Direction

All politics are local is a pretty famous truism.  The logic behind this is that voters are always aware of things that actually impact them and are, like most humans, pretty sure their experience is the most valid experience.  So as I discussed the other day, you may have a single issue that you believe has to be fixed above all else (abortion, jobs, taxes, housing) because it has a direct impact on you (physically or emotionally). To the extent the electorate is experiencing the same things they will tend to vote the same.  So in a farm district issues important to farmers will often dominate and since those districts tend to be church going, god fearing districts they even agree for the most part on social issues.  Since the people who grow up in those districts with contrary life styles or beliefs are likely to move away it is self perpetuating.   Similarly in a urban center with diverse populations, life styles, opportunities and beliefs, we are likely to have a completely different outcome in an election.  You can predict the majority of congressional districts pretty reliably, at least when it comes to national elections.

Now I have found that most Americans except the general idea that America has shared values.  However, what they think those shared values are is somewhat different, if not at the top level then in the way to achieve it.  For example, look at National Defense.  You can support it by wanting to be involved globally combating threats in the places they originate while trying to internationalize the concepts in our constitution or you can say keep our troops and money home, build a defense that no one will ever try to attack and let the rest of the world take care of itself.  Both of those positions support a strong defense with probably the only common ground being a strong military.

Issue after issue follows the same pattern, a strong economy, education, immigration, health care, etc. etc.  There is no way to really prove what works better, although there are plenty of examples, they are either inconclusive or they weren't implemented fully.  Take international trade agreements.  They are supposed to improve the overall world economy thereby lifting each nations economy in the process.  However, while that may be true it does it by making the global economy more efficient.  So if it is more efficient to do manual labor (manufacturing) in a foreign country while providing complex services here, it leads to many displaced workers who have antiquated skill sets.  Yes goods get cheaper overall and maybe the total number of jobs is the same or better but the nature of those jobs is different and the impacted individuals are the victims.

This is not the first time we've had an experience like this, and it will work itself out over time, but a displaced factory worker who is making half of what he/she used to and who sees the products they used to make with a made in someplace else label on them feels betrayed.  They worked hard, made good products and the company they worked for was profitable, so what happened?

Well what happened is the management of the company needed to stay competitive and to stay competitive they had to relocate production.  As famously said in well known movies, it's just business.

Of course this seems like something that can be reversed, if things could just go back to the way they were.

More to follow.

More Meandering

Yesterday I was discussing how the parties have become more and more polarized as they respond to the fringe elements in their base.  This is because so many Americans don't vote, either in the regular election or even more so in the primaries.  The candidates who argued that the system was rigged were correct in a certain way, but it is really rigged in the favor of fringe candidates.

Number of people who voted in the primaries is being reported as 9% of all voting age Americans.  This number could actually be representative if it was actually a valid sample of all voters.  However it isn't, the ones who vote the most are those with a cause who want to express their point of view.  If you are fairly content with things with a busy life, voting is a chore that you decide isn't worth it, especially in primaries.

The only way to fix this would be to make voting easier and rewarding.  Unfortunately, having more people vote is not in the self interest of many of our elected officials who got elected by one or more of these fringe elements, especially at the local and state level.  Consider the math.  If you are in a state or district that always votes for one party you simply have to win that party's primary to get elected.  So few people vote in primaries that you need to appeal to one or two fringe groups who will get out and vote for you.  This path to success has been followed by many who have to maintain support by catering to the base that supported them and by keeping voting levels low.

In the Republican primaries none of the mainstream candidates lasted very long.  Remember that Ted Cruz is by no means mainstream, he got elected by the tea party and evangelical fringe groups.  Donald Trump is clearly not mainstream, and in fact has upset the party because he has created a whole new fringe group, angry people.

Are most Americans angry?  I don't think so, but some are very angry as they lost high paying jobs in manufacturing or mining.  They see an America that is becoming more inclusive which they view as curtailing their prior privileged position (it doesn't).  They voted for prior candidates who made promises they couldn't keep even if they meant them and they feel betrayed.

How big is this group?  I really don't know but its sizable and when energized can dominate primaries where so few people actually vote.  Its not just Republicans, the angry Democrats have different issues, student debt, worthless college degrees, banks that are too big to fail but they are also angry.   They made an impact and had the Sanders campaign got organized earlier we could be faced with a Trump vs Sanders general election.

As it is we have Trump vs Clinton.  Republicans have always vilified the Clintons mainly because they keep losing to them.  Of course they also vilify Obama but by now that's a bit meaningless.

If we want to fix the election process we have to make voting in primaries and regular elections easier and more inclusive.  Unfortunately I don't see any real effort in that direction.

More to come.

Jim

August thoughts

Well the first part of the general election has started and its obviously too early normally to predict but its pretty clear that the majority of Americans will come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is way over the line on almost everything and while he is certainly entertaining, hes no President and leader of the free world.  While of course odd things do happen this isn't really worth much discussion.

What is worth discussion is why he has so many backers.  In fact, we seem to have developed a fragmented society and while the Republicans have captured the main group of people who feel America is doing badly (it isn't based on any factual data you look at) they are not limited to just the right.

I think this is worthy of some exploration just to flesh it out.

The first thing that I should note is that there were always single issue voters, voters who felt so strongly about a particular issue that they would support whoever was on their side, not matter what else they espoused.  The biggest of these issues involve things like abortions, guns, gay rights, discrimination.  Israel is one of these issues but there isn't a notable difference on either side.

So someone who is anti-abortion and who considers it murders will support a candidate even if all their other policies are not what they want.  Of course they would prefer an anti-abortion candidate who also has other positions they support, but faced with a choice between two candidates they will vote for the one that is anti-abortion since they feel so strongly about it.  Everything else can wait until they fix that one big issue.

So this has developed into the respective bases of the two major parties although it also to some extent maintains certain third parties.  While not everybody is fanatical in this group, picking a party because it is pro life or pro gun or pro (fill in the blank) probably means that any candidate you nominate will get up to 30% of the nation's votes, on both sides.  You can't normally persuade these voters to change sides without alienating your own base.

It is also clear that issues within each party can be at conflict with each other.  You have your Tea Party Republicans and your Occupy Wall Street Democrats that oppose what were major party platforms related to business and the economy.  They have both moved their respective parties away from the middle and made compromise almost impossible.  The bottom line though is that while they have tremendous influence in primaries they become a liability during general elections where the independent middle gets to decide.  So candidates have to appeal to those voters effectively betraying the fanatics who do in fact feel betrayed.  Of course democracy means the will of the many outweighs the will of the few and what is perceived as betrayal is simply the way the process has to work.  Is it rigged?  Well rigged by the nature of democracy where the winner gets the most votes.

I'll continue this meandering train of thought later in the week,

Quick update

Got busy and haven't posted in quite a while but think its about time.

Not many followers read this and obviously there's been nothing to read.  But just in case let me start with a quick update.

Last day at DCMA was July 1st and I may or may not do some consulting now but time to cut back on the full time work.

Looks like we are finally selling the Pratt Street house and its about time.

Deciding what to do with the Condo in Virginia use, rent or sell.  Still up in the air.

Have a lot of work to do here in Lindenhurst do to my being away so much, but the weather has been too hot to do much outside.

Everyone is healthy mostly, and that's really all that matters.

This election is in full swing now and for pure entertainment value it will be hard to beat the primary season.  Unfortunately, elections have turned into circuses in this country and we need to do something about that.  Americans need to pay attention to the issues and stop rewarding negative campaigns and sensationalist claims.

If you know me at all it shouldn't be a surprise hat I support the Democratic candidate, who might have some flaws (who doesn't) but is clearly so much better qualified.  I find it hard to believe it will even be competitive when the smoke clears.

Yankees are still in contention, but starting to look like they are preparing for the future by trading the great relievers they have.  The bullpen was so strong it may be the best way to get great prospects.

Two months to go they need production from the aging stars to have any chance at all to squeak in.

Haven't been to a game in a few years but may go to one before this season ends.

That's enough for now.

Jim

Holidays

We are now well into the 2013 holiday season and we seem to have survived once again.
 
Sometimes the news leads you to believe that the current crisis is going to ruin us all.  However when the worst thing the news can complain abut is the President taking a picture of himself at a Mandala's funeral, things can't be all that bad.
 
I think what I find most amusing nowadays is the drama that permeates our society over the silliest things.  We don't even get a full 15 minutes of fame anymore, we don't have time for that, although oddly we spend so much time "following" other peoples lives on social media.  We have a congress that until recently couldn't seem to agree on whether the sun was shining but they actually passed a budget deal in the house.  This has outraged some people on the right
who would prefer to hold most Americans hostage to their ideas. 
 
Extremism is the elevation of one issue above everything else.  If you believe that "big Government" is "evil" then you are willing to sacrifice everything to reduce its size.  Of course some people may not have a place to live, food to eat or decent health care, but that is not, in their opinion, a concern to government.  Of course it depends a lot on what you think government is.  If we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, disliking government is actually disliking people. 
 
They may deny this, but they really do think most people are stupid and lazy and should just go out an make a lot of money.  They may end up on the bottom, but if they do its their own fault, they just need to work harder.  Of course they do realize that some people are born into poverty or have absent parents, but they can cite examples of people who overcame humble beginnings to become successful.  These of course are the one in a thousand who do overcome the obstacles, but certainly their success is not a condemnation of the of the other 999.
 
It is very hard to imagine a time in history or pre-history where people did not band together for safety.  Clearly banding together leads to the need for some sort of rules, we see this in our ape relatives, even if the rules are simply the strongest bosses around everyone else.  This is government and society is not possible without it.  How much government do we need, that is open to debate, but there is no "correct" answer.  We may want more of it or we may want less of it and we have the right in this country at least to pursue our concept, but we also have to accept the fact that compromise is the essence of modern society. 
 
The House of Representatives may have figured that out.
 
Merry Christmas!

Why Is This So Hard?

I've met a fair number of Americans from many different parts of this country over the years, and in general we have a lot in common. Most want security, prosperity and freedom.  Most of the elected officials promise us those things but somehow they end up being so opposed to each other that they can't fund the government or raise enough funds to pay our bills.

Now, each problem has more than one solution, but it would seem that right now we are faced with some simple choices.  We have made promises to our citizens related to various benefits (entitlements) and we haven't raised enough money to pay for these promises.  This plus a couple of wars and a horrible recession has led to large deficits and increases in our national debt.

The only way to balance the books is either to cut those benefits or raise more money (taxes).  This is the problem we face and we have some people arguing that we have to live up to our obligations and others who say we can't raise taxes.  This results in borrowing.  It is a tough problem and we don't have a short term magic solution, although there are many promising signs related to economic growth and increased national resources in energy that have some promise to help out over time.

We are faced with a potential time bomb in the current low interest rates that make our interest payments almost affordable.  This is not a situation that can last forever and when interest rates go up so do our debt payments.

The solution is fairly obvious, we need to reduce some future entitlements while increasing revenue.  This has to be done in a way that promotes economic growth, which in and of itself improves revenue since the tax base grows and the entitlement rolls shrink somewhat.  Why our elected officials can't figure this out is the mystery.

Silly Shutdown

When you play poker, you have to "know when to hold them and know when to fold them"  and if you don't you will get taken to the cleaners. 

Certain Republicans thought that the cards they held, shutting down the government, were worth holding and that they could get concessions.  Well they didn't and I think they will get taken to the cleaners.

The scary part is that they are simply too ignorant to realize that the Affordable Care Act is not going away and to shut down the government or too create a default will end up causing a lot of unnecessary grief.

I think they are terrified by the fact that the dire predictions they made about the law are not going to come true.  The exchanges are up and the premiums are actually reasonably affordable.  There are some glitches, but mainly because of the tremendous amount of interest.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the law, but it is going to become better understood now that it is going live and the Republicans are terrified by that.  It really is a pretty good law once you get to know it, not perfect, but still pretty good.