Deflate-Gate and the Politics of Mass Distraction

If you haven’t been living under a rock, I imagine that you’ve been made aware that the New England Patriots used footballs that were not inflated to the league mandated pounds per square inch in their AFC Championship Game victory over the Indianapolis Colts this past weekend. Remember when I mentioned that the President’s State of the Union would eventually be overshadowed by the next shiny object to be picked up by the news cycle? Well, Wednesday morning, after the speech, this “story” was the 4^th trending topic on Twitter. It’s been picked up by essentially all of the national news shows, and if you’re interested in news programming in this country, it is for the moment basically inescapable. I don’t have any skin in the game as far as this controversy goes. Neither the Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks (New England’s opponent in the upcoming Super Bowl) are my team, but I’ll admit the story looks bad for the Patriots (I would normally link to a story about the issue here, but honestly, any non-football beat writer covering this should be ashamed of themselves). Call me a curmudgeon, but this is the type of story that is slowly driving me away from sports. It seems that almost weekly something occurs that sparks or reignites what is starting to appear to be a moral panic in this country. Everything has some deeper meaning, and we all seem to be oh so concerned about notions of fair play and being role models. Meanwhile, banks and financial institutions continue to rip us off unabated. I hate to apply some type of half-baked neo-Marxist analysis to all of this, but does it seem like we are much more concerned with ensuring that our past-times are fair and above board than we are about making it that way in our real lives?  Seriously, can we just talk about the damn game? If not, I’m checking out until game time, when companies that spent millions of dollars for the privilege, attempt to sell me products I probably can’t afford.             

The Debate About The Debate:

The movie American Sniper opened in wide release this weekend, and sparked massive debate across the culture. Even though the movie set box office records for a January release, I'm fairly confident that many, if not most of the people lobbing rhetorical bombs at each other hadn't seen the movie. Let me start off by saying that I haven’t seen American Sniper, yet, either. I actually plan to; unfortunately, I’ll probably have to wait a week or two until I’m able to catch up on a few things, but Clint Eastwood’s Oscar-nominated film isn’t really the topic of this post. What I’m actually more interested in at the moment is the discussion (if it’s possible to call yelling, threats, snide remarks, and admonishments a discussion) that it has triggered.

The film based on the U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle’s bestselling book with the same title has been championed by conservatives as tribute to our nation’s veterans, and derided by liberals as an outright piece of propaganda, with some in the middle left disgusted at yet another example of the seemingly endless culture war, and wondering why everything in this country eventually becomes a political issue on which one must take sides. In what is becoming a habit for me, I’m left coming to the conclusion that everyone (at least the loudest opinions) is wrong. I realize that staking out such ground can leave one vulnerable and eventually without many allies, but hey, that wouldn’t be anything new to me, so here is my two cents on the debate about the debate.

It should go without saying that I find much of the spittle-flecked rage emanating from the right to be unacceptable. Author Lindy West detailed a few cases in her article in The Guardian, and I’ve seen a few examples stream through my own Twitter feed. The “America—love it or leave it” attitude isn’t anything new, but I will admit to being horrified at some of the bile being tossed at critics of the movie. Do these people really think that film critics should be raped and beheaded for offering their take on a movie? If so, considering the rhetoric employed to justify our ongoing military involvement in the Middle East, the accusations—including from Kyle himself—that our enemies are “savages,” then irony is truly dead, forever.

I have to take issue with the critiques from the left as well. Do they think that anyone but the already converted has the slightest bit of interest in having a decorated war hero labeled as a racist sociopathic serial killer? If politics is the art of persuasion, these folks didn’t simply miss the first day of class, they slept through entire semesters. While the image of Vietnam veterans being spat upon by war protestors as they returned home has been exposed as largely, if not entirely, an urban legend, commentary such as what has been directed at Kyle is likely part of the reason that such myths are so enduring. I’m not saying that service absolves a person from criticism for life, but I have no idea what is to be gained from attacking a serviceman’s record in the way that I have seen some commentators go after Kyle. I realize that Kyle’s public statements, in the form of his book, and elsewhere, are troubling to many, but as critics of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan should surely know, there are some fights that you simply cannot win. Critiques of the war, the reasoning behind it, and even the plan developed in the Department of Defense (or in the Vice-President’s Office, for that matter) are fair game, but beyond that you’re really not helping matters.

Then there is the vast middle. The folks that are dismayed that yet another topic has been turned into a left/right issue. They say that the film isn’t political. It’s a sentiment echoed by the film’s director and star. If they mean that the film isn’t political in the partisan sense, I’m willing to take them at their word for the moment (like I said, I haven’t seen it yet), but the argument that it isn’t political at all doesn’t seem to hold water for me. Art is inherently political, and a film that is nominated for multiple Academy Awards would certainly qualify as an effort aspiring to art. If a film about a real man, deeply involved in a recent/ongoing conflict, isn’t political, then I don’t know what is. So where does that leave us? Sadly, I think the answer is—one step farther down the road to the eventual realization that this isn’t one country, or even two, but several, which are now actively attempting to tear themselves apart. The ultimate consequences of that struggle are something I shudder to even ponder.

Change of Plans

I was planning on watching last night’s State of the Union Address. In fact, I had been planning it for weeks. I was going to have a notebook so I could jot down ideas to research afterwards. I was going to have Twitter up and running so I could share in some good old fashion partisan fist pumping with fellow Democrats. I was even going to pop popcorn to munch on while I partook in what can only be described as world-class political theater. Then for reasons I can’t quite explain, I changed my mind. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still going to watch the address (I am an admitted political junkie); it will just be later today as a recording.

I think that part of the reason I came to that decision is that it was simply an exercise in emotional self-defense. Watching a speaker with the talent of President Obama, it would have been easy to get caught up in the moment and forget that our current congress is an absolute dumpster fire, and any action taken to move the country forward will have to come from executive action, which will then be subject to scrutiny from a Supreme Court that is, at best, ambivalent about the interests of the average American. So to prevent myself from forgetting that the next two years are basically all about playing defense, and preventing the lunatics and vandals that make up the Republican Party from doing more damage than is absolutely inevitable, I’m going to watch it coolly detached, while sitting at my desk, this afternoon.

Of course, the President is sure to have made a number of attractive policy proposals. I just think that I prefer to analyze them on their own merits, uninfluenced by whether selected cable-news viewers liked the pitch well enough to turn the ridiculous ratings dials they’ve been furnished by our even more ridiculous punditocracy. Also, I absolutely didn’t need the image of Chris Matthews bloviating about the President’s ability to connect with “Joe Six-pack” or whatever euphemism for middle-aged white guy that he’s using this year, that close to bedtime.

I’ll almost certainly have a piece up later this week, discussing what I think is the most interesting, or promising, or potentially useful policy initiative. If you wanted breaking news, there are plenty of other places to go for that. I’m going to do my best to continue to discuss issues that I think are relevant, regardless if they took place a whopping two or three news-cycles ago. Besides, the season premiere of the final season of Justified was on last night. So at least my popcorn didn’t go to waste.

I Just Don’t Know If I Can Take It

This past week brought with it a gaggle of news related to potential 2016 presidential candidates. A white paper on economic policy was released from the continuing shadow-campaign of presumptive Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. 2012 Republican Nominee Mitt Romney has sent out trial balloons for another potential run at the White House. Mitt spent the weekend in California, where he and fellow Republican office seeker JebBush have begun the fund raising portions of their potential campaigns. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee generated controversy as he managed to simultaneously pander to social conservatives and dog whistle to the White Nationalist wing of the Republican base by criticizing the Obama family for allowing their teenage daughters to listen to the music of pop superstar Beyoncé (Here would be a good place to remind people that former Governor Huckabeeonce performed Cat Scratch Fever on Fox News with noted lunatic and aficionado of underage flesh Ted Nugent.). There were other “news” stories related to potential candidates, but I am honestly too depressed and exhausted to dive down the rabbit hole to find them. 

Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver the State of the Union address, and it will undoubtedly be the hottest news story for at least a news cycle or two, but sooner or later (my bet is definitely on sooner) the narrative will shift back to discussing the potential 2016 candidates, and what they had for breakfast or some equally unimportant “story” dressed up to resemble news. There are 658 days until the 2016 Presidential Election, and if you are curious why Americans are turned off from the political process, the next year and a half of what passes for journalism should give you a clue. I realize that the ongoing trench warfare that has come to typify Washington makes it difficult to feed the 24 hour news cycle, but for the love of God, that in and of itself is a story. We could actually discuss governance of the country, but that would require admitting that one party is not only preventing governance from occurring but is philosophically opposed to the entire concept. There are plenty of things that are wrong with our politics, but one of the most corrosive, in my opinion, is the perpetual campaign footing that Washington and our courtier press has established as the status quo. If this keeps up (and I’m sure it will), I’m going to be forced to spend my spare time counting the days until the start of Spring Training (That would be 28 days for those of you keeping track at home).

Now We Need To Make Them Pay

The new congress has been seated for a little more than two weeks, and their first order of business has been to attack vulnerable Americans by moving to cut payments to people eligible for Social Security Disability by nearly 20%. The decision is being framed as a way to protect seniors from lazy sloths unwilling to work, and justified as an effort to combat fraud in a system that Republicans say is rife with abuse. Democrats (and anyone concerned about the welfare of vulnerable people) must answer this challenge. Regardless of the false narrative put forward by some journalists and politicians, payments from the Social Security Disability Program are highly accurate with an error rate of less than 1%, and the program is not an easy giveaway to lazy people; only 41% of applicants are eventually approved for benefits with almost three quarters of applicants initially denied. For those who do qualify, this money is essential to their well-being. The program isn't charity or a giveaway, these people have paid into this system, and it needs to be there in their time of need the way it was promised.  

While the GOP appears to be attempting a strategy of divide and conquer, it is essential for Democrats, to hang this move around their neck like an albatross. We must remind seniors of the Republicans ongoing desire to privatize Social Security, and show this move for what it really is—an attempt to weaken the program so that they can eventually dismantle it. The grass roots need to be adamant about their stance that Social Security can only be strengthened, and that any attempt to weaken it will be met with not just complaints but with real consequences. Additionally, educational efforts should be conducted so that seniors are made aware of the efforts to undermine a program that is vital to their security. 

Fortunately, there is an option for ensuring the ongoing solvency of the program, and it will resonate with populist atmosphere currently spreading through the electorate; raise the limit on the amount of income subject to social security taxation. Currently, the limit is $118,500, with income above that threshold exempt from Social Security taxation. Eliminating that cap could close the gap in revenue by 90%,and would only affect the top 5.2% of workers. This needs to be an issue that is front and center as politicians are already gearing up for the 2016 election. A day shouldn’t go by that candidates aren’t asked about their plans to ensure the future of this program, and politicians that do not have satisfactory plans and solutions should not be let off of the hook. They say that Social Security is the “third rail” of American politics. The Republican Party hasn’t just touched it; they are making a public effort to break it. It’s essential that we make them pay a heavy price for that, while working to expand a program that is essential to the lives of millions of Americans.