I've mostly given up reading posts - diaries or comments - from people who have made it clear that there's no difference in their minds between President Obama and Mr. Romney. Sometimes I find threads in diaries about other topics, and I usually leave those threads.
I came across one this morning, the usual anti-Geithner stuff, and I started wondering if it's possible to reach out to some people with a different POV. It's worked for me on occasion with really conservative people, maybe we libruls can discuss without pie-fighting. It's happening more and more these days.
It's worth a try if all it does is start some dialogue with fence-sitters or people who aren't really sure where the president stands.
I'm not a political consultant or operative. What I am is someone who recognizes patterns and systems (possible mild Aspergers), and makes intuitive connections that are generally pretty accurate.
When President Obama first took office what I knew about him was what he wrote, what he campaigned on, and how his personal story created his political beliefs. That was enough for me to be an enthusiastic supporter. I had a sense that this was a man who had been in the trenches with the disenfranchised, who knew more than most of us about inequity, poverty, and a skewed playing field. From that I extrapolated that he had, possibly, a deeper understanding of the barriers most Americans face, the power of the oligarchy, and the insidious nature of the media-fueled memes that were undermining our future as a nation of, by, and for the people.
It seemed to me that he had a long-term plan. He knew how effective the RW and the 1% have been at undermining people's faith in government, their sense that government has benefits for all citizens and is critical to our success as a nation. He knew, better than most, that "welfare queens" were a media myth, that "Fiscal Responsibility" was an oxymoron when claimed by the Republicans, that union-busting equals third-world salaries and dangerous work conditions, and a myriad of other things, including the damage our financial titans will continue to inflict if not harnessed and contained.
He also knew that talking directly about any of those things would reduce his status to laughingstock, joke, possibly mentally unbalanced.
After decades of effective and dangerous propagandizing, average citizens would not listen to the truth. It's embarrassing to be played that completely, and the ego requires that we not believe we're fools.
The obvious solution was to reveal the true agenda of the Republican Party and their supporters from the 1%, a daunting task. Telling the naked truth wasn't a sensible option, particularly when the media is 99% complicit in carrying the propaganda messages and reinforcing the lies.
I'm not a big fan of 11 dimensional chess, I can't even manage a good 1 dimensional game. I am interested in the various non-violent ways of dealing with violence, including taking the passive-aggressive at their word and being charming and complimentary about their willingness to do something they clearly have no intention of doing. I like ju-jitsu, and tae-kwon-do and I'm a big believer in using your opponent's strength against him or her. I'm mostly a big believer in standing back and allowing people to reveal themselves by creating the environment that makes that revelation appear to be safe.
Those seem to me to be Obama's methods. I rarely get involved in "But he SAID..." arguments anymore. I'm far more interested in what he's doing under the press radar. He SAID we need to be more fiscally responsible, he spent money on things that would stimulate the economy. He SAID we need to reform entitlement programs, he did it by investigating fraud and waste, prosecuting the first and reducing the second.
He SAID we need a PO in health care reform, and didn't push the piss-poor watered down version that was the only thing the House and Senate would pass. Instead he put in poison pills for insurance companies that don't spend their premium dollars on health care, he added an apparently innocuous segment that allows college students to stay on their parent's insurance, he forced insurers to cover regardless of pre-existing conditions, gender, or "caps" on payouts for the seriously ill. He strengthened Medicare via the ACA, and forced insurers to cover diagnostic testing, supported teaching people better self-care, forced the medical community to reduce waste by investing in computerized record-keeping which also reduces the need for redundant testing. He built in metrics for determining which institutions provide the best, least wasteful health care. He supported leveling the playing field by building in consequences for those who choose not to purchase health insurance. He talked about the cost to everyone when our healthcare industry leaves too many behind.
He is very tuned into what we the people are thinking, and we the people did not want to lose our last "benefit", employer provided health care. The numbers were huge, something that is rarely discussed when we argue the ACA. The only way to sell a national healthcare initiative in this country is to make enough small changes to depose the myth that free enterprise beats government every time. It's gradual. It's incremental. The problem isn't the program or the plan, it's the power of the hold propaganda has on the American psyche. Breaking that hold is the number one job of anyone who wants progressive reform in any area.
He's also aware that dismantling our financial system will only hurt the most vulnerable, so punishing banks and weakening Wall Street aren't the best possible directions to take. Regulating sensibly and strengthening oversight are critical. Overthrowing - not so much. Revolution gets us a whole new 1%, with nearly identical agendae (I've got mine, fuck yours) and probably less financial savvy - See Russia, post communism.
He doesn't attack our corporate economy, he works to make it more responsive, less destructive, and less relevant (without ranting or attacking he loses the extremely angry, but engenders a sense of trust in the less infuriated, not a bad plan.) His support of small business investing, fewer regulations for small businesses and creative financing options for emerging businesses are all part of building an economy that isn't dependent on multi-nationals. He sees small businesses as the engines of our economy. (So do the Republicans, which is why small businesses were suffocated during the Bush administration, and damaged during all previous Republican administrations.)
What really surprises me, in a population that I've always seen as pretty politically savvy, is the complaints about Obama not being tough enough on the Republicans. There's a big difference between talk and actions. He's suckered them in time and again, taken some seriously heavy shots at people like Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan...the list is long, the smackdowns often epic. Think about Boehner - can you seriously imagine a world 15 years ago where anyone in the press mocked the Republican Speaker for being a crybaby? Their hold on the narrative is collapsing, despite their best efforts to keep us ignorant and afraid.
Still, the "weak, ineffective" shit the Heritage Foundation loves to push remains intact in far too much of the left. They used it against Gore, against Kerry, against Carter, against Clinton. When are we going to quit enabling and assisting them? Yelling does not equal strength. It's generally something people revert to when they haven't got anything else.
I'm 62 years old. In my lifetime, Republicans have wholly owned the title, "fiscally responsible", despite decades of proof that they're damaging our economy and undermining it's health. They've owned "tough on defense", despite some really piss-poor warmongering and catastrophically wasteful defense spending on their watches. The fact that Republicans can have affairs with interns or staff and never lose their ability to trumpet their moral superiority is surreal. The disconnect between what Americans believe is real and what is actually happening is close to terrifying. That all by itself is enough to take us into the basement economically, morally, politically.
The fact that a Democrat, a black man with a funny name, is now more trusted on the economy and defense is stunning. It's brilliant political strategy. He managed to stick the Republicans with the negatives of the Bush tax cuts, mostly all by himself, by co-opting their language, stealing their memes, and behaving in a civil and collegial fashion as their behavior in public and private deteriorated into name-calling, lies even the l-i-v's are catching onto, and personal attacks that are ludicrous. And each time he "caved" on ending the Bush tax cuts, he did it only after the Republicans had painted themselves further into the corner. It's all they have now - trickle-down economics are all they have left, and the states where the Tea Party are in control are demonstrably worse off than the rest of the country is. Don't think that won't be discussed in the next 6 months. The graphs and charts are already out there.
Somehow this weak and ineffective guy has turned around 40 years of propaganda, without any help from journalists or talking heads, and in the face of loud complaints from people who are his base. (I reserve judgement on some of those people. I'll be interested in which so-called progressives end up supporting Romney. It should be illuminating.)
It's understandable that people who have lived through the Bush years would be less than willing to to cut ANY president some slack. I don't quarrel with the anger and frustration, or with the desire to see some Republican ass slapped silly, finally. It's an anger that lives in me,
'd love to see Cheney sentenced to a few years in Gitmo. At this point, however, I think I'd rather see him suffer the loss of the edifice of power he's dedicated his life to building. I'd like to see his investments falter, his wealth decline, his power wane. I'd like to see the rage in him leak out, and I'd love to see him so thoroughly discredited he can't get face time on Fox.
I'm not terribly interested in trying to punish bankers for doing what we allowed them to make legal. That's on us, the American people. We bought the lies, we thought we might become part of the 1%, and we were willing to ignore the destruction of the regulations that could have prevented the New Depression. We need to take the lumps with some grace, and renew our commitment to a truly level playing field.
I'm not going to address NDAA, there's too much misinformation that's entrenched. If anyone's interested, The People's View has some really good detailed information about exactly what's in the bill. It's enlightening. Same with drones. I'm on board with ending drone attacks as soon as IED's are dropped as an effective tactic by terrorist organizations. It's a different world, and we're 60 years behind the curve on terrorism. We didn't recognize it as a threat until 9/11/2001, which is tragic and short-sighted. Catching up is incredibly difficult. I'm not second-guessing the people who are fully aware of the dangers we face although I mourn the loss of a safer and more innocent world. If it ever existed. I think I mourn the loss of ignorance.
Last but not least, the loss of privacy. If it's a huge problem for you I suggest you immediately log off the internet, never use e-mail, sell your smartphone on e-Bay, and find a quiet and isolated spot for your remaining years.
If anyone in the world has access to my Yahoo inbox (not unlikely), here's what they know about me without ever opening a message: I'm an older female with a strong liberal bent, a feminist with interest in several kinds of needlework and other crafts, closer to New Age than Christian but tied to the Episcopal church and the Catholic church, I read omnivorously, love Sci-Fi TV series, support remaking our economic system, have some experience with dementia and the problems of aging parents. I prefer the ease of online banking to the privacy of paper only. I own birds, no cats no dogs. I love music. I play the organ in a church. Those are things you'd know just by scanning who's e-mailing me. Amazon knows much more. Amazon, Facebook, Google etc could teach homeland security a lot about tracking citizens.
It's the 21st Century, and my life is an open book. I'm not going to moan about that, it makes things easier for me in the long run. It reminds me of the outrage expressed by people who are caught on camera and ticketed for running a red light. Don't want the ticket? Don't run the light. Don't want others to know too much about you? Don't put anything in writing you don't want known, don't blog, don't search the internet, and don't shop online.
The FBI was scarier in the '60's than it is now, more powerful, with far less oversight. Wikileaks has gutted secrecy - sometimes that's good, sometimes not so much, but our government also exists in the 21st Century so secrets are harder to keep. Nothing Congress does can change reality, no laws they pass will effectively stop people from connecting with each other. They can make it harder, but new technology will keep them playing catch-up. They can't win and keep the advantages of a healthy Internet.
I believe that the frenzy from the right is better identified as the death-throes of an institution that's cut off it's own feet and is bleeding out. They aren't stronger, they're just scareder and louder.
4:05 PM PT: I'm not rewriting because that would skew the threads, but have just had a most enlightening interchange about privacy and the levels of importance different people place on different issues.
I'm fairly jaded about privacy issues. I lived through the Nixon administration, and my parents had an FBI file and were targeted by Birchers. I was so damned shocked by what my government was really up to it took a long time to recover any equanimity at all. I'm sorry if I insulted or was disrespectful to people for whom privacy remains very important.
It's not my issue, but I have strong feelings about other issues and am not happy when they're dismissed. Please accept my apology for being dismissive. It's more jaded than dismissive, but I understand that that doesn't change the impact on people who read this. It's food for thought, and it's worth it for me to check out that jaded part of me and find out if I should shove her into a corner and dust off the outraged part of me.