The Routt Report

We are the 15%!

 

Congressional approval rating is hard to really know.  Like all polling the data is subject to variables such as who is aksed? what was asked? who answered ... and why did they answer.

There are recent polls that put the approval rating of Congress as low as 9%.  However I would guess that it actually hoovers around 15%.  I use 15% primarily because it's a nice round number but I also base that on a premise that has recently occured to me.  Be it noted that I'm not sure I believe this premise nor do I think it a good excuse for elected leaders to punt leadership, however I offer this as a view of hope and eternal wisdom, not cynicissm.

 

I think there this probably a floor of approval for Congress at about 15% ... this floor is comprised of (hear me out):

1. 8.5%  Simple majority of regular primary voters (primary voters being about 17%)  

2. 6.5%  A combination of people who actually agree with the policies of the current Congress (they did pass patent reform and 3 trade agreements, for the people that care about those isssues above others the 112th Congress has been fantastic), and perhaps some people who may agree with the following premise:

Congressional inaction is by design and obligation ...

 

HEAR ME OUT!

Let's take a few steps back ...  The founding fathers where many things, visionaries, idealist, etc.  But they were also products of their times.  Wealthy elites in a world where it was not only acceptable but in many cases seen as divine right that the wealthy elite should rule over the populace (let alone women and slaves) for the populace's benefit.  It is not an accident that even in the most liberal and populist founding documents of their age, the franchise of government was limited to those who were wealthy, male, white and of the correct faith.

And though it has been the history of our republic that the franchise is expanded over time, that expansion has never been easily won or immediatley embraced by those already in the franchise.  Whether the voter suppression was overt (poll taxes etc.) or covert the systematic silencing of voices and end runs around their participation has been the rule not the exception.

The most sustained covert voter suppression on the Congressional level has been the re-districing process.  As districts become increasinly lopsided in favor of a party the result is only the members of the local majority party get to decide who represents them in Congress.  The minority party -and even the simple minority of the majority party are effectively silenced.  And since in the most gerrymandered districts the winner of the primary is the winner of the general election, many members of Congress are the wholly owned subsidary of not the unsympathetic corporate interests or lobby pools but rather the elite majority party activist who though are earnest as any indiviual in their policy beliefs, are hardly representative of a communities national view or practical needs.  Their world view is developed by and limited to about 15% and as result those people who are being represented are of course happy with the job Congress is doing.

But their world view is a very narrow world view.  And though the founding fathers were not particularly interested in an inclusive franchise, they were supremely interested in all those who were in the franchise having equal right to power.  Every foreseeable caution was taken to ensure that the voice of the Congress represented the complete voice of those in the franchise.  What they couldn't bring themselves to do unfortunately is compell participation by those in the franchise.  At the time it probably wasn't an issue but as the franchise increased combined with voter suppression efforts every step of the way, we now have a situation that the majority of those in the franchise are not participants in it.

So the Congress, representing only clean minority voices as opposed to the noisy majority voices as intended is working with clear mandates from a small class.  A small class that in itself is deeply divided.

Congress is by design supposed to take in the broad diverse view of the populace and distill it to find the policy that does have broad consensus.  However because of an emboldened minority in Congress both party's seeks to create policy that they think makes sense while coercing (or silencing) the minority into compliance.  

I offer as a premise that the failure of the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction is actually exactly what is supposed to happen in this context.  The Super Committee was tasked with a very big job. A job where there is no clear mandate from the divided 15% and no input from the remaining 85% of the franchise.  

Perhaps what we have been calling partisan gridlock is actually just a safety valve.  

 

hear me out ...

The current state of affairs is that Congress, designed to run on the input of all the disparate voices of the franchise, is now only being fueled by passionate minority voices.  As a result of lack of fuel (or bad fuel depending on your viewpoint) the engine just shuts itself off to protect itself from further damage.

I agree that this is not a time for inaction.  This concept is not intended to apologize for lack of leadership.  However ask yourself do you really want THIS Congress to do anything? Example, without doing a poll I would expect that a majority of those in the franchise i.e. registered voters of any party affiliation over the age of 18 but still breathing, would be in favor of Congress passing a federal budget. However they haven't done so in quite awhile.  Why?  Because while there is clear directive from the extreme left and right there is no voice of the center.  Members of Congress are supporting the ideology of the small electorate, not distilling the voice of all people to find some small area of consensus to move forward with.  Since the fuel is rancid the engine shuts itself down.

I argue that if primary voting regardless of party reached a majority of active voters, the candidates coming out of primaries would be more moderate, representing (or better said beholden to) a wider swath of ideas.  The general election between two moderates would result in the most moderate (or rather most broadly beholden) candidate winnig.

Granted this would yield the kind of politicians many people think they don't want ... unprincipiled, compromsing at every turn, placing expediency over virtue flip-floppers.  You know just like now like we have now.  

But the incentive model for compromise will have fundamentally changed. 

Our national legislative body, (not unlike our local elected body in Boulder with our all at-large, minority electorate for City Council) in it's current form is incredibly susceptible to the influence of powerful minority interests.  With a small zelaous, ideologically charged electorate it is very easy for those with influence to retain and expand their influence.  

With a large electorate elected officials must at best find and hold themselves to what few areas of broad consensus exist or at worst avoid being too far into any particular ideological corner.  It is easy to point fingers at corporate money, lobbying and special interest groups as the reason Congress is ineffective however at best those are only rationale for why Congress does things that individuals disagree with.

I offer that the root of the problem is that a small electorate is like diesel being poured into a Twin Turbo Gasoline engine.  

We have a population that is more moderate than the electorate and an electorate that is more moderate than the much smaller primary electorate.  Add to this (and I argue as result of this) we have a Congress that believes it's job is to create and sell its policy as opposed to distilling the combined wisdom of the governened and turning the limited consensus into policy. 

Therefore our founding father's have given us a collective time out.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the virtue of the populace and the Senate a further distillation to ensure only policy that has incredibly broad consensus can become national law.  Without proper fuel the engine SHOULD cease to run.  

This is granted a bit of tough love.  Refueling our legislative engine can only come from increasing participation in primaries to levels equal to general elections (and increasing that as well to much higher levels) then accepting  that the noise of the masses is better than quite of the minority.  We have to accept that within the noise is truth.  As individuals it does not require setting aside your ideology or bias but it does require making that voice heard while respecting the right of others to disagree.  

 

And this may be the hardest part but it also requires allowing politicians to be exactly that. Politicians!

Activist and Politicians serve different and important roles in our public discourse and while it is essential that activist hold fast to their views it is equally important the politicians have a much more flexible worldview that balances passion and pragmatism. It's not to say politicians should not have ideals or agendas, but it is to say that those ideals and agendas should only come to fruition as the result of their wisdom being made plain to their colleagues rather than the accident of their party having a majority in Congress at the time.

Like a well designed modern engine our centuries old Congress has a safety valve.  Without proper fuel Congress is actually limited to only must-do emergency policy ... you know things that have broad consensus such as not going into national default.  If you look at what the past few Congress have actually accomplished and compare those things to the public opinion polling of the time you see that very little was done, most of which also enjoyed at least simple majority public support at the time.  

Congress does not know enough to determine the best way to reduce the defict among many other things because the electorate has not made its full voice heard.  It's not that we don't have serious problems that demand bold and solutions in a timely fashion. It's that Unfortunately our legislative engine was not designed that way. Our engine was designed to run on the full voice of those in the franchise ... or not at all.  Congress is not solely responsible for our nation's problems, whether they be economic, environmental or otherwise, we are all in our own way complicit and in our own ways empowered to fix them.  

The eternal wisdom of our founding fathers is that the ability of any ideology to hold too much power is to be avoided.  Even if that group is simply a vocal minority that has power due to the apathy of the rest of the franchise it is still dangerous.  And when the power rest in the hands of those drunk with ideology the engine will stall until it can be regained by a sober hand.

And right now the 15% is as drunk as a frat boy on his 21st birthday.  

Sobriety can only be returned by the 85% and that's simply going to take awhile.

Is Congress broken? Well perhaps not broken but it is in SAFE mode, and though we would be better off if it was functioning properly this is still better than if our situation was made worse by a very active but broken Congress.  

     I've yet to see a toddler think that their time out was well timed, however I do see the wisdom of our founding fathers  telling our current political class that it's time for them to sit in corner and think about what they have done.  

Here's some fun additional reading to help you draw your own conclusions:

 

Congressional Approval rating, click here 

Primary Voting turnout, click here

And a member of Congress who may actually agree with this premise ... click here

Lesson learned ... or rather affirmed

   I take far too many life lessons from popular culture.  Perhaps its because most people's lives are so consumed by pop-culture that lessons from high art and literature seem to be more valid.  And perhaps for the same reason, as a result of a life spent with Mozart, More and Smith that I find the wisdom in Rock, Mewes and Smith.  

    -The particular wisdom to which I refer is of Chris Rock, Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith with whom I'm Sure Wolfgang Mozart, Thomas More and Adam Smith would agree comes from a scene in Dogma in which Chris Rock tries to explain to Jay and Silent Bob why it's better to have ideas than beliefs.  The salient point is that beliefs are to hard to change.  The whole point of belief is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it its still true.

As a result of receiving this wisdom I have a very high barrier for beliefs and have very few of them ... though its obvious to anyone that I more than make up for that with ideas which I think are true with a near religious fervor ... which I can then easily abandon when evidence proves me wrong (and hopefully before anyone notices that I was wrong).  

I think it's important to have ideas but I believe its important to be right when the ability to be right is made available -especially when the question is on one of your beliefs.

 

I had the opportunity to test one of my core political beliefs.  After a two year experiment I am relieved to have my belief that local government is way more important than national government confirmed.  My belief in intellectual honesty helped confirm this belief because since I was concerned that my blind faith in my premise may leave me unable to see how wrong it was the evidence had to be overwhelming before I could accept this simple truth:  

In order for Washington D.C. to wipe it's ass it needs to be agreed to by 218 members of the House of Representatives, 60 members of the Senate, signed by the president and found constitutinal by 5 judges. 

 

the result is that well ... well at least you can't smell the swamp anymore ...

 

Though I went to Washington with substantial evidence that what happens at 1777 Broadway has much more impact on the lives of people living in Boulder and the events at 200 East Colfax more relevant to the happines of Coloradan's than the kabuki theater located on First Street NE. It was however the impotence of the federal government that finally opened my eyes to the truth I already knew. 

The drama of Washington has captivated the attentions of American's led into this folly by news media.  If you're job is to sell nationallized marketing campaigns designed by your "sponsors" its only "consistent" that you spend what little time you have left for actual reporting be tailiored to the largest audience (thus capitlizing on redundant costs).  Add to that the consolidation of news media (turns out they weren't wrong about thinking about the bottom line the whole time ...oops!) there is very little coverage of our General Assemblies and City Councils.  

Too bad because if you want the stop lights to work, the water to flow and the trash to go away, its downtown, not D.C. where those decisions are made. But more importantly if you want the stoplights to be solar powered, the water to be floridated  (or not) or the trash to be recylced the only place you actually have a voice is at City Hall.

 

Local government is where good things can happen and bad things end (or vice versa) and FAST! I just got of the phone with someone who had a great idea.  It's an idea already in practice by Boulder County though he was unawre of it but the basis of the call was the feasibility of such an idea being enacted by Congress. Aside from this very idea already being in place here I then explained that with the federal government currently on a continuing resolution through Novemeber.  Which means something (a budget another continuing resolution deal) must be done by then.  Following which there will be the super committee report ... Then it's January of a presidential election year.

 In this context the idea could be to give orphans puppies that bark jesus; a bill introduced now will not see the light of day until the 113th Congress (assuming the person who introduced it is re-elected).  Policy does not move through Congress based on merit alone.  Being a good idea is way less important than say ... keeping the federal government open which seems to be an increasingly diffuclt -though constitutionally mandated task for the 112th Congress.

 

Meanwhile ...

Boulder Voters could vote to create a municipal eletric utility.  Whether you're for it or against one must be impressed with how quickly local governments can move.  Which is why it puzzles me that so few people care about local government.  It's not glamorous, the characters are infreuntly charming or attractive and the prodcution values are clearly done on a modest budget.  But rest assured this is NOT Kabuki theater.  The events that actually shape your daily life, no matter where you live are being decided ... right now! BY YOUR NEIGHBOR! (unless you live in Washington D.C. of course in which case you are actually stuck with Congress, hope that works out for you ...).

 This fall municipal governments across the country will be holding elections for councils, mayors, ballot questions ranging from social issues to taxation.  All of these questions being asked in what folks in politics without a hint or irony call an "odd number year" which many local charters compell or local leaders request, in both cases cynically because odd election years are gauranteed to have the lowest voter turnonout of the four year presidential election cycle.  Thus gauranteeing that the few politically empowered and savvy can have their way with the ballot box with self-limited noise from the plebes  occasinonal voters.  Being an occasional voter (i.e. votes religiously in presidential or even number years) is like being a "Christmas Catholic" and regular voters view occasional voters with the same open-arm comtept that devout believers reserve for their poser bretheren.  

This contempt is so great that our Secretary of State is requiring county clerks to not send ballots to people who didn't vote in 2010.  Christmas voters be damned! Flagrant voter surpression is bad, institutional voter supression worse.

 

As this pertains to Boulder, our Charter mandated voter supression of "odd year elections" which an elected official actually said "is better because people can focus on local issuses without clutter of national issues" will play heavily into the hands of the status-quo.  I would agree with the above statement if it came with the voter turnout of national elections but unfortunately that will not be the case.  And once again the most important decisions that take place in the public sphere with the greatest level of personal impact will be decided by a radical, righteous and entitled minority.  For the sake of intellectual honesty I suppose I would be less offended (or to give them the benefit of the doubt) unable to see this inherent flaw in our so called democracry if I were in the majority of the political minority.  However it is in the minority of the ruling class where the abuses of the ruling class become the most apparent and exacerbating. 

My Clarinet professor at Juilliard once said "the difference between a rich musician and a poor musician is a poor musician needs to practice".  Without going into the myriad implications of this statement about quality of life, work ethic and bandwith which I will let you ponder for yourself, this statement in which I do believe has a political implication as well. Just because an individual has spent a lot of time on an interest does not mean they are right about it. The best government benefits from the collective wisdom of the governend moderated by elected representatives. Having spent years away, I believe Boulder is a fantastic place to live.  Given our status-quo or someone else's future I would choose stagnation everytime.  These however are not the options.

Our options are to embrace the future and remain a vibrant exciting city or wallow in the swamp of stagnation as the world -and our ability to keep our bubble inflated- pass us by.  

I say all that to say this ...  Tired of Congress? Fed up with the Fed? Teach them a lesson, this fall ignore them! and focus your attentions on your local races.  Even if at then end you still don't care about local government (which I say you do at your own peril), nothing will terriffy national lawmakers and the political establishment at all levels more than high voter turnout in an odd number year.  

 

Politicians, like puppies and small children frequently mean well, and try to test boundaries but if you don't want them to go too far you need to make it clear you're actually watching.  Voting in an odd year is to politicians as being called by their full name is to a 5 year old who's hand is moving slowly towards the cookie jar.   

John and Johnson . . .

    "the people who take a shower before they go to work get bailed out, those who need to take a shower after work get thrown out"

-Leo Gerard

President, United Steelworkers

  Once, many years ago, my good friend Leslie remarked on my style with women, she said "you are like a wolf in sheep's clothing but your costume isn't very good you have fangs and claws hanging out". She was offering equal parts jest and friendly advice, but I offer that as a premise to this post in response to a comment on my previous offering, and events since then. My last post was a dance, being on two practical sides of similar ideological issues. I tried to appear rationale as opposed to a hypocritical. 

   Thanks to courage I oddly found watching Rachel Maddow's show last night, I will now own my hypocrisy.  In a segment comparing the hand-wringing over the "Big 3 bailout" to the weekend, cover of night cash injection to citigroup of roughly the same amount, she highlighted a concept that I have flirted with, and am now prepared to marry. The inherent societal inequity between the ease of white collar assistance and the aversion to blue collar aid.

  Quietly, while many were watching football, or finishing their shift at their second or third part time job to make ends meet, the Citigroup was offered 20 billion new dollars so that perhaps they would not have to layoff 52,000 employees. In our current climate I have no problem with spending money to keep people employed. 

  However, citigroup just got 25 billion to buy other failing banks, in which they failed, they also proceeded to spend 400 million for naming rights to the new home of the New York Mets. (I'm a diehard Met's fan, which I realize removes my last shreds of credibility and judgement). Saving 52 thousand jobs is laudable, the money citigroup received comes out of the previously dedicated T.A.R.P. funds, and to their credit citigroup did present a plan that is "workable" in the view of outside objective experts. But with that in mind how can our federal government swoop in to salvage 52 thousand white collar jobs without controversy yet stall at the prospect of saving millions of direct and ancillary jobs with the same price tag? If citigroup like the big 3 is in it's predicament because of mismanagement then clearly management is not the decision making standard. If 52 thousand medium to high paying jobs trump an untold amount of lower wage jobs then clearly maximizing employment salvage is not the trigger.

  For myriad reasons people of all walks of life have mused that this is a dangerous time in terms of the direction of the American Republic. To pile on to the paranoia I will submit my greatest fear. I offer that we are taking steps towards feudalism. We are on this path not due to malice but rather by the temptations of good intentions. Here is my case;

  1. People are born into an economic class, there is nothing to do about the accident of birth, but what happens thereafter is important. Generally speaking, those born into an economic class, are born into a community that shares that status. They attend schools with their peers, and absent external forces generally stay within their class, as they are only shown opportunities consistent with maintaining their status. In short, with rare exception the wealthy stay wealthy, and the not-wealthy stay that way. 

2. Those who do not have wealth make attempts through labor to gain it, those who do have wealth make attempts through policy to protect it.

3. Eventually the cultural cloistering of the have's and have not's creates a gap so large that one class has no means to empathize with what the life and needs of the other class truly are.

 That is the societal stage in which this drama unfolded;

1. Congress, as a result of their disconnect with their constituents fails to realize that borrowing 150 billion dollars to put $600 or less into the pockets of taxpayers does not meet the cost benefit analysis test. (Anyone in the mood for cake yet?)

2. A few months later Congress sees fit to spend billions of dollars to bolster individual investment firms, banking institutions and insurance companies.

3. A month later Congress finds the will to authorize the mortgage of our future to the tune of 810 billion dollars in loans, bailouts and pet projects, a double down on the voodoo philosophy of trickle down economics.

 While programs take time to work and doing nothing was clearly not a viable option, the actions of our leaders is consistent with the steady march towards feudalism. Wise or foolish, the economic recovery act of 2008 was born of good intentions, however with a population of roughly 300 million people, had we borrowed the combined 960 billion dollars and distributed those funds equally for every man woman and child in our nation, that would have equated to about $3,000 per individual, $6,000 per couple, $12,000 for a family of four. That unlike $600 or less, would have had a real impact on people's monthly overhead, for many that is several months of salary. This alongside aggressive debt restructuring (like we're doing now) would perhaps have returned liquidity to the financial markets using trickle up economics. If people spent the money recklessly it would have stimulated the economy through the demand side. If people used the money to become current on debts that would have stabilized the housing markets and avoided an untold amount of foreclosures while fortifying the balance sheets of lending institutions. Even if they only saved the money, banks would have had enough cash reserves to continue issuing both personal and commercial paper. And at the very least if all else failed, the lowest end of the economic spectrum would have had savings to ride out some unemployment (a lot of which would not have happened anyway).

 

   Our current situation has many causes, not limited to supply side, trickle down economic theory, and lack of financial education for our citizens. We attempted to correct this course by slowing down with half measures like the stimulus package instead of full throttle reverse by at least taking a shot at demand side, rising tides economic policy, and aggressive financial education efforts. I guess "for every action and equal but opposite reaction" never occurred to an administration so opposed to science.

  My feudalism fear is about as warranted as the socialism fear which is to say, not at all. As unfortunate and rife with human costs our situation is, it is simply a correction that was inevitable and all we can really do is not panic, not make too many mistakes and see this for what it is, a once in a generation opportunity to address issues of generational poverty, education inequity and climate change through public works projects while it will be politically popular.

   That said, now that the election is over it is safe to say I was originally a strong John Edwards supporter. I hope that his current personal foibles don't keep him out of public life for too long as he was absolutely right about "The two Americas". Lyndon Johnson spoke of this in his term as President and our war on poverty is one of the few places in American society where we have made significant negative progress. Lyndon Johnson, at heart a populist, warned of the costs of the rift between the poor and everybody else. John Edwards in his campaign rightly pointed out that now, the rift is between the Very Wealthy and everybody else. It is important to note that I think having wealthy people is a good thing, in fact I aspire to be wealthy myself at some point. I also do not believe that taking from the rich to give to the poor is a good idea. But it is vital to the continuance of the principles on which our nation was founded to have the tools in place where personal responsibility is rewarded with enduring self reliance. 

  Our founding documents provide for the right to the pursuit of prosperity, but not a guarantee. However if we do not address the issues of generational poverty and education inequity, we find ourselves in violation of our core constitutional obligations. Worse if we continue to pursue the above policies forged in ideological disconnect, and do not bridge the cultural divide between those who lead and those who are led, we will only ensure that the wealthy will gather more wealth at the expense of others instead of in concert with them. If we do not, if only temporarily redirect our focus the most benevolent actions of people of means will only result in long term dependency on the  wealthy by the poor.  Whether the relationship is based on employment or housing,  our current path without caution and re-prioritization will only cause those with means to consolidate tremendous wealth and further bifurcate our society. 

  Finally to speak to the criticism of my post "The Prius Problem", I'd first say, thanks for the comment and keep them coming! I am a product of conservatory training. My educational background is of the classical training where improvements come from criticism and deconstruction by the instructor. For me this blog is equal parts sharing my views and an educational exercise. You the reader are my instructor, without your comments I cannot know if my thoughts are being conveyed with clarity so I respect and encourage your comments on both the content and the style. In the classical training model it is the obligation of the student to also be self critical and defend their actions. 

 I will begin with self criticism. My greatest weakness is brevity. I attempt to make connections between opposing arguments, because I am a "big picture" thinker. I realize however that I am not alway efficient with language.  A lengthy thought process is no excuse for verbosity. Further, from my experiencing teaching I don't assume prior knowledge. Speaking to prerequisite information can clarify an argument, the liability however is that it can at best be redundant, and at worst appear smug. With the context that I intended to speak to a broad audience on complex issues, by all means offer critical analysis as to where I have added more than is necessary or  simply have stated something to prove that I know it.

     I strive to present the wisdom of the argument, not the author. 

  With acknowledgment of my deficiency in brevity, I defend my rhetorical style. I use "big" words. And I will continue to do so. I make bold statements and will continue to do so. I make bold statements because it is not my intention that the reader necessarily agree with me but rather to provoke thought and discussion. Without provoking argument how will I know when I am wrong?  My use of vocabulary is not in spite of my modest upbringing but rather in honor of it. My mother, my teachers, and my friends who have been sources of intellectual and personal nurture did not make financial and personal investments in me for me to sound uneducated. I may have come from a humble beginning, but my world view has been shaped by my formative years in the playground of a housing project as much as my  language was synthesized in the hallowed halls of our nations finest private institutions of higher learning. I have strong ties to, and my desire to work in public service is a result of, my relationship with working people. I do not believe that even the most common are incapable of understanding my words, and I further disagree that the case of the struggling can be made without the most eloquent of language. Common vernacular is too weak for uncommon challenges.

  And finally ahead of this Thanksgiving holiday I would like to share how thankful I am for the great people in my life, and diversity of experiences that have made me whole. I am eternally grateful for the opportunities that have been presented to me, particularly this year, but over the course of my life that have given me a rare understanding of our nation, our society and myself. With the challenges ahead both personal and public, I close this year with a profound sense of good will, a renewed sense of providence, and a reaffirmed belief that we do, for our challenges, live in a time that has the greatest level of opportunity afforded to people in the history of mankind. May you have a joyous holiday season.