« Harry Reid, Uncensored (Guest Voice)
Consequences Hit Mark Sanford: Wife Jenny Files for Divorce »
“Too Small to Fail”: President Obama and the Dilemma of Political Parties (Guest Voice)
“Too Small to Fail”: President Obama and the Dilemma of Political Parties
by Alex Hammer
President Obama is up against it.
While it is certainly possible that Barack has utilized change language to in fact mask a more traditional interest and/or partisan focus, I believe instead that the President genuinely wants to be “a different kind of politician” bringing “a different kind of politics” to our country. But I think he is also trapped in a political system — significantly involving the overriding influence of political parties and the interests to which they become beholden — that prevents him from doing this.
I voted for Barack Obama for President. I like him. In addition to following him through the press like most Americans (I follow politics as best as I can across the political spectrum) like many I’ve read his two autobiographies. I found them powerful and authentic. I think that the President has already in a somewhat brief National political career significantly raised the level of dialogue across important issues in this country. I’m almost now finished reading Obama’s presidential campaign manager David Plouffe’s new book “The Audacity to Win”, and this further reinforces to me the strength and grit of our President in facing the pressures he encountered on his road to the Presidency.
I don’t think that President Obama gives in easily at all to things that he doesn’t believe in.
But then you have some disturbing facts. The change candidate — now President — may have changed things just a little too much. Bailing out the banks, recently announced involving now an expanded timeline, when that money should have reached, primarily, individual Americans who are hurting. It has not trickled down because unemployment, for example, is still through the roof. Last I heard the banks had record profits, and it was the lack of regulation by government that allowed them to take the exorbitant risks in the first place that resulted in the financial crisis (and too favorable policies, some argue, that allowed them to use excessive risk and a lack of prudence to grow on the backs of now decimated consumers to become “too big to fail”).
I’d like to see individual Americans that face financial crisis be “too small to fail”. I am very pro-business — in my campaign for Governor of Maine I state that Maine is now open for (sustainable) business. I believe that businesses that demonstrate that they are good corporate citizens and are respectful of their communities, including the environment, are more economically viable over the long term because they provide greater value.
Certainly, these Wall Street companies were allowed to siphon off false value for themselves while transferring unacceptable levels of business risk to third parties.
Including, at the end to the government which bailed them out with our money.
In regard to the stimulus, is it the middle class and everyday citizens, who Barack promised to be responsive and accountable to, or has it been the traditional monied interests who have profited the most? Just as Barack caught on early that President Bush’s rhetoric for getting into Iraq was a potential scandal, I believe that while it is too early to say definitively, that the stimulus and bailouts, in regard to who it was given to and the way that that was sold, may grow into a major scandal as well.
Some people say we couldn’t afford the stimulus. While I am extraordinarily concerned about our nation’s level of debt and what that means in regard to the strength of the dollar etc. I would be able to swallow the stimulus much more easily if it had been used to target the individual US citizen more directly, and also if it did not employ such STIMULUS PORK. I haven’t studied the stimulus bill beyond what I read in the press, but I do know that over $52 million is going in my hometown (Bangor, Maine) to renovate for energy efficiency improvements etc. a single federal building where one of our state’s US Senators has an office. How many hundreds of years (???) or longer would it take to offset $52+ million by energy cost savings in one building (the rationale for the $52+ million has also been that it creates temporary construction jobs, etc.). My state is really really really hurting and could use that money, if designated, to fix roads and bridges in tremendous need (interestingly, the cost to rebuild the entire building from scratch is not that much more than the $52+ million that will be spend on this stimulus project).
A couple of hundred million dollars in stimulus money went to a single foreign company, for alternative energy, now being investigated I believe for this receipt of money (separately, at least one member of Congress has written Obama over large payment given to domestic alternative energy company). As mentioned, this has been only on the periphery of my radar screen, so there may be (I wouldn’t be surprised) many more of these cases of which I am not aware.
The key point in all of this is that Obama appears boxed in by large corporate interests, which hold significant sway over both major political parties (healthcare and the role of insurance companies some say is another additional illustration).
President Obama is being forced to help the large corporations first and foremost. I realize that it is business that creates jobs, but a major component of that is small business. My state, Maine, is extremely dependent upon small business. Now Obama is looking to see what he can perhaps do for small business a little bit more, except that we’re now as a nation pretty much out of money and a stimulus number two of any major size isn’t viable.
In Maine there are more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans. There are huge numbers of Independents across the country as well. I’ve written on this site recently how “Independents are a Sleeping Giant in This Country”. People perhaps think that they have no check on one major party except by the other major party, and that is because Independents are strongly held down in this country from having the representation that their numbers would suggest or even a minute fraction of it.
But it is also collectively us as well. We haven’t stood up as a nation and said “Enough”. This is our country and we want it back. Maybe we don’t know how to do that effectively. Maybe we’ve been given limited options.
In my state we imposed term limits when politicians seemed to be getting carried away with their power, and we have continual referendum questions in large numbers for citizens to vote and decide issues directly that the two major parties in Augusta (our state capitol) have been unable to solve over long periods of time on their own (it should be noted also that one party in Maine has had very close to legislative control in the state for decades).
I feel sorry for President Obama. What is he to do? Hey, he could always decide to become an Independent.
Alex Hammer is an Independent candidate for Governor of Maine.
23 Responses to ““Too Small to Fail”: President Obama and the Dilemma of Political Parties (Guest Voice)”
I have 3 words for anyone serious about breaking the 2 party stranglehold. . . Instant Runoff Voting
(or maybe accomplish as much by laughing the GOP out of the country – seems to be what they want)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Alex Hammer. Alex Hammer said: Alex looks at national http://bit.ly/5tJJ7r [...]
Can you summarize the strengths of Instant Runoff Voting (as you see it) and where that stands currently?
but I do know that over $52 million is going in my hometown (Bangor, Maine) to renovate for energy efficiency improvements etc. a single federal building where one of our state’s US Senators has an office. How many hundreds of years (???) or longer would it
Now tell me again about “change”.
You keep getting my hopes up that you've finally realized that they're really just two halves of the same party, then you dash those hopes on the rocks.
Well Prof, sorry to disappoint you, but in order to agree with your contention I'd have to buy into a false equivalence argument. I used to, but it's been clear to me for some time now that while neither party is working in the best interests of the American people, one is working a little harder to keep us in the dark ages. I'm disgusted with the democrats as well, but I'm issue oriented, not party oriented. If the republicans start showing any serious interest and action on the things I care about then I'll be glad to cut them more slack.
Alex, here is the thumbnail sketch from wiki…
…and from the IRV website:
I
To me the main advantage is exactly that. People can vote for a 3rd party candidate if that is their preference without feeling as though they are throwing their vote away. This is because their 2nd ranked candidate can get their vote if their 1st ranked candidate loses. This strikes me as a system that would return democracy to the people in the sense they would no longer be held hostage to a 2 party system. Thanks for asking about this.
Maybe we're agreeing more than I thought. I don't want people cutting the Republicans any slack at all, just stop cutting the Democrats so much slack when they're doing (and avoiding) pretty much the same stuff.
The runoff idea sounds like a neat idea. Has anyone tried it yet?
Question: How does having mandatory voting versus our present voluntary voting system, effect IRV?
Not sure about the effects of mandatory voting, doesn't Australia have that? I have mixed feelings about it; on one hand it would increase participation, but on the other… how much participation do you want from people who don't appreciate the importance of the process enough to take part in it voluntarily?
My opinion is that we should have mandatory voting, that is why I needed to know if IRV works if it is voluntary. I am skeptical.
Which is why I'm blogging with you guys instead of debating people. It's much easier to find people who want to talk sports or weather than politics and business.
You might force people to vote, but you can't force them to care. Don't ask atheists to pick the pope, or apathetics to pick the president.
The best solution for multi-seat governing bodies, which supports and would boost change from the Duopoly to a true multi-party system (not limited to pieces of the two major parties) is proportional representation.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
The best solution to voting for single-person offices is approval voting (ideally, a special version with enforced “best strategy” number of choices among the candidates, but this isn't essential). Approval voting is superior to instant runoff voting (accompanied by gongs and flashing lights?) or other methods.
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…
“Don't ask atheists to pick the pope”
Our federal system (a few of us, at least, still insist on being anti-PC real Americans, out of place as usual as it continues to be) would be better than the way it is now if the President were selected by the governors of the fifty states (ideally, through an approval vote, and I'd like to see 4-6+ candidates), or as I say it can be called, “a 'Pope thing'.”
(Random selection, glorified jury duty or conscription, from each district would be better for House representation than the elections we typically have nowadays, too.)
“we should have mandatory voting,”
We would be better to qualify voting. How about passing an ordinary citizenship test like immigrants must pass, for example?
Better than that (but much less likely) would be to weigh the votes as well as qualify them. Weigh them by citizenship scores, or by other measures of qualification (other knowledge test; IQ test, etc), and even better, so long as we have taxes that don't correspond to benefits received from government, is to also weigh votes by taxes paid. (Ideal is voter qualification and taxes paid, both weighing criteria.)
Screening voters with a basic civics or citizenship test would be a good idea.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/191074…
I've been hearing more about it, I was wondering how much it is being currently used. Thanks.
Determining what type of system is an improvement and in what ways and by how much is important, but equally important is understanding why people do or do not embrace such improvements, and what are the best options and paths for them to do so.
how much participation do you want from people who don't appreciate the importance of the process enough to take part in it voluntarily?
Sounds like Jury Duty. Also, If dead people can vote in Chicago, surely we can motivate a more alive mandatory electorate (and perhaps, caring eventually).
Better than that (but much less likely) would be to weigh the votes as well as qualify them. Weigh them by citizenship scores, or by other measures of qualification (other knowledge test; IQ test, etc), and even better, so long as we have taxes that don't correspond to benefits received from government, is to also weigh votes by taxes paid. (Ideal is voter qualification and taxes paid, both weighing criteria.)
I know you are kidding, right? And the government, the one we moderates have been slamming, will get their scales out and measure my vote. I don't think so. Have to go now and check my pre-tax return and my voting record (does party count?). (Who was the 13th President? I can only remember Teddy Roosevelt, but being older I guess I get a memory subsidy credit.)
“I know you are kidding, right?”
It actually would be a better system with qualification and weighting, than there is now.
Could any government and group of politicians to be trusted to do this right nowadays? No.
It would be better. No doubt about it. But that's better in theory, not in practice today, or conceivably in the future. It'll never happen. (Probably not, anyway.)
“And the government, the one we moderates have been slamming, will get their scales out and measure my vote. I don't think so.”
Well, we'd have objective criteria by which to weight or measure those votes. Of course, just what is used to determine the, ahem, value each vote has is where things, hmmm, start to go wrong, in practice.
“Have to go now and check my pre-tax return and my voting record (does party count?).”
If the Dems had their way, yes, party affiliation (loyalty, allegiance) would count greatly.
fair enough