Pandering to the 1%

    By PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 9:16am |

    We've made it part of our DNA, our running commentary that we shouldn't be pandering to the 1%, the white well-connected who seem to get all the favors from government.

    Yet here we are, after a year of pandering to 1% of the population, 2 of the whitest states in the Union, 1 of which subsists on government corn subsidies, ethanol supports and other handouts that would make a supposed welfare queen blanche, 3.4% unemployment. Its industry pretty much all revolves around food and livestock production, including supporting manufacturing, with typical huge industrial agro firms progressives love to hate (and the leading hog producer and egg producer that animal rights advocates love to infiltrate - now largely illegal), along with a strong Des Moines insurance industry. Central to Iowa's survival is the atrocious modern "factory farm", along with key enablers like exemption of "agricultural runoff" from the Clean Water Act, abetting the high level of nitrates and animal waste flowing into Des Moines water system. While corporate farms for produce are largely prohibited, they instead exist as "contract farms" that look but don't behave like private farms. The conservative governor has opted out of Medicare expansion (1 of 15 states to do so).

    Of course it's unlikely that Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton have addressed the cruelty and pollution of factory farms (link to 2015 report) or the high cost of agricultural subsidies (and how they flood out produce from 3rd world countries). Nope, it's which diner has the best coffee and who's most pro-farmer - 12-18 months of this manure. And while income inequality is a big topic on the campaign trail this year, it's doubtful that Bernie's talked directly to Iowa farmers about the growing inequality between owners and producers in their state. Being a straight shooter goes only so far if you want to hold on to your hat.

    The other state is white, rural (only 1 town barely over 100,000), tiny, but still well-connected (close enough to Boston to get its news and use its airport). No stop-and-frisk or #BLM problems, no cattle ranch or mining standoffs, no traffic jams, few military bases... 3.1% unemployment and #6 in median household income at $65K/year and unfazed by the 2008 crash that took away 20% or more of some states' earnings. The state has no income tax or sales tax, most of its income is derived from tourism, energy costs are cheap with 30% from inexpensive (subsidized) nuclear.

    These 2 peculiar, privileged and sheltered states are the target of most of our political debates every 4 years, eating into the political clock and dominating the issues while ignoring some of the bigger issues. When Ted Cruz or someone seemed hesitant about ethanol, that came close to being a disqualifier - which should be scandalous, but no one would say that.

    Only 15% of eligible Iowan Democrats will take place in the Caucus, and this peculiar system will require them to physically stand and move to a corner showing their candidate preference - which is peculiarly at odds with our concept of a private, uninfluenced vote. Which might be why 85% choose to pass.

    It's also peculiar that California, the largest state with many of the most pressing problems, and somewhat a bellweather for many of our concerns and progressive solutions, is simply bypassed as a point of interest in campaigning, since it's largely a given for choosing the Democratic candidate. That doesn't mean Hollywood or Silicon Valley types won't be hit up for donations, but actual campaigning? That would be a waste of time.

    Five states have 1/3 of the US population - CA, TX, FL, NY, IL. 15 states have 2/3. But we spend most of our energy on #30 and #41. True, Iowa now has 6% Hispanic population (does that come up in immigration & jobs talks? or only while unemployment is low?), but they'll probably not play a large part. Instead, we use these 2 improbable states that most Americans have never visited to be proxies for our larger issues.

    Does it work? Or is it just play-acting, like off-broadway in New Haven, trying to get the lines and script right? Sadly, probably neither. At one point, with longer timelines and slower decision making, the early contests were simply warm-up contests, like spring training in Florida. Now they've gained expectation beyond compare. Somehow, about 200,000 voters in Iowa and 200,000 independent & Democratic voters in New Hampshire will determine the tide and momentum for the approximate 80 million Democratic voters. While in reality it's not that drastic - South Carolina and Super Tuesday will have their say - it's still a huge event symbolically and media-wise and for fund-raising. It's a strange unrepresentative backdrop we've chosen to base our Democratic credentials on. We dislike the influence of the chose privileged few, yet we pander to another less-than-deserving privileged few. Any method to our madness?

    #FeelThePandermonium

    Comments

    Excellent, Peracles.

    But what you describe as an unrepresentative political farce which attracts more press coverage than the end of WWII is really the last vestige of freedom in this country.

    New Hampshire: "Live free or die". enough said.

    Iowa's motto: "Revere the walking dead, behold ye, they may yet rule" Palin, Bachman, Dean, Hubert Humphrey and Goldwater.  In Iowa a Canadian citizen with an Ivy League education and a wife who is an executive with Goldman Sachs has convinced 50,000 religious bigots that he has a plan to bring this country back to life---and that, dear Sir is the freedom upon which this country was founded.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 10:10am

    Can we do a mashup, like "Live free or zombify... don't shoot till you see the whites roll their eyes"?

    Was it Palin or Bachmann that had such quaint things to say about the colonialists at Concord Hill? Did you know Palin spelled sideways is rabbit in French? And that Humphrey is the world's biggest bunny? I start to see connections in everything. And just because I know Dick's waiting patiently to see some videos and was going to riff on that one with George Michaels & all the supermodels, but Pharrell won out... great visuals. Free? Dumb. Hum? Free. Bah? Hum. Bug. Free.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 11:08am

    I agree with Oxy, this is a great piece, but there is a downside that you haven't acknowledged. Big states like California are expensive. The airtime is expensive. The venues are expensive. The hotels are expensive. The staffers are expensive. Moreover, the size of the population dilutes the impact of personal interaction. Speeches and rallies can only reach so many people, so you have to rely more on media spots and huge stadium events in big cities--which are expensive. In short, primaries in big states favor candidates with the most money and name recognition. Is that something we want to encourage?


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 1:33pm

    Big expense for usually predetermined outcome. I understand the logic, especially within the current structure. Then again, this argument is that talking to a lot of people is expensive, but talking to a few people over and over for a year or more ain't that bad. Is it a wonder we don't get coattails across the nation? Instead of media buys, we'll give California and Texas sloppy seconds of New Hampshire and Iowa events - but then we're not addressing their issues of immigration, oil, massive manufacturing, shipping, huge health care systems, et al. What do CA, FL and Tx think about doing single payer the next 2 years- their medical expenses and enrollment possibly make up 1/3 of the National expense and headcount of retirees, all those sunbirds... What do they think about the free trade agreements along with NY and MI? That covers maybe half our foreign trade. Yeah, representation and asking people's opinion is expensive, but it's a lot cheaper with OTT video events and Internet surveys and chat groups than traditional media buys, but at some point they still want to see your face, feel you out in person or at least feel like their situation warrants at least an instate visit that isn't just about support for somewhere else. Gore should have owned it based on global warming and high tech growth in CA, but his whole message came out last-gen Rust Belt...

    Of course ignoring Idaho and west Virginia and Kansas ain't great either.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 1:57pm

    I doubt that primary electioneering has much impact on national policy. Iowa and New Hampshire get their moment in the sun once every four years and then go back to being small, political insignificant states. Most big states have not been clamoring to move up their primaries because frankly, it doesn't matter very much. (Yes, Iowa benefits from generous ethanol programs but that has far more to do with legislative horse-trading than presidential politics.)

    The real consequence of IA and NH getting the first votes is the effect on the presidential race itself, for they have an outsize role in determining the direction of the election (which is not to say that they get to determine the outcome of the election, obviously). Their influence has some obvious drawbacks, such as the prominence of wackadoodle candidates from Pat Buchanan to Ted Cruz. But they can also boost not-so-wackadoodle candidates who happen not to be the establishment favorites. Would Obama have stood a chance if CA, NY, and TX had the first primaries? I doubt it.

    So I'm all for shaking up the order, but I think there's good reason to keep kicking off with small, idiosyncratic states.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 3:55pm

    Perhaps there's a question to ask first - what's our goal? To allow more diverse candidates a chance? To field the strongest candidate? To give more states representation? To promote Democratic (liberal/progressive/slightly left-of-center/???) ideas the best? To give Democrats the best chance of winning? To best support the wishes of people across America? To have a more interesting primary season? To tackle the biggest industry and economic and personal and state issues? To boost TV ratings?

    As per usual or at least often, my purpose here is less to proffer a preferred way or tear down the current, but to point out a bit of a perverse hypocrisy in our stated beliefs, and to think about the process a bit more aside from the age-old questions surrounding the Electoral College. Why do we do it this way, and are we happy with the results?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 5:10pm

    I don't like the nominating system much but to call IA and NH privileged is a stretch.  Have you spent much time in downtown Des Moines?  How about in Canaan, NH, where I was yesterday?  I kinda doubt the folks living in shotgun prefab homes there think of themselves in the 1-percent.  Iowa ranks 24th in the nation in terms of average income.  NH is much higher to my surprise at 6th.  Possibly this is because of the relatively wealthy and expensive outer Boston suburbs.  But there are plenty of struggling people here as well.  In fact, the explanation for New Hampshire's relatively high median income is not a high percentage of wealthy people but a relatively low percentage of extremely poor ones.  https://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/09/23/is-new-hampshire-a-...  In any case, do you have any solution for the problem you describe in your post?


    by HSG on Sun, 01/31/2016 - 6:07pm

    Hal, they're largely privileged by being white, as I think you've probably noted over your career, and they're privileged by being low-poverty, low debt, low foreclosure, low slum, low crime, low conflict. They're also privileged by having the candidates flock around them for over a year to ask them what they want every presidential cycle. That you can find a few poor homes in New Hampshire doesn't negate that the state overall is economically privileged, and you prove that by noting relatively low percentage of extremely poor ones. If there were 1 thing we might learn from NH is how to avoid extreme poverty, but a) I don't think we're trying to learn secrets from these folk - we're getting their wish lists of what would make their lives more comfy, and b) I think structurally and culturally they're not set up to even experience the issues that Boston or Houston or Butte or Tucson experience. Iowa is a different kind of story as I laid out - we could be divining the cures for rampant agro-industrialization of the heartland, worker rights, pollution control - but I don't hear much of this arising, as that'd risk alienating these pampered first voters, so we'll discuss who has the best porkchops or biscuits & gravy.

    But of course the whole column was based on a "stretch", or a different way of looking at things by co-opting the "1%" to mean something other than accepted use - do you have trouble seeing a literary/rhetorical tool for what it is? I have trouble with dominance of one group or other in most things. I'm against massive Mexican immigration because I'm for diverse immigration from around the world. I'm against the excessive attention to 2 minor boring states at the expense of needed attention to say Missouri's issues post-Ferguson - what have we learned, aside from #BLM interrupting a speech and some quickly made supportive sound bites? Little that translates to policy around policing and handling racism and poverty in America, issues we'll find little of in New Hampshire and Iowa.

    I'm sure people would bust a gut if one of 2 first primaries were held in Alabama or Mississippi, but maybe the Democratic Party would learn some tidbits that could give it a new compelling strategy for the south, which is largely abandoned since the Clinton/Gore years as Tea Party land/the depths of Mordor. If the schedule is to give more voice to "little states", perhaps it could switch to Wyoming or Montana for one year, to Rhode Island for another, to Alaska for the followup.... Maybe we could have states compete like college football does with Bowl Games or countries do to host the Olympics. How's that for a "solution"? And do you acknowledge it as a "problem"?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 1:43am

    If we could actually decide on a state to start things off each cycle based on the current need of the country that they might best represent, this time around I'd choose Michigan. Just imagine ...


    by barefooted on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 2:04am

     

    Poor and struggling Granite staters don't perceive themselves as privileged and neither do I. Since you do, what particular privileges would you take away from them?


    by HSG on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 3:53pm

    Welcome to my world. Sanders seems to be the choice of many here.  It just depends on how they do early voting as to how many will be able to get to the polls. It is hard to perceive privilege when you are poor.

    Thank you for door knocking. This is turning out to be a well run campaign.  


    by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 5:02am

    I sympathize with your personal situation, and insurance is one area where NH doesn't seem privileged if you read the state reports. Maybe Bernie's been surveying the neighborhood.

    http://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/new-hampshire-2015-report/


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 5:26am

    Hal, Wall Street bankers didn't see themselves as privileged, nor do racist white southerners/supremacists, and you would tax everyone up the wazoo given the chance anyway. What *wouldn't* you take away to give back in a government program?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 6:03am

    Overpaid Wall Street bankers may not see themselves as privileged but they are.  I would take away their privileges by taxing them at very high levels on the margins.  I would not raise taxes on people making less than $75-$100K notwithstanding your claim that I would "tax everyone up the wazoo".  In fact, I would probably cut them since I oppose sales taxes on most items. 

    What exactly would you take away from privileged Walmart clerks being paid $8.25/hour who supplement their income with SNAP?  How about privileged folks who are barely above the poverty line but can't get Obamacare because their Republican governor refuses to accept funds to expand Medicaid?  What would you take away from them?


    by HSG on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 8:37am

    I'd take away their guaranteed 1st in line for the caucus/primary season. I'm fine with $12 or more minimum wage, so they might even see a pay raise. I'm also fine with pushing to make ACA universal and other tweaks to lower the threat of health catastrophe and somehow override the governor opt-out.

    Most of the folks in these states may not see themselves as privileged, but they are, though you have to ask the question "compared to what?" I specified the overall chummy access to national politicians every 4 years and the relative higher income over other states, and the safer, less threatened economies, and for many the privilege of being white. 

    BTW - I meant to write how strange it is that the caucus is open vote, so all the agro-factory-farm types know who's supporting the socialist or the establishment gal or part of the Republican tent - no room for repercussions there, right?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 9:41am

    Hal, you've been in New Hampshire a lot?

    You found one or two shot gun cottages there?

    From my perspective, Canaan, N.H., is one step away from idyllic. Don't judge a house by the paint. To a New Englander's point of view---frugality---they half-sole their shoes and drive used cars---because that's the way they are---painting a house drives up taxes. I knew a guy who emptied the pool that came with the house and figured out a way to raise fish in it.

    For anyone interested, go to Zillow, search Canaan---by the way in New England if you know the territory there is "town" and there is "village", settlements within the town. See if you can find that shotgun cottage.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 1:50pm

    Oxy - if you're in a rough spot, I am very sorry.  I certainly did not exaggerate the circumstances of the folks in Canaan.  I'm sorry I didn't take some pics to document the situation but I felt it would have been intruding on the privacy of the friendly people I met.   Per Trulia, 26% of the homes in Canaan are valued at under $100,000 and 14% below $50,000.  Nearly all of the houses that I saw were prefab - some double-wide, some single-wide (hence shotgun).

    Here are links to a couple of houses for sale that are similar to ones I saw. 

    http://www.trulia.com/property/3218186172-112-Graceville-Rd-Canaan-NH-03...

    http://www.trulia.com/property/1096313952-395-Fernwood-Farms-Rd-Canaan-N...

     

     


    by HSG on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 3:21pm

    Not to carry on about this but the issue was are they better off. By idyllic I mean the whole atmosphere, extra land, national forest, some kind of employment for most folks. my impression is that on the whole, life is good there. You've got the Dartmouth medical complex not far away in Hanover, and outreach clinics. New England's protocol and cooperation in heart disease and strokes is a model for the country. And when all else is dire, you cut firewood and hunker down. This town is far better off, imo, than the rural town here in Texas where I am experimenting with owner-built small houses.

    And of course there are five houses out of 75 that are for sale below the 100 K level. The flatlanders have grabbed most of the good stock and inflated it beyond the reach of locals and maybe you can correct that with Bernie's policies but I doubt it. One advantage of those flatlanders paying lots of property and school taxes is that I'm betting the school system there is way above average---but that's a guess.

    #2 is a sad relic, and unfortunately close to a tear down because the foundation on the original building is shot,and the extensions look pretty sad. My guess is that it's priced for the value of the 15 acres. Still, depending upon equity, $85K cash is more than chump change.

    If you're interested I have a house in Vermont that is languishing, circa 1850, original 10 by 10 hemlock beams, and at this point it's full of books. Maybe I should be pushing for Bernie, if he's elected President maybe Vermont will become a hot real estate market.(kidding, maybe i'll move back there, 95 miles from the Dartmouth Medical facility---i'm a careful planner when it comes to health)


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 4:51pm

    You're ruining his disgruntlement, and I suspect he doesn't have guns and religion to fall back on. Then again...


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 4:56pm

    Well, if instead of Caanan he had picked Lake Winnepesaukee with it's enclave of Wall Street assholes, I would be a lot more convinced of the need for redistribution.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 5:13pm

    Yeah, but he went all Biblical on you and got you worked up. "Go down, Moses",  "Absalom, Absalom" - a lot of room for a revival. Foot stomping music - if you're Amish.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 6:20pm

    I wrote in my comment I don't like the nominating process so obviously I think it's a problem. Since you brought it up, I thought you might have a workable solution. Alternating which states go first, limiting the length of time when candidates can campaign to say 90 days, holding 10 primaries from a mix of states on 5 successive Tuesdays come to mind as possible answers.


    by HSG on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 5:02am

    Latest Comments