Crazies By Every Political Angle, Will Kill America

Last night, I was out to dinner in New Jersey with a friend of mine. It was a good time, but during it, my phone kept going off. It kept going off with this gentleman from a previous post, who wanted to let me know that my Presidential candidate of choice "will be indicted," and that his candidate is clearly the future of politics (even though he lost, and mostly got white votes, but who cares about details). Why did he do this? I'm not sure, we're not eve Facebook friends, but I guess he wanted to let me know anyway.

He wasn't the only example of that this week, as you can see by the first picture above, a deranged right-wing nut that was mad that I dared say the former Secret Service agent who pedaled this garbage was out for money, and money alone. The second picture is just an insane one that I came across on Facebook, and found very amusing. This is what passes as political rhetoric with the lunatics in both parties in 2016. We actually have a group calling for a "fart in" during the Clinton nomination speech in Philadelphia- basically because they aren't happy that they lost, and want to be disruptors. They absolutely swear their guy could not have lost, it must, must, must have been rigged. Really!

We're seeing the rise of an ignorant class of active voters in this country, people that swear they can absolutely get their way on every issue, and swear that the people involved in politics must be criminal because they can't deliver their stated, insane goals- whether they be giving away free stuff the Congress won't approve, getting rid of immigrants, or isolating us from the world, science, and reason. Our politics are going off the rails because of this ignorance:

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick. 

We now have people who have no meaningful connection to politics, just anger and emotion, running around and actively taking part in politics. This is not the way we want the system to run, unless we want to fight a permanent battle of identifying and demonizing the enemies, but never solving the problems. Yes, the Tea Party loons on the right are scary because they are willing to shut down the government and destroy their own political party before compromising, but what is really different on the left? At the point that the Affordable Care Act is taking on attacks from a nominally-Democratic Presidential contender because it's imperfect, we have a real problem. We have reached a point where compromising to get most of what you want is unacceptable. We have reached a point where heated rhetoric is the expectation, even the demand. In fact, this might be the only way to win now:

Was the switch to direct public nomination a net benefit or drawback? The answer to that question is subjective. But one effect is not in doubt: Institutionalists have less power than ever before to protect loyalists who play well with other politicians, or who take a tough congressional vote for the team, or who dare to cross single-issue voters and interests; and they have little capacity to fend off insurgents who owe nothing to anybody. Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes. Everyone worries about being the next Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader who, in a shocking upset, lost to an unknown Tea Partier in his 2014 primary. Legislators are scared of voting for anything that might increase the odds of a primary challenge, which is one reason it is so hard to raise the debt limit or pass a budget.

Do the extremes get some things right? Yes. LGBT Marriage was "extreme" in 2004, and in 2016 it's settled law. De-segregation was "extreme" in 1948, and today it is the expectation. The difference in those cases though was that the "extreme" was towards a tangible goal, not the shut down of negotiation, the demand of one's way, or the destruction of the other side's agenda. Right now, we're facing a dangerous group of extremists who believe that everything must go their way, and have an extremely distorted view of politics and governance:

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

This is dangerous. These people insist that their solution is common-sense, and everyone involved won't do it because they are corrupt. That is horrifyingly wrong. It's how you get to ignorant electorates nominating Donald Trump, or the Brits voting to exit the UK and go isolationist.

The truth is, the extremists are convinced they are right, and they are not afraid to tell you so. Their ignorance is their confidence, the idea that they could simply get their way on everything, if those damned insiders would step aside and let the true believers in. We've seen it on both sides this year. It is ugly. It is not a good thing for the future of our country, or our world.

The Anti-Politicians

I'm not one that reads a lot of conservative writing, but I try to read David Brooks when I can. He's wrong about a lot of stuff, but he's a thoughtful person, and sometimes he really nails it. He really nails the deep problems of our government right here:

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:

The antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even more outsiders.

The antipolitics people don’t accept that politics is a limited activity. They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even further in the direction of antipolitics.

The antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The decline in trust makes deal-making harder.

Compromise is not a dirty word. You can disagree with decent people. Sometimes people see things a different way, and they aren't necessarily wrong. Politics is supposed to be about getting things done. Unfortunately, right now the political class in this country doesn't really agree. The activists in both parties don't always agree. Sometimes, the reward structures don't give credit for making deals. Our politics are suffering as a result.

Confessions of a Political Road Warrior

Former boss, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman announcing re-election.

Philadelphia. New York. Bethlehem. Wilkes-Barre. Trenton. Nyack. Washington, DC. Harrisburg. Shamokin. Pottsville. Hazleton. Scranton. Stroudsburg. Allentown. Back home in Easton. This is a taste of what my travel schedule has been like for the past couple of months. From swearing-ins that began in December, through petitions to get people on the ballot, and probably through April or June primaries, my life will be crazy busy. I went into the consulting world after the 2015 elections, and consulting can be lucrative, provided you are willing to work pretty hard to make it so. There are trade-offs though. Some are good, some are bad. Here's a few confessions of mine about the business:

1. No, it's not glamorous. I'm serious, unless you think eating a Wawa hoagie in your car for lunch, between meetings with two different clients is a "Hollywood lifestyle." The hours are long, you're not writing State-of-the-Union speeches or coming up with new, cutting edge policies all day, and often times even the candidates don't appreciate the work you do. 
2. The people can be really petty. I'm talking about the colleagues. In a business where ass-kissing takes many people as far as actual ability and merit, the hired help still seems intent on tearing each other down, very often. To be real for a second, I don't know anyone who actually worked on a campaign who I wouldn't recommend for any other job in society- these are the hardest working people alive. They are working, and plotting, even when you think they are asleep. I don't get the need for self-promotion and tearing down others, but it still seems to happen often.
3. This life strains almost every relationship you have. I don't know how people manage to hold onto marriages and relationships, let alone friendships, on this schedule. Sometimes you're just too busy to spend the five minutes you need to spend talking to someone to make them happy. You really have to try hard, and even then things might become strained.
4. Most of the people are really different. First off, I'm not going to call my colleagues weird, even if having passion is weird. Second off, I'm saying different as a good thing. It's great to meet smart, passionate, engaged people in the process. They are, for the most part though, different than the rest of society. They would rather talk tax policy than the ball game last night. God bless them for caring, but it's a bit jarring still for me.
5. Politics are really diverse. I'm a white, straight, somewhat-Catholic, suburban raised, male. That makes me part of the traditional "majority" in this country. It also makes me odd in politics. Perhaps this is because people like me have not needed passion (it's great for most to live ignorantly in a rigged system), and everyone else has. Politics has been great to me, in that it has given me a more diverse group of friends, and exposed me to different perspectives. I doubt I'll ever be a full-time "Social Justice Warrior," but the experience of campaigning has opened my eyes to many issues I would have never treated as important. This may be the best benefit of the job, actually.
6. You fight more with the people you agree with. The most brutal, nasty, long fights are not between Democrats and Republicans, like the public likes to think. They get mad about a month or two of negative ads. The internal fights in each party are far worse, last much longer, and often times play out behind the scenes before the public sees them. Remember, some candidates spend years preparing for a major primary, and jousting behind the scenes for the support they need to win them. You don't start fighting the other party's winner until you're in the general election.
7. Our rhetoric is actually way over-heated. "So and so is the devil." We hear that kind of talk in politics all the time. We spend so much time demonizing opponents that we almost de-humanize them. Most Republicans really aren't nasty, awful people. I have sat down and had drinks with Republican operatives and elected officials, and believe it or not, they are human. I have friends I grew up with who are Republicans, and I don't think they are all racist, heart-less, crazies. A lot of this is operatives preying on the passions of our activists, and trying to convince them that this is "the most important election of our lifetime," every time, so we can pry their money out of them. We should swear off several things at the outset- any references to our opponents as Hitler, saying the opposition hates America, and ever agreeing that "the whole system is corrupt." We feed these awful tendencies with this language.
8. I feel bad for my car. No, for real. With all the travel, I pack the miles onto my poor Mazda. It gets cleaned every few months inside, it usually gets the oil changes it needs, but late, and I've had more than one blown tire this year. This car's life-span has been cut way down by my job.
9. You don't get rich doing this, at least not quick. You want to make a lot of money? Politics isn't the field for you, unless you're patient. I suppose if you own a firm that makes campaign commercials, you might do alright. Same for direct mail. Stick around long enough as a manager, finance director, or communications director, and you'll start to make good money. You won't make the kind of money you would in the "private sector" though, at least not for the same experience.
10. Politics can be an adrenaline rush unlike any other. I grew up as an athlete. My sports of choice were wrestling and track by high school, super-individual sports where you have to be very competitive to survive. My athletics career ended at the outset of my freshman year of college, when I was diagnosed with mono and decided not to come back. Not so coincidentally, my political career began then with my first internship. That was 14 years ago, and the competitive juices have ebbed and flowed, I have to admit. The rush of the final month of a competitive campaign though is unlike anything else you'll get to experience. Debate nights, election nights, major fundraisers, and getting out the vote is amazing. I'm not sure I'd have any real purpose in life if not for that part of this. The will to compete is the greatest gift this business gives, and it's something I'd suggest anyone who wants to get in it, should have.

Dear Candidates- You're Not Special

Chances are, candidates out there, you're not these guys.

There's a little primary going on in the Lehigh Valley for a state house seat in the Northampton/Whitehall area. Initially it had three Democrats and three Republicans. One of those original Republicans dropped out, and was replaced by a younger one. When it's all said and done, only one of the three original Democrats will be on the ballot. One turned in badly defective petitions that did not have the year, office being sought, or district number on it. That candidate is apparently livid that someone would challenge them for these errors. The third Democrat says they are running as an independent now, because the party leaders were being mean to them. Of course, they announced this with two days left in petitions, leading me to believe they didn't have 300 valid signatures. Of course, there are plenty of hard feelings on this matter. Of course, the one candidate that Democratic leaders in the region liked is the one who printed their petitions correctly and collected enough valid signatures. Those damn party leaders are clueless!

The GOP is split along county lines behind two of the candidates, while the Democrats have settled behind one. I know how much people hate party leaders and their damned heavy-handed tactics, especially when it wasn't long ago that Lehigh Valley Democrats (like myself) complained about the "boss" picking our candidates for office. It's not just here in the Lehigh Valley, people hate the DCCC's picks for seats in Congress all over. Activists would love wide-open primaries, where a purely Democratic system plays out, and they get to pick candidates free of any of those damn procedural constraints. I get it. No one wants to be told how to vote. No candidate wants to be told they aren't the right person, at the right time, for the job they think they can do best. That's common sense, as why would someone run if they didn't think they were the best person for the job? I guess my perspective has changed now that I'm on the state committee, but even I have to admit that sometimes the party picks candidates terribly wrong. It happens all over the country, every year, and sometimes it's not even one specific person's fault.

The problem with the idea of stopping party leaders from tilting the scales in favor of their anointed candidates is that usually the party leaders get it right. Not all the time, obviously, but most of it. You see, it is important that a candidate be able to raise money, or be willing to knock on doors, or maybe know a bit about policy, or be viewed as enough of an adult to fill a seat. These things aren't all nonsense. Sometimes, the most progressive candidate isn't the right candidate, and sometimes the youngest, most articulate candidate is not ready to be the right messenger. Party leaders, generally, are the people most engaged in their regions' politics, and generally have seen enough races to know what does and doesn't sell in their areas. Some basic barriers to being the establishment pick, like a lack of institutional support or fundraising ability, is basically universal. While no one likes to be told they shouldn't run because of money, there's no sense nominating someone who will get drowned in a general election by the opponent. The idea is to get the objectively best candidate, not to make everybody feel good.

Of course, back to the primary I mentioned above- the irony is that the Democratic Party in Northampton County has a basic, blanket open primary policy, and the chairman actually fought to get voter file access for the "outsider" candidates (I can vouch for it)- so I find the charge that the party was less than hospitable to be pretty funny. Brushing that aside, at least one (if not both) of the other Democrats who wanted in couldn't print petitions correctly. Who should be blamed for that?

I have a really radical thought here for candidates- for the most part, you're not Robert F. Kennedy. You're not Bill Clinton. You're not Barack Obama. I know, they weren't who they ended up as, at least at one point, and we should all get the shot to do that. One of the ways you earn the privilege of being a serious candidate is taking the time to go out and be a part of the process, make the relationships you need, and learn what you're doing. Even "outsider" primary challengers like Joe Sestak or Matt Cartwright had built up relationships, had friends ready to advocate for their candidacy, and had the profile to be taken seriously from the start. Build relationships with labor, with LGBT groups, with women's groups, with environmentalists, and with other groups, and watch how your problems raising money, getting signatures, and finding tangible support go away. Yes, you'll have some growing pains, but for the most part, these groups expect that. Taking the time, and doing the work, will be appreciated in due time.

In politics, you can be one of two things- actively a part of the process, or on the sidelines complaining. That choice is up to you. You're not special though. No one is. If you can't do what's needed, you won't find people lining up behind you. Such is life.

Politics Are Not About Your Feelings

One of the things I hear many progressives talk about when they make a decision on who to support in an election is "how it makes them feel." There is a personal quality to it, that the choice they make reflects their ideals. It's beyond real-world values, i.e. things that are tangible and concrete. It's about the ideal, the world they want. Beyond just agreeing with a list of policy statements, progressives want to feel good about their choices.

While I can respect that point of view, it's not my point of view. Politics and government are far too important for me to worry about my feelings. Decisions our elected leaders make have real-world implications on our people. It was a "small government" mentality that created an inept FEMA, which of course mattered when Katrina hit. When we "cut the size of government," actual people lose actual jobs, denying their family a paycheck. When we go to war in Iraq, actual Americans lose their lives, limbs, and mental health in the heat of battle. When we deny women access to birth control under their health insurance, we impact their lives in a very tangible way. I could go on and on, but that would beleaguer the point. The things that government does, at all levels, matter to real people. This is important stuff.

With that in mind, I really don't care "how I feel" about a candidate. Don't get me wrong, i'm not voting for an ax-murderer because he's right on the issues, but unless you're a truly bad person, I will vote my positions. If the "less progressive" candidate will win and enact most of the things I support, I will support them over a candidate who either can't win, or can't enact law. My ideal government probably won't exist during my lifetime. A government will though, and it will matter to many lives. I'll take the best deal there is for the people, even if it doesn't make me "feel better" about my purity as a political being.