Honoring the losing majority (redux). And what each of us can do.

Today I will offer a proposal that would be a sensible act of healing for any newly elected president, whether winning by a landslide, a squeaker, or on technicalities. But first...

== This started with a banishing of facts == 

And so it begins. As the GOP-led House of Representatives votes to gut the Congressional Ethics Office. Yes, they backed off, under a tsunami of harsh reaction. But it was a clear shot over our bow.

Moreover, this was not the beginning. Look up the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), whose scientific and technical staff advised Congress since the Truman Administration - formalized during Nixon's term - appraising the plausibility and practical implications of legislation. The 1995 Gingrich GOP "revolution" flat out banished OTA and sent all the techies packing, without replacement, on claims that OTA was "partisan.

If that had been true, the problem could have been corrected by adding skilled and convincingly smart conservative scientists. But that would have created an awkward situation. If they were primarily scientists, then evidence and argument would draw them away from GOP doctrine. If dogmatic, they risked becoming laughingstocks. 

Alas, it was not OTA that was "partisan" but objective reality. And so, on a party line vote, Congress voted to banish inconvenient "facts" from our nation's Capitol. So don't be shocked when the party that gave Speakership of the House -- the third highest office in the land -- to Dennis (convicted felon) Hastert, Tom (convicted felon) DeLay and Newt (censured) Gingrich is now banishing ethics, as well.

== Only this time, a majority is watching ==

Amid the crowings that "we have a mandate to change everything!" in fact, large majorities of Americans voted against both the incoming President and the incoming Congress.

According to a Gallup poll released January 2, Americans have significantly less faith in Donald Trump than they had in his predecessors. Only 44% said they are confident Trump will avoid major scandals in his administration, 46% said they are confident in Trump’s ability to handle and international crisis and 47% said they trust him to use military force wisely. When the same questions were asked at the start of Barack Obama’s, George Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s terms, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they had confidence in the newly elected president in these areas.

What would you do, if taking charge under such conditions? 

A sane grownup would be humbled and seek to forge consensus, as I discussed in a long ago missive called: “Honoring the Losing Majority.”  It was written after the last time cheats and technicalities robbed the American people of their clear choice. Then, as now, George W. Bush might have reached out…

He might have invited his defeated opponent, whom more Americans wanted, to offer input on some crucial cabinet posts, as FDR did with Wendell Wilkie (though Roosevelt had walloped Wilkie at the polls.)  He might have sought his predecessor’s advice on appointments, As Eisenhower  did with Truman and JFK did with Eisenhower. 

While most Republican officeholders seem gleeful, anticipating a Sherman-in-Georgia approach to power over all three branches of government, some wiser GOP leaders are at least questioning whether exploiting their majority to maximum effect would be good for the country or, for that matter, the party. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has stood out among Republicans for his warnings against overreach. “It’s certainly no time for hubris, because all majorities are never permanent.” 

Indeed, I know something that a real adult might do, with victory and power. I put my proposal on the table after Bush snuck past Gore… and I repeated the suggestion when Obama decisively beat McCain and Romney! Alas, it got no traction. But the idea is so simple and elegant, allowing any president -- even one who wins in a landslide -- to reach out, giving the losing 40% some feeling of involvement. Of being listened-to. What's the idea?

Give your defeated opponent control over the president’s meeting agenda, one afternoon a month.  

That’s it. That’s all.  A trifle. And yet it would prove…

… oh, but read the original. The act, so modest and easy, would have vast effects and implications, helping to soothe our divides. And thus marvel that our political caste (yes, democrats, even) are so stodgy and rigid that they cannot even imagine anything so blatant and simple.

== So what can you do? Yes, you? ==

In another earlier missive, I talked about things that each of you might do, to help revive civil society at the ground level, while we still have some power over our lives. In the Atlantic, Eric Liu offers suggestions for post-election malaise - for how folks depressed by the prospect of stunning levels of mal-governance can deal with the resulting funk… with civic involvement.

For example start or join a club, one with some positive goal. Almost anything. Civic participation even at the lowest level can give people a sense of citizenship, involvement, even empowerment. It could be as simple as a book club, or becoming a school volunteer. Donate to schools in need. Engineers or businessfolk: help mentor in your local High School, e.g. its FIRST Robotics club. Or join your local political party’s club, and help pick candidates for the next round. A hunger program or Habitat for Humanity construction. 

One of my own activities for years has been CERT - our local Community Emergency Response Team… all that is left of Civil Defense in the U.S. 

Even if you're cheap and lazy, there’s the method I describe as Proxy Power activism, so simple and inexpensive there’s no excuse. Participate online on CrowdPac - a platform for political participation. Or petition the White House about issues you care about through We the People.

Want something especially effective, if enough folks do it? Chip away at the oligarchic putsch by glancing at the advertisers of Fox News and enterprises owned by the Kochs who seek to be our feudal lords. At your own convenience, just choose to purchase products made by other companies! Or do purchase from companies Breitbart hates. See also: What Can I Do... to live more sustainably? by Jon Foley.

Sure, it’s hard to shift life to revolve around a boycott list; so don’t! No one purchase will alter history. But you can make a tickler-reminder on your calendar to at least scan the list once every three months or so. 

That’s all it will take, to at least lean a little in your buying habits. And that can go a long way. Above all, spread word about this.

== Up the Rebel Alliance! ==

Here’s another, very interesting take on a survival and an activity guide for the coming time of trial for us and our nation. Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. It offers a lot of detail, especially lessons learned from the effectiveness of the Tea Party movement. 

Face it, we’ll have to learn some such lessons. Not how to be delusional haters of science and fact! But yes, how to get busy at the local level, and fight for our country. As they – sincerely but delusionally --  thought they were fighting for theirs, while (in fact) obeying their plantation lord masters. 

I would alter this “practical guide” in dozens of ways – like including not only your Member of Congress (MoC) but especially your state Assembly and Senate members – Republicans long ago realized that the states are where real power lies. And I will soon be making a Big Proposal about that. But this advice page is a great start. Along with the boycotts.

== Movin' on? ==

Oh. You confeds who are repeating this... you actually think it will work? That we aren't awakening to the literal and absolutely true word to describe this... and that describes anyone who tries to repeat it?

Treason.

== Political Miscellany ==

An amazing graphic and sign of our times, showing who Donald Trump has insulted with his tweets, across the last 18 months.  Yes, it can be charted.  In fact, it’s an amazing data trove that could lead to modeling and computer instantiation of “meta-Trumps.”  Watson could do it tomorrow.

Economist Ed Dolan shows in charts how rejecting trade will not help, but hurt, America. He argues that the lower-skilled, less-educated and older workers who voted most heavily for Trump would almost certainly be among the losers of Trump’s trade plans.

Oh, Moses & the prophets. Read up about Donald Trump's son-in-law, who some of us had envisioned and hoped and prayed would be - along with Ivanka - a possible "mind" and source of wisdom. OMG. OMG. OMG. Oh, but you heard it here. Apparently DT doesn't intend to live much in the Gold (formerly White) House. The People's House. Oy. 

And finally... an amazing story – apparently verified – that Richard Nixon once wrote to a young Donald Trump predicting his rise to the White House. See: How might Nixon's 'madman theory' apply to Trump?

All right, enough for now. But just a hint re upcoming shows. Watch how we see the dissing of the entire US Intelligence Community and (soon) the US military officer corps. Something I predicted (alone, I think) long ago.  It has surprising implications, more surprising outcomes... and some amazing repercussions.

Suggestion #20: Seek ways to end Culture War

Let’s finish this series of “Unusual Suggestions for America and the Obama Administration.”  with the one that is simplest and most basic. Something that seems so easy and wise, you really have got to wonder why it hasn’t already been done.  Or at least tried.

Let me lay it on the line. We have one priority, above all others, because solving it will unleash our native aptitude at fixing every other problem. That priority is to cure the sickness that is eating away at the guts and marrow of the greatest nation in history.  The nation that Jean Francois Revel called the “best hope” for the “best kind of human revolution.”  The kind of revolution that leads us to far higher horizons and to becoming better people, all around the world.

That priority is to put a stop to the treason that is called “culture war” and get us back to talking to one another again, as grownups.

President Obama can only play an important role in this endeavor.  Most of the heavy lifting must be done by us, in shaking off simplistic dogmas, in re learning the arts of negotiation. In rediscovering that skill and ingenuity and goodness are more important than celebrity or cash. Insisting that both we and our neighbors cut out the sick habit of outrageous indignation, an addiction that makes fools of us and strawmen of our opponents.

Nevertheless, President Obama will be the most important single individual.  And so, I want to conclude with a sincere suggestion to him.  It isn’t anything huge, just a gesture. Something simple, easy and cheap, but offering profound resonance, perhaps setting a tone that would ring across the land.  I have proposed this idea before: Honoring the Losing Majority. Here it is one more time.

---Honoring (and winning over) the losing side ---

What does “majority rule” mean? Suppose your candidate wins by close to a 60/40 vote margin. You can call that a solid victory, in modern political terms. But it still means that four in ten voting citizens did not want your guy in office. To that forty percent, the word "mandate" translates as -- drop dead!

Might there be some way to acknowledge the losing minority? One that both lessens their sense of humiliation, and making them more willing to accept that the winners really do mean well?  Imagine our new President making the following pledge:

"I now ask my honorable opponent in the recent election -- Senator McCain -- to help pick a panel of Americans who are well-outside my normal political or social circle.  In this case, I’d like him to help fill it especially with many varied types of “conservatives.”

“This panel will have one power.  Except during periods of crisis, they will get control over my appointment calendar one afternoon per month. On that afternoon, I’ll meet with -- and listen to -- individuals or delegations beyond my regular horizon.  In this small way, I hope Americans of all persuasions will feel just a little more sure that I do not live in a tower of ideological isolation, but that I stand ready to hear diverse -- even dissenting -- points of view."

Such a pledge would cost Barack Obama little to make or to fulfill. There is no obligation to act on what the delegations say, only to be accessible, listening occasionally to more than one ideology. More than one brain trust of cloned advisors. Indeed, the legitimacy of an administration will be enhanced if we see the president receive articulate, passionate emissaries, representing diverse opinions and walks of life.

(In fact, what better way to contrast his administration vs the Bush-Cheney era?)

  --- A return to our traditions ---

During the first era of our republic, private citizens used to knock on the door of the White House and ask to see their nation's leader. As recently as the time of Harry Truman, there was a slim chance of seeing the president somewhere in public, buying socks for real, not as a publicity stunt. Not thronged by photographers and Secret Service agents. There is genuine peril in losing this connection between power and everyday life.

If today's president cannot safely venture among us, representatives of sundry outlooks should have a route to him or her. With this precedent set, not just public figures, but individuals from the ranks of the poor and dispossessed might win a chance to plead their case before the highest official in the land.

Moreover, this would give those tens of millions who lost the election something. A token perhaps.  But far more than they expect. A gesture of respect. A vow to listen.

--------

And that concludes this series. (See the beginning of Unusual Suggestions to the Obama Administration)

I will post the entire series at: http://www.davidbrin.com/labor.html

I am proud to live in an era and a nation where a fellow like me -- notoriously outspoken and contrarian -- has the means and opportunity to voice proposals that range from mundane to ingenious to outright crackpot.  We all have to offer what we can, in order to keep momentum going, in this, the greatest of all human renaissance eras.

Final note:.... I have vowed to deeply REDUCE blogging, limiting myself to maybe two postings per month.  (Except for quickie news flashes.)  In fact, those who really care or admire me at all will help me keep to this promise!

Of course, this fond hope is based on a fervent wish and prayer that this nation, civilization, species has a good year ahead, a steady climb toward wisdom...

...as I hope and pray for you, in the year and years ahead.

======

What-ifs to Watch For: A Bouquet of October Surprises

Off the top: in the latest issue of Discover Magazine, a featured article "Advice for the Next President" includes my own humble thoughts, alongside to those of Edward O. Wilson, Steven Weinberg, Jack Horner, C. Everett Koop, Danny Hillis, Peter Singer and other luminaries. Our combined suggestions - to whoever wins the White House - are important, if we're to reclaim America's role as a dynamic leader in world science, education and technology.

= What-ifs to Watch For: A Bouquet of October Surprises =

With four weeks to go, and the GOP writhing in desperation, I find myself doing what I am paid to do, as a thriller-writer... coming up with “what-if” scenarios for the next four weeks till the election... and the next four months till inauguration. Caveat: I do not necessarily believe any of these. But I have ranked them in order of likelihood.

And you are welcome to place bets on InTrade. Each may be lower than 50%, but the odds of something jarring happening before February? Almost certain.

1) John McCain will vacillate till the end over whether or not to go for the respect and reverence that were the rewards given to Wendell Wilkie, Barry Goldwater, Robert Dole, and Jimmy Carter, after they lost elections but -- having behaved well and honorably -- came away with respect as elder statesmen, consulted by the mighty. I expect that, if he had taken the High Road, McCain would arise out of defeat as a beloved figure, invited by President Obama to serve as a right-side conscience. (Perhaps in a manner that I recommended to the Obama Campaign: See my article: Honoring the Losing Majority.)

Instead, alas, we have wild oscillations that exemplify the word “erratic.” At one moment, a churlish, snarling, bitter side of John McCain, both in his own words and through proxies, who egg crowds until some spontaneously erupt with Obama-hating shouts like “Kill-him!” Yes, McCain has lately tried to quell this a bit. But not enough to have any real effect upon the wave of Timothy McVeighs who are sure to swell over our nation, as the inevitable fruit of Culture War. Indeed, the more he swings toward being a reasonable adult, the more surely he will be blamed for the Republicans' coming electoral debacle.

Let’s make this plain: in times of national crisis, to pre-wound the next freely-elected president, deliberately striving to reduce his effectiveness, is nothing less than an act of selfish egotism. By some interpretations, it is outright treason.

Obama would be well-served to make as big a contrast with this churlish immaturity, as possible. He should speak of how he will support McCain, if he becomes president, and invite McC to say the same. Obama should even state that after taking office, he will seek McCain’s input! (See below.) Nothing will make the contrast more stark or better put the lie to charges of “radical.”

2) OBL's Ghost still haunts. Catch a guest editorial by Rany Jazayerli, concerning how Osama Bin Laden -- remember him? -- who influenced our US elections on October 29, 2004, by railing against Bush (thus helping him), will almost certainly release a tape during the next few weeks, attempting to do the same thing.

Barack Obama should pre-message, or pre-massage, this possibility -- along with all other October Surprises -- with a few choice words. Just a few generalities, dropped in passing, might ring out as prescient and wise, in the event that OBL speaks out, or a terror strike hits, or... anything a thriller writer can come up with.


3) Vote stealing. Duh. We are already seeing mass disenfranchisement in battleground states. The New York Times finally has a piece on purging voter rolls. The officials behind it should be told that they will be sued - personally - for civil damages, by voters they de-registered unfairly. In times like these, a direct prospect of being cleaned out may mean more than prosecution. Ditto Diebold.

So far, we are talking about “surprises that will not surprise me at all. Now to the less likely.


4) The Clemency Crush. I have spoke elsewhere of how it’s time to talk about (and prepare for) George Bush’s post election "pardon tsunami" -- relied-upon by several thousand kleptocrats. This cannot be prevented -- indeed, the promise of pardons may be what’s saving us from an even more desperate October Surprise.

(Hint to one disgruntled White House employee/staffer. If preparations for this post-election amnesty-festival -- or some other stunt -- are already underway, do you have any idea what a celebrity you’ll become, if you blow the secret before the election? Why, you might even keep your job.)

Still, there are ways for the Democratic Congress to possibly “corner” those pardons. For example, by passing a law that defines a presidential pardon as only applying to actual crimes that the recipient openly confesses in sworn testimony. The best way to start a genuine Truth And Reconciliation process that can begin the healing. (Note some interesting aspects, since this would be the inverse of an executive “signing statement” - and it would be inherently popular. And, of course, it would allow direct civil redress for economic damages. Pardonees would have to choose between escaping jail and losing the yacht, or fleeing to Dubai.)

Sure, this Supreme Court will probably quash any such law. But even that will raise an outcry, since the principle seems so reasonable. Note that just the right response to the "pardon tsunami" might seal the fate of the GOP and perhaps even disgust middle America enough to end Culture War.


5) Resigned to being unforgetable - unfortunately. Only now let’s gild the “pardon lily” by adding an even more paranoid scenario. Though one that’s not at all inconsistent with what we’ve seen. Let’s try to picture the ultimate "up yours" from Bush to the nation. What could that be?

Imagine if W were to resign a week ahead of the inauguration and force us to admit, into the registry of chief executives, "President Richard Cheney."

Yep. Portraits. Coins. History books. All the paraphernalia... and we’d be stuck with this “asterisk” forever! Sure, it's unlikely -- ten-to-one against -- if only because Bush will want to squeeze out every last "hail to the chief." And his GOP friends will beg him not to. Still, this move does have some advantages from his point of view. It would:

a- let him pay off all debts to Cheney (and do you doubt that RC has "leverage"?)
b- let him stick it to the historians and to the 75% of the public who consider him "worst president ever."
c- let him get HIS OWN PARDON from Prex Cheney, after he has pardoned Cheney and several thousand others.

Yeah, if one of you wants to go on InTrade with this, hold out for long odds. Heck, twenty to one. At that level, it’d be worth a few bucks.

6) Maximize the loot - maximize the damage. Will my darkest “manchurian” fantasies about this administration prove to have been right? I've long held that the Standard Model -- simple venality combined with moronic imbecility -- breaks down trying to their perfect record at harming America and - more significantly - destroying Pax Americana. Mere moron-crooks would have done ONE thing beneficial to the Republic, if only by accident! If the darker explanation is true, then you can bet they won’t miss any opportunities to wreak maximum harm, from November to January. These would be the truly awful surprise scenarios. If the Manchurian Nightmare is true (and right now I give it 30%) then be ready to head for the hills.

Finishing up, let me reiterate.
-Spread the word that our eyes are open. That may have some deterrence effects.
-Buy canned goods (that you’ll reasonably use, later, when things blow over!)
-Sign up to take CERT training.
-Join the National Guard.
-Above all, be ready to be like the passengers of Flight 93. We’re all of us potential American heroes.


=== BONUS SECTION (And possibly even better!) ===

--- Two Important Jiu Jitsu Riffs that Barack Obama Might Use --

I'll post later about this idea, but in raw form -- if BHO seems headed for a surefire win, he needs to turn his attention to the Congressional and Statehouse races! While listening to the 2nd debate on our way to see Neil Diamond (yeow!), I came up with these two suggested riffs. One of them you've heard before. (I’ve given up channeling these through my cousin. Might as well let em percolate.)

Imagine Barack saying this:

1 - "Now there are a couple of areas where I think John has been a little farther ahead of the curve than I was. His attacks on earmark spending have been a bit theatrical, and the amount saved would be small. Still, I believe that if John were president, he would attack that one problem with vigor.

“And you know what? When I am president, John McCain will attack Earmarks with vigor! Because - if he'd accept - I will appoint him to head a team to do just that!

“This isn't grandstanding. After all, John made a promise like this first! When he was asked who his top candidate for Treasury Secretary would be, the first name he thought of was MY economic advisor, Warren Buffett! The “World’s Greatest Investor,” who warned us all about this looming economic crisis, since 2002. Of course, it would be even better if John fired his own economic advisor - Phil Gramm -- who rammed through the total deregulation of the derivatives market and sent us down this road, proclaiming that it would all be just fine.

"But if John would praise and hire Warren Buffett, then I'll return the favor and praise and hire John McCain for the jobs that he's best qualified-for. Along with dozens of other smart, capable Republicans, I'll find tasks for him, don't you worry. Ways for John McCain to keep serving America."

Now THAT would be jiu jitsu! And here's another one

#2 - "Look, I honor John McCain, not only for his military service and inspiring spirit of utter determination, but also for the fact that, yes, he has been a maverick at times... maybe ten percent as often as he says he's been!

"True, he supported George Bush 90% of the time and surrounded himself with the same crowd of Usual Suspects. But let's give him credit for having at least verbally distanced himself from his own Party. He now joins me and millions of Americans in blaming the 12 year Republican Congress for removing most regulation and supervision of Wall Street, for plunging our children into debt, for refusing to act on climate change, for neglecting our science and infrastructure and for sabotaging energy research for an entire wasted decade. Since his nominating convention, he's reversed official GOP policy on most of these of issues, and dozens of others. (Though of course, these switches were following public awareness, not leading it.)

“Look, whether you believe McCain and Palin are true "rebel-maverick-reformers"... or you see their long list of Bush-era advisors as proof that they aren't... either way... I am glad John McCain has joined me in urging that Americans out there fire the Republican members of Congress who did all that!

“Let the GOP clean its own house, before we let them back near positions of power. Let fresh blood and fresh ideas rise up within the Republican Party, so it can come back to us in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. I'm glad John and I agree on the need for that era of change and renewal, in a Party that promised so much and delivered us only pain. Especially Republican Congressfolk who really should be sent home to think about how they could have served us better.”

Note that if it looks to be a landslide, this isn't simply a gambit, it is a moral necessity for Barack! He is behooved.


Finally -- SOME OF THAT GOOD OLD COMPARISON AMMO ---

A comparison of economic performance under the two parties leaves the standard republican rationalizations shattered. The comparison on dems vs gops in economic stats reveals dems as decisively better managers of the economy.

Notes: bear in mind that the one major democratic outlier the - 1944-48 “Roosevelt-Truman” term - had to manage the end of WWII and the biggest conversion of the economy in history, finding employment for five million soldiers re-entering the civilian economy. In fact, that term ended very well and was arguably the best -managed in all of US history. Likewise Roosevelt III - both waging WWII and yanking us out of a depression might offer an excuse for that outlier in government deficit. Otherwise, democrats (and Eisenhower) always do better at balancing budgets. Always.

Likewise, without question, stocks do better - on average - under democrats, especially if you (properly) pull Eisenhower out of the Republican column, since his version of republicanism bears no genetic relationship with today’s. Note also that Truman again took a difficult transition and turned it into a boom.

Of course, the most recent year of Bush 43 is missing from these stats, where stock losses and skyrocketing deficits would extrapolate the “red” republican blood-draining to truly vampiric levels.

There is, of course, one exception to the dems’ almost perfect record of better economic performance... the inflation figures for (especially) Jimmy Carter’s term. Though one could easily blame that on backlash effects from trying to do both guns and butter earlier, during Vietnam.

Missing from this tally... and I suspect potentially just as devastating... would be Small Business Startups. I’d also be interested in rates of GDP growth and rates of monopoly aggrandizement. These last three would put the final nails in the coffin.

---- Miscellany ---

There are roughly 4000 political appointees in the federal government of which about 1100 require Senate confirmation. When you elect a president, you are electing a political party, including those 4000 political appointees and the people they hire.

Those of you interested in pinning the blame for the present economic mess, have a look at Russ Daggatt’s latest blog where he lays out the case against former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan... and ends with a truly macabre quote from John McCain.

See a funny -- and prescient -- explanation of the subprime crisis, from John Bird and John Fortune, two British comedians, who anticipated what we're watching today, way back in 2007.

“whenever the topic turns to earmarks, I always suggest that folks go play around with the Sunlight Foundation's Interactive earmarks map.http://sunlightlabs.com/earmarks/ Earmarks are rarely obviously wasteful. Rather, they're small appropriations that exist beneath the urgency level that would merit federal consideration.”

“In the early ‘90’s, before Republicans took control of Congress, the number of earmarks was under 1000 and totaled less than $3 billion. The use of earmarks peaked with the last budget Republicans passed before losing control of Congress in 2006 – at over 14,000 earmarks worth more than $27 billion. Since then, Democrats have cut them by a third – this year they total $18 billion. But let’s put that in context. $18 billion is a whole lot less than a trillion.

As it turns out, the Queen of Earmarks is Sarah Palin. According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to secure earmarks for tiny Wasilla , Alaska when she was mayor. The town of 6,700 received nearly $27 million in federal dollars from 2000 to 2003. Alaska has the highest earmark use of any state in the country. As governor of Alaska , Palin requested $198 million worth in next year's federal budget.

She learned from the master himself, the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee when Republicans controlled the Senate, Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). She ran his 527 group “The Ted Stevens Fund” (this is the “independent” political entity that Stevens used to raise unlimited funds from corporate donors). Stevens is currently standing trial in federal court for bribery.

Eloquent Ostrich Ammo: Share and spread around -- and read aloud to your ostrich -- this “Letter to My Republican Father.”

So Many Ways Obama Could Use Jiu Jitsu...

The LA Times recently presented an unusually insightful editorial about ”Obamacain” -- relating to the few - but noteworthy - areas in which the two candidates overlap or share important views.

“It has been a refrain during the exhausting battle for the Democratic presidential nomination that once Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama emerged as the party's choice, we could finally dispense with the personality battles and get down to nitty-gritty policy differences. Indeed, now that Obama seems to have the position locked up, he and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will have plenty to argue about. But some might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.”

The editorial goes on to cite surprising consensus in areas of National Security, Immigration, environment and social issues. The Times suggests that the thought of consensus, instead of Fox-style reflexive opposition, ought to be attractive, now and then.

Alas, the Times essay stops short - way short - of taking this notion to its logical conclusion. If a majority of voters in both major parties have already pledged general allegiancve to one of two presumptive nominees, haven’t we already voted, many months before the general election, to trust their wisdom enough to listen... tentatively... to areas where they both agree change is needed?

One of the very worst immaturities to be foisted on America by the culture warriors has been the oversimplification of reflext opposition. If your side likes something I must be against it. If you open your eggs at the small end, I must open mine at the big end. The biggest actual result of this wretched reflex has been to ensure that very little gets done. We’re doing fine, vetoing each others agendas. But to actually move ahead, we’ll have to re-learn how to negotiate, sometimes compromise, or else let your opponents have the part of their agenda you object to least... in exchange for them doing the same for you.

Above all, where ae actually agree, should it not be politically safe to actually say so?

I go into this in some detail in an essay that I have recycled during each of the live FIVE presidential elections... Why The Candidates Should "Stipulate"...

... proposing that a contest between two mature and intelligent adults does not have to be entirely about a battle of opposites. America and the world might benefit most by hearning where they have discussed a certain matter, and reached a consensus - a stipulation - that it is time to stop the rigor mortis inaction that arises from rigid opposition, and to start talking about how -- rather than whether -- to act on a major problem.

“One of the chief flaws of our electoral system is that real candor is punished. Both sides may rail against each other, but they'll never aim bad news at us. Even if both nominees believe in their hearts that the public needs to face some hard truth, neither will dare be first to say it, lest the other side take advantage.... only now consider this. There is no political cost to telling voters what you really believe... if your opponent has agreed, in advance, to say the same thing.

“The process is called stipulation... as when the attorneys representing opposite sides in a trial agree to agree about a set of points. By stipulating these points, they help move the trial forward, focusing on areas where they disagree. Consider this year. For all of his faults, McCain has done this sort of thing before. So has Senator Obama. In fact, the only ones to object would be those at the extremes, in both parties.”

I go on to cite the greatest-ever example of this kind of bipartisan maturity, in the 1940 Roosevelt-Wilkie election, in which both candidates agreed to support aid to Britain, instantly undercutting the isolationists in both parties. Of course this suggestion was pure fantasy during the poisonous atmosphere of the last eight years, while one of the major candidates represented nothing but stupidity, lunacy, compulsive deceit and rabid partisanship. But if we really are returning to an era (as in the Clinton-Dole contest) when grownups might argue sensibly, then this idea really needs another look. So please do...and possibly spread the word!

And while we’re at it, see another -- somewhat related -- idea: Honoring the Losing Majority --  that might also restore civility, consensus, negotiation and mutual respect back into the lexicon of American political life. In fact, this idea is - at one level - simply common courtesy and would score points to whichever candidate made the pledge that I suggest.

“Originally, the Constitution awarded a prize for second place -- the Vice Presidency. If little else, at least the electoral runner-up got a bully pulpit. But after near-disaster in the flawed election of 1804, the system was amended to make the Vice President more of a deputy, chosen by the winning party. Nevertheless, this precedent does show what the founders had in mind. They always intended for the losing side to get something. Might there be some way to acknowledge the losing minority in a presidential election, without grinding their face in humiliation, making them determined to do the same thing, when their turn comes around?”

Check out an original suggestion for how this miracle might be accomplished -- in a way that might also make your side’s candidate seem vastly more statesmanlike and mature.
.
---- From the Transparency Front ---

The US & EU will let security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The potential agreement, as outlined in an internal report obtained by The New York Times, would represent a diplomatic breakthrough for American counterterrorism officials, who have clashed with the European Union over demands for personal data. Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information.

---- FOR THE OSTRICH FILES ---

Here’s a news item that I have re-written in the form of “what if Clinton had done this?” -- as part of my continuing series offering you bait for that “decent conservative” or Ostrich, who might yet be lured out of that hole of denial, rousing him or her to recall that he or she is an American first, and a Republican second. See also: Ostrich Hunting : The Bill Clinton Gambit.

“Imagine how a Republican might feel if - late in the Clinton Administration - the Justice Department's own Inspector General reported that Clinton's White House staff had meddled with nearly all Justice Department hiring decisions, ending the traditional practice of hiring and promoting on advice from neutral commissions and instead applying blatant political tests, transforming the U.S.J.D. into a massive, private law firm serving one political party... relentlessly ignoring crimes by their "side" and pursuing vendettas against the other.”

If this happened under Bill Clinton, and only fiercely partisan liberal Democratswere allowed inside Justice, would you have called it a scandal? But the Inspector General says that this did NOT happen under Clinton. It happened under Bush and the Republicans. So where's your righteous sense of anger?

While you’re at it... try rephrasing the following items the same why! “What if Clinton and the liberals had...?”

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq. “For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources. ...A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations..... And example cited in the article: “In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president. Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.”

Now look back at how thr far-right howled over the UN’s “Oil for Food” program and some possible graft that might have added up, over a decade, to a billion dollars. Where is the same indignation over theft that directly betrayed our troops in the field, amounting to tens and even hundreds of times as much?

While we’re at conspiracy explanations for the , go see this intervirew with Vanity Fair editor Craig Unger on the Bush family feud, neoconservatives and the Christian right. Unger is author of House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties, which traces the intense links between those two royal families, which helps to explain why the Saudis and the Iranians are the only real winners to emerge from the neconservative era. Unger’s latest book The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War and Still Imperils America's Future tracks the civil war between Bush Sr.’s moderate republican circle and the neocons who (metaphorically) hijacked his son. See an interview with Unger that, except for some flickers of Israeli conspiracy fetishism, are deeply informative, fascinating and rather scary.

---
And what would Timothy McVeigh have said? That is... if liberals did this? The Senate’s subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government,” chaired by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. Growing use of secret law “is implicated in fundamental political controversies over domestic surveillance, torture and many other issues directly affecting the lives and interests of Americans. ... Secret law excludes the public from the deliberative process, promotes arbitrary and deviant government behavior, and shields official malefactors from accountability.” At this very Senate hearing, John R. Elwood, the Office of Legal Counsel’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General, provided a startling example of the Bush administration’s justification for the imperious essence of secret law. As reported in the May 1 New York Times, Elwood “disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities.” The Bush administration believes, he said, “that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he and other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.”


----
Next time... why Obama should do several more “jiu jitsu moves”... including a bold statement in favor of “states rights.” Now it’s blue-staters who want relief from an overbearing central government that takes their taxes, returns little, and quashes every attempt to make progress at the state level.

The ul;timate irony will come when liberals add gun ownership to states rights, as positions that suddenly make sense from THEIR perspective... while the far right consinues being hereded toward defense of authoritarianism.

But then, ironies are generally overlooked till theyhit people on the head…

---- ANNOUNCING ---

The latest Armageddon Buffet is out! See some wonderfully inflamatory (and yet twistedly wise) articles that leap out from the rest. http://www.armageddonbuffet.com