it will only cloud our thoughts long enough to give another chance to the people who lied us into Iraq and deregulated us into jobless oblivion.

If we cannot or are unwilling to take such steps, then the Republicans will win large in 2012 as well. The Mayans will be proven correct, and you will be able to safely kiss any of your pet progressive projects 'good-bye' for at least another generation.

We cannot let that happen.

Work for improvement, but also appreciate what we've gotten, and fear what could have been and what could easily be within two short years.

Become a progressive ideological soldier.

Start the campaign today.

Fight the opposition, not each other.

Support President Obama for reelection.

Stand up and be heard, even if (and especially if) you are outnumbered by
wingnuts.

Be proud to be a Democrat and show it publicly.

Be proud to be a progressive and show it publicly.

Never apologize for your beliefs.

Stand tall and stand together and in 2012 we will Keep the presidency, Strengthen our position in the Senate, and reclaim majorities in the House of Representatives while increasing the number of Democratic governorships.

GOTV 2012! There's no time like the present.

Obama, Vietnam, and Afghanistan

I've spent a good part of the last week re-reading Neil Sheehan's book, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. Partly, this is just happenstance; I found a nicely annotated hardback copy in a local used book store. But it's also because I wanted to look again at the 1962-64 period of the Vietnam War to see how much it resembles our current situation in Afghanistan. I don't have good news to report.

Starting in earnest in 1962, the U.S. began arming the Viet Cong inadvertently through the strategic hamlet and strategic outpost programs. The communist side in the South was not relying on Chinese or Soviet supplies, except for heavy weapons that could not easily be captured. They got all the guns and ammo they needed simply by taking them from the people the U.S. handed them out to. The strategic hamlet program turned the peasants against the Saigon regime for good. Indiscriminate bombing of villages turned the rural populace into mortal foes of the United States. The cities were lost because the Catholic regime was brutal, corrupt, and attempted to crush the power of the Buddhist leadership.

The parallels to Afghanistan are not perfect, but the situations have enough commonality to give serious pause. The most worrisome feature is the corruption and illegitimacy of the Karzai Regime. If this was 1963, our ambassador would be plotting a coup to make sure Karzai and his opium-selling brother were assassinated and replaced by a (hopefully) more competent and popular successor. But, with hindsight, we know that that gambit didn't save South Vietnam and it probably wouldn't save Afghanistan either.

Another commonality is the weakness of the Afghan National Army. Like the ARVN before it, the Afghan Army is losing the countryside to a more determined and dedicated foe. It's undermanned, most of its troops are AWOL, and it serves a corrupt and incompetent government. We tried to turn the ARVN into a lethal fighting force for two decades, and we failed. If the Afghan Army is going to turn out better, we need to know why.

Like Lyndon Johnson, President Obama has to take over the war planning from a previous president. He still has some of the same advisers that Bush relied upon. He's being urged to make a major investment in troops to salvage a deteriorating situation. It's no wonder he's just rejected all of the options presented to him by his national security team. Obama is demanding the kinds of answers that were never answered in 1964-65 when the decision was made to escalate in Vietnam. Namely, how are these investments going to change the basic reality that the central government is weak, corrupt, and illegitimate?

Now, the one big difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam is that the Taliban are not considered to be heroes like Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh armies were by the Vietnamese. The Taliban don't have nationwide legitimacy, and they are openly feared and loathed by most of the Afghan population. In that sense, we can be sure that we aren't fighting on the wrong side of this war. But we can't be sure that we will be any more successful, because there is little evidence that we can be at any realistic price.

I hope Obama holds out until he has a plan that makes sense and has a definite end point.

New Republican Majority, Where Do You Intend to Cut

Perhaps the most revealing portion of Election Night 2010 coverage came when MSNBC pundits Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell asked one specific question that towered above all others.

The Republican right, the exclusive control mechanism of the party, had during the entire campaign leading up to Election Night coverage drummed over and over the point that if elected fiscal responsibility would be restored. The era of high spending would end.

The Republicans were spurred on by the newest and most vocal element of their constituency, the Tea Party. At scores of rallies held throughout America big government spenders were told that their days were numbered. Tea Party members were, in the words of Peter Finch in the great seventies' hit film "Network", "mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore."

Two major Republican figures from the House of Representatives were asked the same question. They were Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and forthcoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Matthews started Bachmann off with another question. It was whether she intended to ask that House members be investigated for anti-Americanism, a point she had once advanced. He then quickly shifted to the question of the day, which was where Republicans intended to make specific cuts to reduce federal spending.

After asking both questions Matthews was, in baseball parlance, 0-for-2. All Bachmann did was swoon perpetually about how wonderful it was to be entrusted with power by the American people and how magnificent an evening it was. Matthews, feeling a mixture of disgust and chagrin, finally asked her if she was in a trance since she kept doling out sweet nothings while failing to answer his questions.

O'Donnell then asked Cantor the jackpot spending question about where Republicans intended to impose their cuts to reduce expenditures. The House Majority Leader in waiting delivered swooning paeans of delight over faring so well before America's voters, sounding much like Bachmann.

Now the time of beckoning is closer at hand. Where will Republicans seek to impose cuts? One area where the Republican congressional leadership and their vigilant Tea Party enthusiasts could be at immediate loggerheads is over the issue of raising the debt ceiling, a step that must inevitably occur for the government to continue to handle its obligations, indeed, to systematically function.

Bloody internecine warfare could be the result if Tea Party activists stick to their guns and the Republican leadership accepts pragmatic responsibility by biting the bullet. Tea Party purists have indicated that under no circumstances could they support such a move.

Proceeding beyond that point, just where can significant cuts be made, the kind that would make a substantive impact? Republicans are strongly bound to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex. Will funding cuts be recommended when Afghanistan and Iraq remain?

Also, how vigilant have Republicans been in the past in holding the Pentagon's budgetary feet to the fire? Remember the grand old days of the Reagan Administration where money was thrown at the Pentagon? Remember the debt that resulted?

What about entitlements? Baby boomers are reaching the point where they are able to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. Will the new Republican team of prospective budget cutters seek to impose a Spartan regimen?

We recall what happened earlier this week when enough pressure was generated on Republicans on behalf of 9/11 responders in the area of needed medical benefits. Would the Republican leadership be treated with kid gloves if draconian measures were advanced in the Social Security and Medicare realms?

Let the discussion begin. Where do you stand, Republican majority? Will you carry an emboldened Tea Party mindset into the 2012 election? Do you dare embrace such a collective policy?