My 2016 Politics

This post started as a Facebook comment, in an attempt to explain my political opinions and who I'll be voting for this election year.

So…here are a few of my thoughts: ;)

1. The Economy.

Prosperity as we know it has always been based on a thriving economy. Republicans and Democrats agree on this, but they have wildly different ideas about how we reach that end goal. To me, it makes sense to listen to economists, historians, and other scholars who have devoted much of their lives to studying these issues -to try to see past some of the political rhetoric, as hard as it is to do. Of course, the “experts” will always have their own political biases and will often give very different solutions, but I think some common threads may arise. For instance, most economists seem to think that investing in our infrastructure is a good idea -not just for the immediate jobs it will create but for bringing businesses to our shores in the future. Many of these projects are best handled at the level of the federal government. Not all government spending is created equal; some represents a logical investment.

While everyone agrees that job creation is central to the economy, I think it's important to emphasize that it's not just about creating jobs, it's about creating good jobs. When many jobs are so low-paying that only illegal immigrants will work them, or when a growing number of Americans work full-time but still live below the poverty line and require government assistance... This is a serious economic problem. Despite the conservative narrative, an unwillingness to work is not the central problem here.

While it's true that not all government spending/involvement is bad for the economy, it's also true that not all cuts to federal spending are good for the economy. As one example, cuts made to the IRS cost much more than they save in total revenue lost through increased tax evasion. Finally, there is so much government spending (or lack of spending) that just doesn't seem logical at all, until you follow the money trail. Which brings me to…

2. Corruption.

Why do we spend the enormous amount that we do locking up non-violent criminals (addicts) who often become repeat offenders? It doesn’t really make sense until you take into account the enormous power of the prison lobby. As another example, a lot of the problems with our healthcare system suddenly make sense when you consider the sizable influence of the insurance lobby on our government. And the list of examples goes on and on. It sometimes seems like we could find bipartisan solutions to almost any problem if only we could eliminate lobbying from powerful interests/groups. The fundamental problem seems to be: How do we make politicians vote in a way that is not in their own, personal best interest? How do we build more accountability into system? I think that change will of necessity come from the people. I think the level of support that Sanders has received (which was totally unexpected, by the way) partially represents that movement. Campaign finance reform is going to be central to that movement. We can't hope to have candidates make it to office without being beholden to powerful moneyed interests, if they don't stop accepting increasingly enormous amounts of money from said interests in order to get elected in the first place.

3. Sensible Regulations.

A capitalist economy has proven to be the best for many reasons. Even “socialist” countries/groups never advocated a total and equal redistribution of all wealth (with the only notable exception being the United Order of the LDS Church). To me, it seems that what all this debate really revolves around is the extent to which our government should regulate our capitalistic economy. What I truly don’t understand it the far-right/libertarian point-of-view in which the free market seems to magically solve all problems. That seems like a fantasy world to me. In the absence of strong regulations from a democratic government, other “regulations” and “governments” would rise up to fill the power void. These organizations may not be formally recognized as “governments” (Secret Combinations, anyone?), but they would attempt to consolidate power and to rig the system in their favor. Most importantly, these “governments” would not be accountable to the people. That doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me. Corruption would run rampant (much more so than it does today). History has shown this to be the case. I love to read what Teddy Roosevelt said and did about cronyism and about breaking up monopolies in his day. To me, it’s not about “wanting the government to fix all my problems.” It’s about wanting to feel protected by the government because I, as a common person, still have a voice in that government. That means a democratic government that puts strong and sensible regulations on our economy.

4. A Level Playing Field.

Life is not fair. Some children are born into the Romney household and some are born into poverty. The narratives we tell about self-made men often prove false; generally, windows of opportunity were open to them that were not open to others. Granted, they had to grab hold of those opportunities and succeed (where many tried to grab hold and failed) but the point is, the opportunity was there. Life is not fair, but, as a society, we should try to be fair, meaning that we should try to open more "windows of opportunity" for more people. It's not that everyone gets to score a touchdown, it's that everyone gets a fair shot at trying out for the team. Much like justice, it's not something we hope to achieve in its entirety, but it is an ideal that we strive toward nonetheless. This is a moral conviction for me that began while I was working for the Disability Resource Center (DRC) during college. The DRC's motto was "A Level Playing Field." I saw students succeed once higher education was made accessible to them, like a blind friend who turned out to be much better at math than me, despite stereotypes that blind people can't do math. She needed a system that made it accessible to her. She needed a fair shot. 

Providing opportunities should be a hallmark of who we are as a nation. Isn't that what the American Dream is all about? In some ways it is (e.g. all children have the right to a free and appropriate education), but in so many ways we could do much better, particularity with community-based interventions (as one of the strongest indicators of a person's future success is the community/neighborhood they are born into). Unfortunately, America doesn't score very well on measures of social mobility, meaning that people who are trying to work their way up are having a harder time than ever at doing it.

Okay...I should probably attempt to address "who I'm voting for" thing at some point.

You know (or can guess) my feelings on Trump. Cruz is almost worse because he hides his “crazy” under a guise of sanity and respectability while mocking republicans who are willing to make compromises and get legislation passed. Dear Senator Cruz, an ability to compromise does not equal weakness (unless you are willing to call all of our country’s founding fathers wimps); it’s called being a politician and doing your job. Obstructionism is not the answer. (I really wanted to use an expletive there, but I resisted.) J

I don’t like Rubio or Clinton because I think they are both “bought and paid for” by their parties and by other powerful people and organizations. They scare me less than Trump or Cruz. I think Clinton is smarter and more experienced (especially with foreign policy) than Rubio, which I believe would ultimately benefit our country. I think she would be very concerned about her legacy as president, which I think would also ultimately benefit our country. I do not think Clinton is free from corruption (far from it!) but I still have a hard time understanding the overwhelming, venomous hatred that has long been directed at her. I would vote for her to stop a Trump victory.

And then there’s Sanders. I probably don’t need to elaborate on what it is that I like about him (based on the essay that I have already written above), but he is speaking out against government corruption --and he isn’t just talking the talk, he’s walking the walk. That’s the main thing. That’s a HUGE thing. And honestly, most of his policies make sense to me. We need a public healthcare option. We need to make college affordable again. We need to invest in our infrastructure. I think he goes too far with some of his proposals (e.g. affordable college education is probably better than free), but I don’t think he would have a prayer of achieving his entire vision of “democratic socialism” as president. I think he would probably be able to move us in the right direction though. But, then again, with how divisive he is (and Hilary is too), I wonder if the “gridlock” would only worsen.