Politics (I guess)

Starting a blog with the intention of avoiding politics around the time of a presidential election is a dumb idea, I guess.

All I know is that when I read James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party by Sean Illing, I think how much of an idiot James Carville is, but then he helped get Bill Clinton elected and that succeeded at getting a punishing slough of Republican bills deregulating banks and accelerating mass incarceration, ending welfare, of any president from up until perhaps Trump, so Democrats would be fools to think he's a friend to their goals.

So, if you know Democrats, you know they're going to take this bullshit very seriously indeed.

In the meantime, I read An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter by David Freedlander and think, that matches pretty close to my experience of the events of my lifetime. Mind you, I think these things are more complicated than any one theory can hold.

[Rachel] Bitecofer’s theory, when you boil it down, is that modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place. To her critics, she’s an extreme apostle of the old saw that “turnout explains everything,” taking a long victory lap after getting lucky one time. She sees things slightly differently: That the last few elections show that American politics really has changed, and other experts have been slow to process what it means.

In the 24-hour news cycle world that Ted Turner brought us and Al Gore shepherded forward, we are all hungry for an answer that can be summed up in teaser promo spot or a clickbait headline, but I don't think the answers can be found on any of the news networks or, for the most part, on the Internet, because the business of neither is helped by people gaining anything like an understanding of their world.

But, yeah, I feel like you can look at that group of people above, and, even if you can't put your finger on what it is, see what they lack, even though large swaths of party members thought each of them were "electable".

And now we have Mike Bloomberg jumping in. I'll probably vote for the Democratic nominee in November, even if some will make me grit my teeth a lot. In a race between two billionaires, however, I'll only vote for The Guillotine.

I know that any mainstream Democrats who accidentally stumble of this post will think I'm being a dick in some way and that any Democrat is better than Trump, and I'm saying the choice between two billionaires is morally indistinguishable from one between two Nazis. You could say that one is smarter, more competent, has fewer disagreeable beliefs or is even a nicer person than the other, but both have interests that are deeply contrary to mine.

I know that many people will say that's not a reasonable line. I have alleged working class champion John Mellencamp interrupting my YouTube joy to champion the glories of plutocracy, so I know they're out there. And I know that, in the unlikely event that he makes it, the Democratic scolds will be out in force explaining it as well. I'll just never buy it.

Frankly, the scolds have made me somewhat regret my decision to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite my many moral reservations, rather than to feel bad about those who made another choice. The fact that she hasn't caught fire from the white hot rage those people should be feeling toward her and her absolutely incompetent campaign is a tribute to how far separated they are from me, which leaves them in poor position to scold or instruct me.

I genuinely think she should be specifically, individually held responsible for all of the evils of the current administration. The extremity of her laziness and overconfidence should make it unsafe for her to go in public again.

She chose Tim fuckin' Kaine!

Fuck her!

Sure, it's no Gore picking goddamn Joe Lieberman, but still. Tim fuckin' Kaine!

Those mainstream Democrats really do love sticking it in and twisting it on the party faithful, don't they?

Don't get me wrong, I agree very much with Mitt by Mark Evanier.

Here's my take on it. I believe that at some low level in our government — maybe some folks who sit on a city council somewhere — men and women act out of conscience and put the needs of The People ahead of their own careers and certainly their own parties. But it doesn't happen much higher than that. Probably at the state level and certainly above it, there is only one consideration: "How will this benefit me?"

They may put personal wealth ahead of personal power or vice-versa. They may care about fame more than money. They may even convince themselves that's what good for them is good for their constituents and for the nation. (That's kind of the Alan Dershowitz defense of, I suppose, all wrongdoing.) No matter why they want to serve, when it comes time to vote Yes or No, they vote based on what's better for themselves. That may or may not match up with what's better for the majority.

I do not mean almost everyone thinks like that. I do not mean everyone except the candidate I support. I mean absolutely everyone and I don't think I'm being overly cynical to say that. It includes Trump, Obama, Biden, either Clinton, Sanders, anyone named Kennedy or Bush…and of course, Mitt Romney.

This is handy to have in mind. It's easy to make one cynical, which is how many people take it, but it offers a certain clarity. If none of them are "on my team", then I only have who will find it in their best interest to do things I believe in. I'm not not tied to any feeling of loyalty to them that I don't feel they have toward me and people like me.

I can look and see that Carville is just Karl Rove Lite™ and his arguing for "centrists" might serve his interests, but it definitely doesn't serve mine.