Another Data Point

“Eric Cantor represents large corporations who want a never-ending supply of cheap, low-wage foreign labor,” Dave Brat said in his stump speech.

So, we’ve witnessed this political season’s shocker. What can we learn?

For me, Brat’s statement above — and his shocking victory over Eric Cantor — suggests an opportunity, though one that’s admittedly tricky to exploit.

It’s been my belief for some time that the dominant sentiment in the Tea Party is repressed economic anxiety. Of course, there’s economic anxiety all around. But on the right, it often finds expression in ways progressives rightfully find repugnant: anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-women’s rights — or crazy gun rights advocacy. But I contend this is the result of deft misdirection by the GOP, which now has found it’s got a tiger by the tail.

But Brat’s attack on “large corporations” also suggests a hope of finding common cause with many Tea Party adherents — if they can only be made to see that taxes, gays,  women, and black presidents aren’t their problem — their problem is the overwhelming economic and political power of the 0.1%.

We need to bear this in mind when confronted by Tea Party “hate.” It’s not hate, it’s really fear –  fear that we share, frankly. The better we get at turning the conversation in that direction, the more successful we progressives will be.

For more, read Ryan Lizza’s excellent piece on Brat in the New Yorker.

Just in time for those family gatherings, here are a couple of sources of info to have in your quiver should the conversation turn to politics:

• How to talk to your Republican uncle
• 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican

Happy Thanksgiving!

There are two kinds of people who think assault weapons should be in the hands of civilians: Fools and madmen.

The fools think believe any amount of armament available to them are a) sufficient to protect them from an oppressive government and that it’s even a relevant concern in a democratic republic.

The madmen are be definition not to be trusted with instruments whose fundamental purpose is to kill human beings.

(By the way, these categories aren’t exclusive: There can be mad fools and foolish madmen.)

I, for one, think that when I go into a public place, say an airport, I shouldn’t be at risk of being shot to death by a mad fool with an assault rifle.

As this is becoming more common, I am NOT becoming more resigned to an America overwhelmed by gun violence. I am growing more and more furious at those who are promoting the ownership of these weapons, the people who are enriching themselves by the sale of these weapons, and the representatives who are enabling these outrages upon innocents.

We are hostages to a sophomoric interpretation of the second amendment, supported in large part by persons who, unhappy with the results of our political process, apparently feel compelled to arm themselves against some imagined government oppression – despite the fact that we live in a democracy.

A consequence of this view is that our society is being inundated with instruments that are specifically designed to kill human beings. We’ve seen these weapons fall into the hands of deranged persons who threaten peaceable, law-abiding citizens wherever they may be – in movie theaters, our places of worship or, most horribly, in our schools.

Greater issues may confront our nation, but none whose solution is so completely simple and obvious: Make the sale and ownership of such weapons illegal, buy the weapons back from those who are willing to comply with the law, and prosecute those who don’t.

This will only happen if Americans contact their legislators and insist that their freedom from fear trumps the fear of those foolish and/or crazy enough to own weapons whose purpose is to kill humans.

What are you waiting for? Contact your representative and say Enough!

Abraham Lincoln wisely pointed out that you can’t fool all the people all the time, which explains the impending demise of the conservative revolution.

The conservative program of activating white voters out of fear of non-whites, patriarchists out of fear of abortion, and I-don’t-know-what out of fear of gays is at last  showing signs of terminal disintegration in our national elections.

Having lost its electoral advantages, the GOP is now desperately seeking to maintain its political advantages with measures at the state level that will utterly ruin the party for a generation. Republicans are attempting to distort elections through voter restrictions,  gerrymandering and even  a program to game the electoral vote. As people come to see how fundamentally un-democratic (small D) these measures are, voters will develop an abiding distrust of the party that has promoted them.

Ironically, the Republican attempt to reapportion the electoral vote could lead to greater democracy, by making people aware of both the troublesome nature of the electoral college and an elegant way to render it obsolete.

Anyone who wants to make the electoral vote process more democratic (again, small D) should look no further than the National Popular Vote movement, whose aim is to ensure that presidential elections can only be won by candidates who win the votes of most Americans. (You can get details at nationalpopularvote.com.)

If state Republican legislators are serious about democracy, they will join this movement, which will ensure that Wisconsin’s electoral votes go the person who wins the votes of the majority of all Americans, not to the person who wins in gerrymandered districts.

Conservatives have not been able to convince Americans of their failed ideas. If they attempt to retain political power by rigging elections, they will reap the whirlwind.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from the most famous Republican of them all.

Paul Ryan: “It’s clear the stimulus didn’t work.”

Um, no.

When I was born in 1954, a Republican President was embarking on the most ambitious peacetime infrastructure in American history, the Interstate  Highway System. The top marginal tax rate was 91%.

When I was 12 years old, Voting Rights Act finally ensured that African Americans enjoyed the franchise they’d been denied for hundreds of years. CEOs were paid 24 times what their workers were paid

By the time I graduated from grade school, Medicare guaranteed a minimum level of affordable health care for the elderly. Before my 12th birthday, Americans walked on the Moon.

When I graduated from the University of Wisconsin – Madison my tuition accounted for 20% of the cost of my education. Public funds made up most of the difference.

But then something happened. I tend to think of it as Reaganism, but it has since metastasized into something even more grotesque.

Since the 1980s

• The top marginal tax rate has declined to 35%
• Around the country, republican-held legislatures are passing laws restricting voter access, in the name of reducing fraud — which demonstrably doesn’t exist in any important way.
•  In 2005, CEOs were paid 262 times the average worker’s pay
• Paul Ryan has proposed changes to Medicare that will mean seniors will pay $1,200 more for health insurance by 2030, and over $5,000 by 2050 — but only seniors younger than me!
• Public funding of the UW system has dwindled to 20% of the cost of education a student.

Baby-boomers have enjoyed better pay, more equal distribution of wealth, well-funded public education, ever-improving infrastructure, a more progressive tax system, and better health care than the generations before them.

Following generations are losing all these things, in large part because their elders are have been fighting for lower taxes.

Seems to me we’ve climbed a ladder to prosperity and are now pulling it up behind ourselves. Following generations be damned!

It’s shameful, really.

So now the right wing is trying to gin up the charge that Obama wants to destroy jobs with the sequestration agreed upon by all parties during the debt ceiling debate of 2011.

Leaving aside the question of whether this is just whining by people who don’t want to take their medicine, it seems fair to ask why the defense jobs — essentially public works jobs, since they’re paid for with public dollars — are more valuable than the public sectors jobs that have been lost by budget cuts at the state and federal level (and local, by virtue of the loss of shared revenue suffered by municipalities).

I would argue that, salaries being equal, they are of equal value economically, though of course politically they are not.

So, the GOP gets to cut jobs to save public dollars, but now they are trying to wriggle out of an agreement by blaming Obama for losing jobs.

And by the way, we’ve been told that government spending doesn’t create jobs, so why should government cuts cost jobs?