Election 2020: December Debate

Well, not expecting very much, I watched the debate with the off-switch of the Remote Control in my hand.  But, to my surprise, not only did PBS / Politico handle the debate with great zip, verve and style, the candidates said some useful and interesting things that were inspiring and thought-provoking.

But, looking at this firmly from my point of view,--and your mileage may vary, obviously, but we've got to be honest about the lenses through which we view this election--I must make clear what my objectives are.

First, let's make an unordered list (which means that the items are not in order of importance) of matters that I am worried about.

(1) Climate Change / Environment.  This is not the most worrisome thing for me, because I'm old, and I'll probably be past caring when the climate really goes to hell.  But on second thoughts, I probably should care about it, because it is a time-sensitive thing.  But practically, you can't get anywhere because the fossil-fuel (read oil, gas and coal) lobby has such a stranglehold on all businesses and politics, and through them on Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency.

(2) The Financial Well-Being of the Population At Large.  This does not simply mean that I want to have money taken from the very rich and given to the poor, though that would certainly be one option.  The wealth of the very rich is sort of illusory; capitalist economics has made it so.  For instance, if laws are passed making it impossible to burn gasoline, all the holdings of people who have stocks in oil companies will be worth nothing.  But guess what: the very rich have enough power to prevent the poor increasing their power, again through influencing Congress and the Senate, etc.

(3) Social Justice.  Discrimination is not something that the vast majority of us thinks about all the time, but for those who are affected by discrimination, it is right there, front and center.  As never before, we have enacted legislation that promises women, minorities, and those with alternate preferences equal rights and privileges as everybody else, but there is huge hostility towards this process from certain groups, which feel threatened.  Most importantly, there is hostility from uneducated whites, and their lack of education is not only in the areas of the three R's, but in general knowledge about how things work, or should work.  But those in power see advantages in keeping things the way they are.  Some of them are cynical, but others simply notice that ignorant folks are more easily persuaded by the advantages of wild schemes that only consolidate the power of the rich.

(4) As you can see, Money in Politics is a huge problem, and I see this as synonymous with corruption.  (This whole Impeachment story is one of how differently Trump and his handlers view money, from how Congress views money.)  Elections are now so money-driven that a person of modest means could almost never run for elected office, and win.  TV ads are expensive, and the political process is so complicated that TV ads are almost essential.

(5) Health Care.  Yes, this is important.  And I'm beginning to believe that a single-payer scheme is the most logical, provided the bureaucracy that it needs can be kept sane and streamlined, which certainly is a tall order.  (You can just imagine how much lobbying there is to prevent a government takeover of health care!)

(6) Education.  This is a very difficult problem for us to discuss.  How difficult is it going to be to persuade every parent in the US that a broad, intensive education is important, and worth encouraging their children to work for?  The American Way is cutthroat competition: get ahead by showing how much better you are than all the others.  The realities of a difficult life get in the way of kids learning to cooperate and work for a future that's better for everyone.

(7) Gun Legislation.  People are so tired of talking about this that it hardly came up during the debate.  It is not that people are no longer interested.  It is that there is so much agreement that it is a waste of time talking about it with those who agree about it.

So, to summarize, it becomes clear that Corruption and Money in Politics are the most acute problems that face us, because Combating Climate Change and Health Care Reform, and Financial Services Reform, and Gun Legislation, and Clean Energy Initiatives are all impossible if lobbies are allowed to influence policy decisions.

Elizabeth Warren.  Senator Warren (now in her early 70's) had consistently reasonable answers to every question, though her lecturing tone was a little annoying.  Not so much to me, personally, but because I could imagine that her tone would annoy others who would otherwise support her.  But will the hordes of former Trump followers be comfortable backing E. Warren?  I'm determined not to be looking over my shoulder at everyone else.  Warren is solid.

Bernie Sanders.  He comes across as a little more moderate than Elizabeth Warren, but he seems relentlessly angry.  And he is angry, not in a personal way, but angry at the system that disenfranchises ordinary folks.

Pete Buttigieg.  Most of the policies the Mayor espouses are fine, except for his Health Care plan, which is a little wimpy.  But the biggest problem with Pete is, in my mind, his lack of a sense of urgency about fighting corruption head on.  Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are mad about corruption.  Pete is more even-tempered about it, but will that work?

Amy Klobuchar.  She came across far more powerfully last night than ever before.  She seems a little too much of an insider, very much into her effectiveness as a Senator.  That's important.  But she must stop talking like a Senator, and talk like a President.  All her values align with mine, but in the US, values alone are not enough; you got to have charisma.  And, unfortunately, it is charisma that everybody is looking for in these debates.  If she believes she is a president in the making, she could make us believe.

Joe Biden.  The Un-Trump, Joe Biden, is a sort of a fall-back candidate.  If all else fails, we have Joe Biden!  He's too much of a old-school man to deal with the problems we have, and the problems that the GOP of the next four years will be throwing up to slow us down.

Andrew Yang, and Tom Steyer.  I hate to give these two guys a thumbs-down, because between them they have lots of good ideas.  But Yang has too much of a mechanistic view of social psychology, and--forgive me--I just can't take Steyer seriously, though if he had come along one year earlier, and if we watched TV more often, he might have been more convincing.

As one of the PBS commentators said it last night: people are watching the candidates to see whether their values align with theirs.  This is almost a no-brainer, but until it's expressed that way, it seems a puzzle about what is going on in these debates.

Once the values thing is sorted out, like me, most people are looking for charisma, and why?  Because it reflects on how other voters will vote!  I know, I know; I said I was only concerned about how I will vote.  But, well, I guess I lied!

Arch

Kamala Harris, and Election 2020

It is such a shame that Kamala Harris has decided to abandon her run for President.  Most importantly, I believe that Senator Kamala Harris would be a good choice for President in a more typical election year.  There are few or no policy issues on which we disagree, she is a plausible candidate from the point of view of diversifying our nominees for elected leaders, and she is able to think on her feet, most ably when it comes to points she has prepared beforehand.

This time around, however, I believe that withdrawing at this point is the clever thing to do.  I explain below.

Reason No. 1.  This particular race for nomination has become confused between several groups of issues; principally two.  Firstly, there is the urgency of ensuring that the Democrats defeat the Republican nominee.  Of course, this is always an urgent problem; the Republican always seem to emphasize the well-being of wealthy individuals against the good of the nation, the majority of which is comprised of people who are poor.  However, this year we are alarmed at the particular team that the Republicans have allowed to steal their nomination, a more frustratingly destructive choice than ever before in history.  If you Republicans are congratulating yourselves on rattling the equanimity of liberals with the Trump presidency, be aware that a total revolution in norms is not what will work for you.  Now the Democrats want a counter-revolution in norms that is going to make you very sorry.

Secondly, there is the expectation from a number of different quarters, that it would be most convenient if each candidate would put forward a single major initiative that distinguishes him or her from the other candidates, so that everyone can call that candidate "The Environment Candidate," or the "Wall Street Reform Candidate," or the "Medicare For All Candidate."  By implication, a candidate who supports most, or all, of these initiatives, but who is not particularly focused on any one of them, is seen as wishy-washy.  This was perceived as Kamala Harris's weakness.  As far as I was concerned, it was really not a weakness at all, but rather an advantage; all these fronts need to be pushed forward, regardless of whether voters consider them important.  Once a president is elected, as I keep reminding my readers, he or she will appeal to her fellow-candidates for ideas or detailed plans to further all these plans.  But the media, the campaign staff, and the voters are all disappointed in the lack of a focus, and that results in low fund-raising results, and ultimately leads to the candidate dropping out.  It is a great pity.

Reason No. 2.  The Democrats--the more progressive party by far, whether or not it is the better party--has gradually embraced racial, ethnic and gender diversity.  Obama, the first non-white president of the US, was a great success (one reason why conservatives hate him with a passion), and being a moderate, and a flexible man, was able to get much progressive legislation passed.  (Another reason why conservatives hate him.  And he was articulate and eloquent, a third reason.  And he was educated, a fourth reason.  I shall temporarily now abandon this line of thinking.)  If the Democratic Party is to keep up this effort to reflect our diverse society with diversity in its presidential nominees, it would make sense to nominate a woman or a minority person.  Kamala Harris would have been perfect.

Instead, now, we're either going to get Bernie Sanders, who might be the first Jewish nominee (though I'm not sure whether there might not have been Jews in earlier times), or Buttigieg, the first openly gay nominee, or Elizabeth Warren, the second woman nominee.

I'm a little nervous about Elizabeth Warren; she seems a little oblivious to public sentiment, though her attitudes towards the Banks and Wall Street are perfect, in my opinion.  There is a danger in proceeding too far, too fast; it is the easiest thing for the Republican Party--if anything goes wrong with the reforms, and the Democrats lose the next election--to reverse all the changes (just as the Democrats can be expected to reverse the effects of the 2017 tax cut of Trump).

Bernie Sanders worries me because of his age; Joe Biden worries me because of his children, and because he seems to trip over his tongue, and sometimes lose his temper.  I'm fine with Buttigieg; he is clever enough to get the help he needs from among the talent in the party.  One feels sad for the arrogance of the present administration, which does not have the humility to admit to being unable to run the country.

So, Senator Harris: we expect you to take a break, and jump back in, in eight years, or four, as appropriate.

Arch

Footloose (2011)

I just got done watching Footloose (2011), and I give it about four thumbs up.

Julianne Hough comes across in quite a different way than Lori Singer (who was first famous as the cello-playing all-rounder in the TV series Fame).  In contrast to the ballet-dancing, tall, slim Singer, Hough is a cute, pocket battleship of a girl-next-door, with great big blue eyes.  Julianne Hough is excellent in her role, as are Dennis Quaid and Andie McDowell, who play her parents.  Both Lori Singer and Julianne Hough are acknowledged to be excellent dancers, though in different eras, directions and styles.  Both are all-round dancers.  Julianne Hough is a professional dancer who acquired fame in Dancing with the Stars, and as a Country singer.

Kenny Wormald does a fabulous job as Ren McCormack, and projects quite a different personality than the taciturn Kevin Bacon.  Both actors did a wonderful job in their respective movies, but the 2011 actor had a certain sparkle that was appropriate to the expectations of modern audiences.

Dennis Quaid took on the role that John Lithgow played in the older movie, a tough act to follow.  But he did a better than adequate job.

Andie McDowell's role was earlier played by Diane Weist.  I adore Diane Weist, but I must confess that I can't remember enough of her performance in 1984 to compare with Andie McDowell's excellent job in this remake.

The writing in the 2011 movie is, in my view, excellent.  Writing a teen movie is not easy, since you have to capture the feel of the speech and the mood of young people, both the mood across the country, and the mood of the particular locality in which you have placed the action.  The humor and repartee has to be right, the references have to be right; a tough order for middle-aged writers, who have to base it all on the young people they know, or failing that, on other teen movies of the time!  The writers on the present screenplay is: Craig Brewer (from a story by Pitchford).  The writer for the older film was Dean Pitchford.  Standards for the writing in this genre have risen, in my opinion, and Pitchford and Brewer have made good use of the intervening decades to refine the story and the script.

The music for both movies was excellent, and the remake makes use of almost all the songs in the original, with necessary changes needed to handle modern teen dances.  There is a charming scene in which two little girls, Ren's cousins, sing "Let's hear it for the boy," a signature song in the 1984 movie, sung by the beloved Deniece Williams.  The little girls are seen on either side of Andie McDowell, in the inset.  (It turns out that Dean Pitchford is some sort of literary and musical genius, and co-wrote many of the songs in both movies.)  This remake is probably one of the most successful in the past few decades.

Arch

Tariff Epidemic, and other unrelated facts

International trade is a delicate thing.  Trade, generally, is a delicate thing; in fact, when you come right down to it, all commerce, and economics generally, is delicate, and it is a wonder that the current position among political philosophers is that the economies of nations must be left alone, only steered with minute adjustments by those in charge of interest rates and the money supply.  From the point of view of rational socialists---people who take a more mechanical point of view of economics, and I believe I should count myself among them---this is just asking for trouble.  They believe in controlled economies, where the government controls production more directly.  They've said this for decades; it was just pure luck that the number of idiots who stumbled upon ideas to enrich themselves at the cost of the economy were few, until the junk mortgage debacle of 2006-2007, and now Trump.

One wonders whether the gambles that caused mortgage-gate were the results of ignorance and carelessness/stupidity, or sheer disregard for economic principles, principles in the sense of standards to which one holds oneself, out of consideration for the needs of society.  I tend to think it was ignorance, but one never knows.  Every once in a while, a child is born, who grows up to be an adult who's willing to throw the world under a bus, just to enrich him- or herself.

This brings us to tariffs.  Just this morning, the newspapers report that the administration has imposed tariffs on imports from South America, throwing various national economies off balance, and tariffs have been imposed against French imports, which have, or could, result in tariffs against certain luxury goods that are sold in high volume during the holiday season, including French champagne.  Now, I don't think I have ever drunk French champagne, certainly not knowingly.  I don't hobnob with the class of people who would splurge on the stuff, but if these tariffs throw the business of French wine producers (including champagne-producers) off-balance, then ultimately it is poor workers who suffer.  Most of my readers will look at the problem from the point of view of consumers; yes, our prices will rise, and the prospect of rising prices for luxury goods is alarming.  Trump himself will be unhappy, because his extended family is almost certain to be wanting champagne for the holiday season.  (But he would probably bill it to the White House, just as he bills his numerous golf vacations, which is very un-American.  Evidently, he and his entire entourage stay at Trump properties, which, in turn, raise their prices to profit from the stay.  I believe this practice is called price-gouging, but is not exactly illegal.)  But the workers in the fields, in the warehouses, the wait staff in restaurants, it is they who will suffer, and we must keep that in mind.

Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that tariffs must not be changed heedlessly.  (The word I want is not heedlessly, but I can't think of a better word at the moment.  Gratuitously?  Capriciously?  Arbitrarily?)  Because the consequences of a tariff do cascade in such long chains of implication, the world markets are not equipped to respond to a rapier-thrust of a punitive tariff, and they will never be.  These punitive tariffs are the actions of a cruel man who loses his temper, because the consequences are to punish those who are not near the decision-making center.  The chains of blame will not generally follow the chain of cause-and-effect, and quite innocent people will be blamed for the ensuing problems.  (Trump, if he himself were to have to suffer through such a situation, would most likely blame the wrong actor.)

Is international trade a good thing?  Initially, they provided the affluent with inexpensive luxury goods made by poor workers in underdeveloped countries.  But now, food and fuel and clothing have settled into flows on such vast scales, that when this flow is disrupted, people will starve, and be cold, and parents will be unable to provide the silly little things that kids expect, even if they're not the expensive electronic toys that American kids appreciate, but the little Tinker Toys that Third World kids probably play with.  The America First viewpoint is not something that many Americans themselves will be comfortable adopting.

In some quarters in the US, in some mega-churches, the rhetoric that is used is probably that Americans have been mistreated by foreigners, e.g. Chinese, for so long, that it is probably no more than simple justice that they should suffer, for a change.  But this sort of retaliatory thinking has never been Christian thinking, or rather should not be.

Well, this brings us to the fact that a businessman, one who is just a businessman without any experience in public service, is entirely unsuited to be the head of a nation.  Among all such individuals, we seem to have selected the most ill-tempered, the most ignorant, the most suspicious, the least diplomatic, the most unread, the most unprincipled businessman to be our president!  To be honest, it isn't his fault; the blame must be distributed among all the Republican rank and file, who have been made to believe that they have been wronged by the liberals and Democrats, by unscrupulous Republican demagogues.  It is unfortunate that American voters can be so easily manipulated by domestic demagogues, and foreign meddlers; but the world population at large has been revealed to be tragically susceptible to propaganda.  Propaganda, Marketing---what's the difference?

It's interesting that the Democrats, now that they have committed to keeping big money out of politics, have to drum up support among millions of ordinary people, whom they are cudgeling into making thousands of small donations into their campaign coffers.  So many families are targeted for piles of junk mail, ironically paid for by this very process of begging for contributions to various campaigns!  Even those of us who are determined to overturn the campaign finance decision of the Supreme Court are doubtless thinking that it is almost worth allowing dark money in politics, if it lessens the onslaught of political junk-mail to which we're subjected, particularly if we've responded to requests for money!

Political contributions that are not secret are tabulated and published by interested news sources, so we know, for instance, from where Elizabeth Warren's financial support came, before she chose not to accept money from big donors.  Unfortunately, vast numbers of voters of both parties have got out of the habit of reading this information for themselves.  Instead, they depend on TV Talking Heads to filter this data on their behalf, which is a very dangerous thing to do.  Talking Heads have their own agendas, and their filtering is often not a benign service they offer.

I have drifted far afield from the problems of tariffs, I'm afraid.  I'm going to alter the title of this post to reflect the chaos that is this post.

Archimedes