Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

"Socialism" Vs. Progressive Taxation.

In my earlier post about "Joe the Plumber", I wrote about how his elevation (by the McCain campaign and the Right Wing media) to the status of "middle class everyman" obscured the very real arguments being made about taxation in America. Apparently the majority of Americans are secretly seething about Obama's proposal to suspend the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy. We are supposed to believe that 95% of America thinks that the richest 5% is overburdened by progressive taxation. Evidently no one realizes that we have reached the point where the interest on our national debt is approaching the amount we spend on our federal budget. How we are supposed to finance the government is increasingly an underexamined question.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis that is about to hit the American middle class with the force of a category 5 hurricane, and the GOP and its cronies have been trying to make the "socialist" brand stick to Barack Obama and his fiscal and domestic policy platform. I think that (once again) it's time to get our definitions straight. "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Progressive taxation obviously doesn't fall within the parameters of the definition. But this is what the extreme Right is referring to when it talks about its opponent's "socialist" policies.

Republicans would have you believe that the core principal of Socialism is income redistribution- "Take from the haves to give to the have nots." Not only is this crudely simplistic, but it is a Cold War-based lie that's been repeated since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Perhaps that's why the GOP is running on an anti-intellectual and anti-academic platform- because careful analysis exposes their argument for what it is. The US has been traditionally referred to as a "Capitalist" country. It is therefore illuminating that the vast majority of American economists (81%) support progressive taxation (SOURCE) and Obama's policy positions (SOURCE). But why should you bother listening to the experts when you have "your own" strong opinions?

What does a study of history tell us? If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation (SOURCE). It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the years and helped us become a superpower. If you are against this tax policy, the case can be made that you are ANTI-AMERICAN. Naturally a "free market" idealogue is going to attempt to fight this conclusion using any means necessary. But the reality is that their alternative is a fantasy- "free markets" have never existed anywhere except in theory. It's a grand "utopian" fairy tale that wealthy people (and sycophants) have used to put the masses to sleep.

You often hear the "free market" dictum that “wealth creates wealth”. It’s not that there’s no merit to this argument. That’s why I don’t necessarily support “socialism”. But on the other hand, entrenched wealth creates obstacles to competition and innovation. The ideas that make men wealthy eventually become outdated with the changes in the environment. Yet wealthy men often have little incentive to adapt to those changes, because they risk losing their competitive advantage. They are more motivated to protect their wealth artificially by working to maintain the status quo. They have the resources to set the conditions to attain that end. Progressive taxation works against that stagnation.

Thomas Jefferson said, “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I’m not in favor of class warfare or anarchic revolution. I believe in incremental social change. By shifting the tax burden on to the wealthy, you free up the middle class to provide new ideas to adapt to a changing society (and to put their own money behind these ideas)- something that the entrenched wealth of the upper classes has proved itself incapable of. Entrenched wealth stifles innovation and competition the same way ruling classes have in so-called "socialist" nations. Progressive taxation doesn't "punish" achievement. That's a ridiculous notion. It fosters enhanced economic class mobility, which is crucially necessary in encouraging the adaptation necessary over the long run.

Who is “Joe the Plumber”, Really?

A few days ago the American citizenry was introduced to a new political figure. He's a man named Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher, and he lives somewhere in Lucas County, outside of Toledo, Ohio. He came to national attention via an interaction he had with Barack Obama over the weekend. The candidate was canvassing door-to-door in Wurzelbacher's neighborhood on Sunday, when the two fell into a discussion about Obama's economic policy. "Joe" asked the Illinois senator if he believed in the "American Dream", and started peppering him with questions about taxes. A FOX News crew was there to record the entire exchange, and it was soon spread throughout the web.

When John Mccain's campaign learned of the footage, they apparently scrambled to integrate a narrative about "Joe the Plumber" into their debate strategy. A strange version of Wurzelbacher's "story" was introduced by John McCain right from the start. He portrayed "Joe" as someone who wanted to buy a small plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's proposed tax structure would hurt him. McCain kept returning to "Joe" throughout the 90-minute contest, at one point exclaiming maniacally, "Congratulations Joe. You're rich!! You're rich". The Arizona senator made a point of pulling out a quote from the Obama/"Joe" recorded dialog that suggested that his opponent wanted to "spread the wealth around" in America*.

In the process, "Joe the Plumber" became a talking point and a minor celebrity. But it quickly became apparent after the debate that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher wasn't exactly what he had at first seemed. To begin with, it turns out that "Joe" really isn't a plumber at all. He's neither licensed nor registered in the profession, and consequently not supposed to be practicing plumbing in Lucas County. Additionally he makes around $40,000 per year, and is in no position (as a divorced father) to buy the company he works for, or any other company for that matter. In fact he has several outstanding liens against his house, including one for neglecting to pay his property taxes.

"Joe the Plumber" is in a heap of trouble, and he has sacrificed his privacy for fifteen minutes on the national stage. He's been used by John McCain and the GOP, and is quickly replacing Sarah Palin as America's Greatest Joke. Rather than an entrepreneurial hero, it appears that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher is merely yet another partisan tool to be exploited in the Republican's desperate attempt to hold onto political power. The ironic thing is that "Joe" would in fact benefit under Barack Obama's tax structure. When Barack Obama talks about "spreading the wealth", he's not talking about handouts. He's talking about shifting the very real tax burden of this nation on to the wealthiest members of society.

The entire "socialist" meme being pushed by the McCain/Palin ticket is a red herring. The reality is that there won't be any broad new social programs, no matter who is elected. The difficulty lies in financing the obligations that our society has already accrued. Our government is over $10 trillion in debt (when we include the money to be spent in the bailout), and the interest on that sum is astronomical. This is eroding international confidence in our currency. What "Joe the plumber" really represents is the large contingent of middle class schmucks that wouldn't recognize their enlightened self-interest if it bit them on their collective ass. People like Wurzelbacher, who still believe in realizing the "American Dream" through the "free market system" are drinking the Kool-Aid that is destroying our country.

* To really understand what transpired between Obama and Wurzelbacher, you have to see the complete video and/or read the trancript. You can do that HERE.

NOTE: If you didn't see it in the above link, you can find out how the McCain and Obama tax plans will affect you HERE.

Obama vs. McCain. The Conclusion.

Last night's event concluded this election cycle's series of four presidential (and VP) debates. Its reception followed a pattern that was established during the first one, and continued throughout. I was happy with the performances of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in each of the installments. Still, after each contest, pundits consistently insisted that they were draws. But a strange thing happened when the viewing public was consulted- American voters (both decided and uncommitted) overwhelmingly reported a clean sweep for Obama. I'd like to say that the corporate media's refusal to choose a winner in this series will finally put to rest the oft-repeated rightwing notion that the press has a liberal bias. However, I'm not nearly so naïve as to believe that this pattern will be widely acknowledged.

Regardless, as I've said before, the debates really aren't about "winning and losing". They are about meeting expectations. In this case the objectives of each candidate were well known. Both the McCain campaign and the candidate himself promised that the Arizona senator would come out especially aggressive. Conventional wisdom said that this was his last chance to change the momentum of the race. We heard that McCain would finally bring up Obama's "suspect associations" with Ayers and ACORN, and we waited to see whether he would follow through. Moderator (and CBS anchor) Bob Schieffer left him with no other option when he asked the rivals to address the perceived negativity flowing through the race.

So John McCain came out swinging hard, the way Mike Tyson used to do before he tried to bite off Evander Holyfield's ear. For the first half hour of the debate, he looked feistier than we have seen him look at any time since 2004. He attempted to make populist appeals, using "Joe the Plumber" as a prop. He tried to pin the big-spending tail on the donkey. And he trotted out the timeworn "class warfare" red herring. But then (apparently) his advanced age and flagging endurance made him stumble, and from there on out Obama looked in control of the match. Ironically the turning point occurred with his introduction of Ayers, a subject Republican extremists insisted he include in the debate.

The absolutely unflappable Obama laid out, in the very simplest terms, the facts about his "association" with Bill Ayers. Not only did he convey absolute sincerity, but he even turned the narrative on its head, pointing out that the educational reform panel that he sat on with Professor Ayers contained folks like the "the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, (and) the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper." Then he put the nail in the coffin of the McCain/Palin attack ads by saying that his campaign has no connection to ACORN- an organization he represented (in the early 90's) only as an attorney working with the US Justice Department to ensure that the state of Illinois complied with the motor voter law.

After that turnaround, McCain was completely incapable of sustaining any momentum, and clumsily returned again and again to his "Joe the Plumber" gimmick. It was clear that John had "jumped the shark" when he began talking directly to the unseen "Joe", and congratulating him for being "rich". I think he realized too that he had blown his "last best chance". His eyes started flittering back and forth like he was lost and scared, and he began to make the faces that have been the source of so much speculation regarding his temperament and stability. By the end of the night, it was clear that Obama had succeeded from the first to the last in his mission to prove himself presidential. Meanwhile McCain was left to pick up the pieces of his shattered campaign, which has run nothing but attack ads for the last few weeks.