• BALLARD
    • motor court
    • the republic of dogs
    • bonus expeditionary force
    • ghost
  • Books
  • Film
  • Life
  • Music
  • Politics
  • Writing

BALLARD

~ A series of speculative e-novellas by Mike Kiley

BALLARD

Category Archives: Politics

All Tomorrow’s Parties

07 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by mikekiley in Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Since I cannot imagine anyone less qualified than I am to give political advice, I will not presume to suggest for whom you should vote tomorrow (or cast any judgment on you for whom you may already have voted). But, in spite of the fact that for the first time in my adult life I will not be voting in a Presidential election, I will presume to offer some humble thoughts about our most recent exercise in quadrennial hilarity.

On the eve of the coronation of Ms. Clinton we can probably all now admit that we knew this was the way it would turn out. With every major “mainstream” media outlet behind her, almost every Wall St. dollar in her pocket, and a good portion of even the Republican punditocracy kowtowing for possible cabinet appointments, it was difficult to imagine a different outcome. Early on, Sanders was a surprise, a hiccup who was dealt with quickly and efficiently at the highest levels of the Democratic party. And then came Trump. A god-send. She could not have imagined in her most pie-in-the-sky wishlists that Fuckface von Clownstick would emerge from the 17-candidate dung heap of the Republican party primary process.

She survived the Wikileaks/FBI/email issues because they did not offer any new information. If a “scandal” simply reinforces what we already believe (politicians are crooked, on the take, talking out of both sides of their mouths) then we tend to dismiss it. The Clintons may be more whorish than most politicians but probably not by that much. And, after all, we shouldn’t forget the single most important factor in her victory: she is not Donald Trump. She will take office as the most disliked and least trusted President in our history and she will have gotten there in large part by having had the good fortune of running against a buffoon.

So, what will the Clinton (II) administration look like?

There is one party left in America: the War Party. And Hillary Clinton is its current head. The War Party believes in American exceptionalism. In spite of our crumbling infrastructure, our declining life expectancy, our skyrocketing incarceration rate, our microscopic K-12 test scores, and an income inequality that is greater than at any time in our history (save for the months immediately before the Great Depression), the War Party soldiers on, convinced of our destiny to police the world. But America’s exceptionalism these days lies chiefly in one arena: our ability to wage war. There are Democrats in this party, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, neocons. They all have one thing in common: they believe, with modest variations of shading and emphasis, in the status quo, in the essential right-ness of our national apple cart. That the cart is filled with rotting fruit and about to hurtle off the edge of a cliff is no concern of theirs. They understand that there is no vision of America and freedom and democracy which cannot be imposed by a Sidewinder or enforced by a squadron of remotely-piloted drones. Over the past few decades, under Presidents of both parties, the War Party has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians; under Hillary Clinton, you can expect that number to increase, as America’s Forever War marches on, grounding the bones of black and brown children to dust.

And at home, Hillary will be in a position to complete the destruction of the American Left begun by her husband. In the 1980’s, Bill was instrumental in remaking the Democratic Party out of the smoldering embers of the Mondale and Dukakis defeats. As President, he dismantled the social welfare safety net and laid the foundation for the national prison state. These are Hillary’s instincts, too. Her administration will embolden corporations over people, will extend the domestic surveillance of our citizens, and will fail to reverse the rising tide of income inequality, since to do so would be to threaten the hegemony of her biggest donors. For shits and giggles, she may very well tinker around the edges of Social Security and Medicare, too. In general, as is the case with every American President, if you are already well-off, you will fare well under Hillary Clinton; if you’re not, you’ll slip a little further down the rungs of an increasingly slippery ladder.

While I thrilled this past winter and spring to Bernie’s improbable ride, I must also admit that I savored the Trump phenomenon. The Trump-as-Hitler hyperbole was great entertainment; the Trump-as-Manchurian-Candidate narrative even more of a hoot. As he blazed his way through the gaggle of stunned Rubios, Bushes, and Cruzes, laying bare the naked truth of the party he’d hijacked (that he was not an anomaly but rather the logical and horrific conclusion to decades worth of hate-filled rhetoric), Trump’s snake oil salesman act was pitch-perfect and the political theater he provided was brilliant.

But moving into the general election campaign, I began to change the way I looked at him, because it became less about him and more about his “movement.” Who were these people? Was 40-45% of the country really ready to cast their lot with this obviously pathetic reality show cast-off? I began to feel empathy for people so desperate, so devoid of any faith in our systems, that they would howl such a gigantic inchoate “fuck you” at the nation that had abandoned them, that was laughing at them every night in all the hippest media, that saw them as opiate-addicted trailer-park losers who necessarily needed to be kicked to the curb in our race into the new global economy?

People are beginning to sense that things are broken, that “opportunity” is not what it once was, that “the system” is “rigged,” in that the world is rocketing past entire industries of workers, and that our government is not helping. Some folks can articulate it; others just feel the weight of a terrible truth on their shoulders. People on both sides of the American political spectrum, those who followed Bernie Sanders, and those who support Donald Trump, have more in common than might be imagined. It is the genius of our system that these two groups of people were kept apart, were kept from recognizing their common interests, were kept from combining their forces and doing pitched battle with the “establishment.” Which is why the prospect of the next Donald Trump is so fascinating: imagine a Trump who was just a little less racist, sexist, a bit less of a xenophobe, leading a tribe of people who were convinced that the game was rigged against them, that they were never in fact going to get theirs, that the American dream of working hard and getting ahead was over … and imagine that tribe combining with a truly progressive left led by the next Bernie Sanders, a left led by young people who had grown up in an internet age, who saw no value whatsoever in old orders, alliances, or even of political parties themselves. This combination would represent a true populist movement in America, one committed to a rational stance on defense and foreign affairs, one willing to invest in the country’s future, one recognizing the importance of attacking income inequality and strengthening a safety net capable of providing basic levels of care and subsistence.

(A brief parenthetical note: think for a moment about the next Trump. Imagine 4 or 8 or 12 years from now. Automation, driverless cars, and robotics in general are well on their way to eliminating an entire swath of the American labor force. Sure, there will be new jobs … but who will fill them, who will be technically adept enough to adapt to that new landscape? Think back to the economic pressure that this year led to the Sanders and Trump campaigns and ratchet up that pressure by orders of magnitude … how do you think the American electorate is going to respond then? Will we still stomach whichever “establishment” candidate is crammed down our throats … or will we resist?)

There was one lasting effect of the Wikileaks revelations. They may not have sunk Hillary but they are a death-knell for the “mainstream media.” The extent of the corruption of our “journalists” by politicians was breathtaking. The internet was killing off the old-guard, anyway, but its execution date was sped up considerably by the realization of just how deeply in bed once-revered publications and networks are with the campaigns they cover. The scales have been lifted from our eyes and the American people will no longer give the benefit of the doubt to any news source, no matter how formerly “respected” they might be. 2016 was the year in which more clearly than ever before “journalism” became “public relations.”

We now live in informational enclaves of our own creation. The tendency to secrete ourselves behind walls that began with talk radio and Fox News has now spread everywhere with a virulent irresistibility. Our feeds are curated for us, based on our preferences, our friends are confirmed/maintained by virtue of our ability to agree with them, and our anxiety at the prospect of the “other” drives us scurrying to sources of information which echo back the version of reality we most want to believe in, that we are most comfortable with.

Once again this year, we have seen the uncanny way that we all succumb to fear-mongering and are thereafter led to voting against our own interests. (A corollary to this phenomenon is the tendency for poor Americans of different colors to tear each other apart rather than to unite in the realization that their government does not represent their interests.) We are enthralled by the “horse race” and more than willing to buy into the quadrennial proposition that this is the most important election of our lifetimes and that victory by the other side would mean the end of civilization as we know it. This would have been my 11th vote cast for a presidential candidate. On all previous 10 occasions, and cynic that I am, I had been made to believe that the election I was participating in was a matter of life and death. This obsession with fear and outcomes blinds us to the fact that our candidates are simply replaceable pawns of the oligarchy. Our attention ought to be on: my god, how did we get here? Instead, we are driven to focus on: my god, we can’t let him win.

I have both despaired at and been cheered by this election. On the one hand, as someone who believes that our politics needs a complete re-build, it saddens me that in this age of the outsider, the insurgent, we are putting the most establishment candidate imaginable into the White House. Will things never change? On the other hand, though, the candidacies of Sanders and Trump are thrilling expressions of ordinary people swimming upstream against every force aligned against them by the political elite. These people have expressed a fundamentally dissenting view of our democracy. In our safe havens of groupthink in Santa Monica or Berkeley or Ann Arbor or Austin or Brooklyn, we may be disgusted by Trump … but we sell ourselves short if we do not try to understand why our fellow citizens decided that he was their answer.  And perhaps in the process even feel a bit of empathy for their plight.

Maybe the seeds of something lie in these groups who dissented … maybe the much-maligned (especially by the Clintonistas) “millennials” will refuse to recognize the primacy of corrupt political parties and will begin to build something new, a politics based more on immediacy, connectivity, and transparency.

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Candidate Statements—United States Senate

01 Sunday May 2016

Posted by mikekiley in Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2016, california, election, guide, information, primary, senate, voter

845f4798c5b16a8499834c95cc0badfe

 

There are currently 34 declared candidates in California for the seat of Barbara Boxer, who is retiring after having served four terms in the U.S. Senate. 21 of these 34 candidates have submitted Statements to the public via the Official Voter Information Guide, issued by the California Secretary of State, for the primary election on June 7, 2016. 15 of the 21 Statements are boring; 6 of them (appearing in full below) are not.

In 2014 I made some observations about the sample ballot for the “mid-term” primary held that year in California. I complained in that post about the ordinariness of the Candidate Statements in 2014. This year, the following half-dozen people have more than made up for that lack.

I admire these candidates and think that they make up in earnestness what they may lack in political polish. I wish them all well in their respective campaigns.

-1-

“Rescue America! Rescue America!! Rescue America!!! Californian! Let us together rescue America from turning into a third world country. Enough is enough of American deep suffering. People in Washington has collapsed this country. Therefore, electing Dr. Akinyemi Agbede, as your next United States senator representing the golden state of California 2016 is the answer in order for our country to be reclaimed back.”

—Åkinyemi Olabode Agbede, Democrat, www.americamustregainitsgreatness2016.com

There are many things to love about this Statement. My favorite is the use of “Californian.” Dr. Agbede could have used the plural form, but he chose rightly here: his message is made more personal, as if he had just grabbed you by the lapel and whispered, “Californian!”

-2-

“Run for God’s heart and America’s Freedom, challenge 10 giant chaos in economy and economy-related sectors.”

—Ling Ling Shi, No Party Preference, www.wellsARK.com

There are many, MANY different kinds of chaos in the world but perhaps none is quite so challenging as “10 giant chaos.” This woman is clearly a connoisseur of chaos, and we could do worse than entrust our future to her.

-3-

“I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I stand for the poor, elderly, and disabled, environmental issues, unions, small business, , and represent the average citizen. My website is http://www.alternativevoicesforamerica.org

—Tim Gildersleeve, No Party Preference, www.alternativevoiceforamerica.org

Wait. A follower of Christ who actually seems to espouse the principles of Christ’s teachings? What’s the catch?

-4-

“My education and expertise merits this prolific occupation in order to represent California, as United States Senator. I hold a Democratic Party platform with key issues for gun control, human trafficking, balancing the national deficit, and foreign policy initiatives. I am mainstream Facebook in social media! My core values drive America!

—President Cristina Grappo, Democrat, https://www.facebook.com/people/President-Cristina-Nicole-Grappo/100002770317473

While this is a wonderful Statement (perhaps my favorite this year), I am truly at sea as to why a woman who was already President would want to be a Senator. And, for the record, I, too, am mainstream Facebook in social media … but, really, aren’t we all?

-5-

“01100101”

—Jason Hanania, No Party Preference, www.jasonhanania.com

In computer binary code “01100101” apparently means “e,” as in the letter e. According to his website, Mr. Hanania is making a statement about e-voting.

-6-

“My platform is narrow. It’s more of a single board, really. Federal legislators are doing nothing to protect us from the threat of climate change. I will not do nothing. I swear on the graves of future Californians that I will not sacrifice our actual climate to our political climate.”

—Mike Beitiks, No Party Preference, www.iwillnotdonothing.org

This narrow platform/single board joke is the best one in the 2016 Guide. I may very well vote for Mr. Beitiks because I, too, am concerned by climate change. I also tip my hat to someone whose slogan is “I Will Not Do Nothing.” There is something refreshing about that promise.

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

The will of the people …

29 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by mikekiley in Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

clinton, cruz, sanders, trump

I was watching Meet the Press and Face the Nation every Sunday morning by the time I was 9 or 10. By choice, if you can imagine. That’s the kind of geek I was. At 12, I ran for and won the vice-presidency of my elementary school. Later that same year, in the Spring of 1968, I was handing out “literature” for Robert F. Kennedy in my neighborhood in the fascist heart of Orange County, California. (Even at that young age I was a glutton for punishment.)

And then RFK was assassinated. Undeterred, I started high school that fall with a fire in my belly about race riots, Vietnam, and the war on poverty. I ran for something (Secretary? Treasurer?) that first year in a new school … and was unceremoniously defeated by a girl who was smarter and cuter and infinitely more popular than I. And so it was over almost before it started, my career as a boy politician.

(I did come out of “retirement” briefly in 1982 to hand out buttons and bumper stickers for Gore Vidal’s campaign for Senate … but I was no longer a true “believer;” I just liked the idea of a Senator from California who’d written Myra Breckenridge.)

I’ve voted in every presidential election beginning in 1976. But not until 2008 did I vote for a presidential candidate who won. With the sole exception of 2008, I have voted Democratic when a Republican has won, and Green, Libertarian, or Peace and Freedom when a Democrat has won. So, if you’re in the business of wagering on politics, consider my choice … and then bet the farm on the opposite candidate.

(I did vote Republican once, in 1996, for Bob Dole; partly because of my hatred for Slick Willie, and partly because at one of the last rallies of his campaign, when it was clear that he would lose, Dole let fly an off-the-cuff description of some children near his podium as “these cute little tax deductions up here.”)

But, over the last couple of decades, having finally realized that our politics do not produce elected officials whose primary focus is representing the needs of their constituents, I now find it easy to separate myself from the “horse race” aspects of campaigns and take a wider view. Since it is my opinion that this system is fatally flawed, I generally root for chaos, which is why I’ve enjoyed so thoroughly Mr. Trump’s Wild Ride through the GOP primaries.

It was apparent early on that there was NO FUCKING WAY his party would allow him to become their nominee. And now that their various methods of “stealing” the nomination from him are revealing themselves, we are in for a great deal of fun between now and the Republican convention in July. I will be sad to see Mr. Trump go. I never thought he would get even this far and I thank him for the memories: his odious blather has exceeded my wildest imaginings, and the unrepentant xenophobic racism his followers evince is a thing of terrible beauty. My lone remaining wish for the GOP is a convention in which they complete the task of ripping themselves to shreds.

(My chief fear, on the other hand, is the unlikely event that their nominee will be Mr. Cruz. Those of you who decry the hysterical antics of The Donald better be careful of what you wish for: Mr. Cruz is FAR more dangerous than Mr. Trump and would likely lead us down a thorny path to a Christian evangelical version of Shariah Law.)

On the Democrat side, it’s a far different kettle of fish. Mr. Sanders is an ideal candidate in many ways. I agree with most of his positions and find his geriatric hippie cool utterly charming. His reaction to “Birdie Sanders” landing on his lectern in Seattle was priceless; you just knew this was a good dude. It is also a tribute to Mr. Sanders’ basic decency that, when confronted with an opponent who is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the corporatist stranglehold on our elections (Ms. Clinton), he has almost without exception taken the high road and confined his critiques of her to their differences in policy, rather than tearing into her putrefying carcass as a lesser man would.

Is there no possibility that, having in 2008 elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, the nation might find it in its collective heart to elect a 74-year-old Jewish democratic socialist? Probably not, since every tool in his own party’s arsenal is arrayed against him. He will almost certainly not get the nomination, and Democrats will be left with Ms. Clinton, a weak candidate with no ability to inspire whose only hope (and it is a considerable one) is that the Republicans will nominate someone so ridiculous that she can serpentine through the assorted land mines of the general election unscathed and assume the mantle that she believes is justly hers.

In a very real sense, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders represent “the will of the people” this year. They are the ones whose stories are resonating and whose campaigns have energized their respective parties. The very real possibility that neither of them will emerge from this hellish season as nominees may make the general election an exercise in ennui and disaffection. Young people, especially, are likely to stay home in droves.

Which brings me to my final observation: might the shenanigans of this year ensure the destruction of BOTH political parties? If everyone, from white redneck meth-heads in Tennessee to Bernie Bro stoners in Colorado, feels that their parties have overridden their votes, what is likely to happen? A further retreat from politics in which our already anemic voter turnout levels shrink even further? Or an open rebellion against the idea that parties are needed at all, since their only function may seem to many to be to deprive the people of their choices?

The internet has broken down nearly all barriers between “performer” and “audience,” compromising the power of record labels, movie studios, and other “middlemen.” Is it not possible that social media and “virality” may likewise spell doom for our aged two-party system?

Lover of chaos that I am, I certainly hope so.

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

My Sample Ballot

07 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by mikekiley in Politics

≈ Leave a comment

I just received via email my sample ballot for the June 3rd primary in California. As a public service for those of you who may not have the time or inclination to review this document, I offer some of the highlights:

1) The following people are running for Governor of California:

an Assemblyman
a Small Business Owner
a Doctoral Student
a Real Estate Investor
a Psychologist/Farmer
an Author/Non-Profit Director
a Golf Course Operator
an Author/Community Organizer
a Project Funding CEO
a Governor
a Minister/Business Owner
a Small Business Owner
a Business Owner/Engineer
a Businessman

Now, this is a tough one. I always immediately eliminate anyone who is in politics or has “Business” in their title. That takes us down to:

the Doctoral Student
the Real Estate Investor
the Psychologist/Farmer
the Author/Non-Profit Director
the Golf Course Operator
the Author/Community Organizer
the Project Funding CEO

Since I am an author and can imagine no one less qualified to be Governor than I am, I can cross the two Authors off the list. And I think that the Student ought to spend more time on campus because those years are so special and so s/he is out. I don’t know what a “Project Funding CEO” is, so that person’s gone. And Real Estate Investor is too boring for me to leave on any list. So we’re down to:

the Psychologist/Farmer
vs.
the Golf Course Operator

I’ve thought long and hard about this. At first I was smitten with the idea of a Golf Course Operator taking the reins of Our Great State. I’ve spent a lot of time on golf courses over the years and made the acquaintance of some fine Operators in the process. Ultimately, however, I decided that I will cast my vote for the Psychologist/Farmer, for the sole reason that I cannot imagine two otherwise respectable occupations which when combined in one person are more ridiculous.

2) I will be voting for a Security Guard for Lieutenant Governor, over a Father/Software Developer, and a Scientist/Businessman/Parent.

3) There is a Dad/Designer running for Secretary of State. Suffice to say, he will receive at least one vote on June 3rd: mine.

4) There’s someone running for Attorney General who lists no occupation at all. That sounds good to me!

5) There are 15 different Judicial slots on the sample ballot. Typically, most of the people running for these Offices are Prosecutors. This year, I’ve noticed something different: the Prosecutors are not just Prosecutors. They are Gang Homicide Prosecutors, Violent Crimes Prosecutors, Criminal Homicide Prosecutors, Major Narcotics Prosecutors, Gang Murder Prosecutors (as distinct from the aforementioned Gang Homicide Prosecutors, one would presume), Criminal Gang Prosecutors, Sexual Predator Prosecutors, Child Molestation Prosecutors, and Government Corruption Prosecutors. I’m sure that all these Prosecutors are sufficiently morally outraged at the heinous criminals they must come into contact with every day … but how to choose among them? In one contest a Gang/Homicide Attorney is running against a Criminal Gang Prosecutor, and a Gang Homicide Prosecutor. I have resolved this year to skip all the Judicial races.

6) There are no candidates whatsoever with colorful occupations in the elections for Insurance Commissioner, Treasurer, Controller, School Superintendent, Assessor, or Sheriff. Needless to say, I will be skipping all these as well.

7) The biggest disappointments in this year’s sample ballot are the Candidate Statements. These Statements usually contain paranoid ravings, childish rantings, theological diatribes, and apocalyptic warnings about what will befall us if we don’t stem the tide of illegal drugs, illegal immigrants, and other things which aren’t illegal currently but by God ought to be. This year, however, the Statements are uniformly and unremittingly competent.

(However, in the interests of accuracy, I must add that Statements were not submitted by either the Psychologist/Farmer or the Golf Course Operator. They would have no doubt livened things up at least a bit.)

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

The BALLARD Experience

  • About
  • Where To Buy
  • Free Samples
  • Screenplay
  • The Characters
  • motor court
  • the republic of dogs
  • bonus expeditionary force
  • ghost

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • BALLARD
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • BALLARD
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: