Republicans lost their bid for the Presidency, and also lost two seats in the Senate. Republicans did not come close to losing control of the House, but when all of the vote counting and recounts are hashed out over the coming days and weeks, it appears that they will have lost 8 or more seats in a year when the states where Republicans controlled post-census redistricting (read gerrymandering) outnumbered states where Democrats controlled it 2:1. When a party LOSES seats in a year where they had the opportunity to re-draw districts in their favor in significantly more states than their opponents, they are clearly doing something wrong. (For some seriously nerdy wonkery on 2011 redistricting/reapportionment and how it theoretically should have helped Republicans, see here.)
Mind you, all of these losses occurred in an election year when the economy, in a word, sucks — which is normally bad for the party of the incumbent President.
That’s important data, but not the only data. It’s also important to note exactly where the Republicans held their ground or even gained a little since 2008: As Jon Stewart quipped Tuesday night, “Most of the Confederacy went for Mitt Romney.”
But I think the most revealing facts of all lie in the demographics: Romney earned 59% of the white vote, and lost every other race/ethnicity demographic by a large margin. (Reagan was elected when 90% of voters were white, and Romney would have won decisively with similar demographics — but only 72% of this year’s voters were white, a downward trend that will certainly continue for years to come.) Romney earned 55% of men’s votes: 60% or higher among white men, and much, much, much higher for over-forty, middle-to-upper income white men. But he earned only 44% of women’s votes, most of those concentrated among older, white, married women. (Unfortunately, I can’t find any access to exit polling raw data yet where the real demographic details lie: The link to the Sacramento Bee’s AP exit poll graphic only has categories like sex and race, not cross-correlations. Maybe I’ll dig into that data when it becomes available later in the week and update this paragraph.)
But this isn’t just about the Presidential votes and demographics. Two Republican Senate candidates who formerly had leads in the polls saw those leads evaporate and wound up losing on election day after they made comments exposing their real views about women. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin lost in Missouri and Richard “Rape Pregnancies are God’s Will” Mourdock lost in Indiana. (INDIANA! The most consistently red of red states!) Mind you, they only lost because they happened to explicitly express in public the kind of reasoning that underlies the official Republican Party platform, which seeks to criminalize all abortions and makes no exception for women pregnant by rape.
Also, *every* vote on marriage-rights-related state ballots came down in favor of marriage equality for gay men and women. And voters elected our nation’s first openly gay Senator, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. And two women from religious minorities were elected as well: Senator Mazie Hirono (the first Buddhist in the Senate) and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (the first Hindu in the House), both of Hawaii.
There are a number of ways to interpret this broad array of results, but most of those explanations are partial and inadequate. For example, this broad pattern of voting does not simply indicate a rejection of the Republican economic policies that got us into our current mess, because that wouldn’t explain why white men believed Romney’s supply-side voodoo economics nonsense while other demographics rejected it. Nor would that narrative explain the thrashing of rape apologist Senators, nor marriage equality victories. Ditto for explanations about Republican intransigence and obstructionism in Congress: Why did only some voter segments see that as problematic? And what does that have to do with the differences in voting based on race and gender?
The one factor that unifies ALL these election results is this: Securing the votes of the privileged is not enough to win American elections any more. Political rhetoric and policy proposals primarily aimed at the socioculturally privileged are doomed to fail because the electorate has changed: the privileged no longer have the numerical dominance to go with their other relative advantages in life. Appealing to male privilege alienates women, who vote in ever-increasing numbers — so anti-choice extremism plays poorly with the electorate as a whole. Appealing to white privilege alienates both racial minorities *and* non-bigoted whites — so exploiting fear of privilege loss (Damned immigrants taking our jobs!) and appeals to racism play poorly with the electorate as a whole. (Of course, appeals to racism are generally veiled — but you don’t think white people imagine themselves when Republicans use phrases like “the culture of dependency”, do you? That’s just the 21st Century version of “welfare queens.”) Appealing to religious privilege alienates the ever-growing segment of the population that identifies itself as non-religious; appealing to heterosexual privilege alienates an electorate growing increasingly comfortable with diversity in human sexuality and gender expression; and so on and so forth.
The Republican Party has grown more reactionary year by year, and they don’t seem to be capable of switching that trajectory. Ever more extreme candidates win Republican primaries because the party’s infamous electoral “base” — which skews dramatically older, whiter, more Evangelical, and more male than the general electorate — dominates the primary process, but the narrow world view that appeals to those older white males has no appeal to the rest of the electorate: It’s a world view very clearly shaped by fear of change — and not just any change, but specifically fear of losing the privileges they enjoy with respect to women, gays, racial minorities, non-Christians, younger people, etc. Yes, Republicans continue to win in the parts of this country where white/male/Christian/heterosexual privilege is still socially dominant — the American South as a whole, and rural/suburban America to a much greater degree than urban America — but that’s just a matter of lag-time. That sort of sociocultural hegemony is tenuous, and slips away more every year, in every way.
In short, I think the primary lesson of this election is that appealing to privilege is no longer a winning political strategy. But I don’t think the collective sense of identity of the Republican Party allows it to do otherwise: At the most basic level, political conservatism is rooted in fear of change, and those who enjoy privilege have the most to fear from change.
Many sensible political commentators have talked about the same general ideas that I’m addressing here. (Nicholas Kristof at the NYT wrote one of the clearest.) However, all of the analyses I’ve read focus too much on pure demographics, and not enough on the more basic underlying facets of human psychology at play here: privilege and fear of losing it. Hispanic voters went for Bush in much greater proportions than they voted for Romney. Why? Yes, one could point to the strong correlation between Hispanic identity and conservative Catholicism & Pentacostalism, which almost certainly played a significant role in 2004 with its Republican anti-gay referendum get-out-the-vote strategy. However, Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric and immigrant-abusing legislation pushed by Republicans around the country surely encouraged this election’s Hispanic turnout and massive preference for Obama and other Democrats. Okay, then explain that! Why did Georgia and Alabama Republicans feel compelled to copy Arizona’s much-maligned state immigration law model — over the protests of their respective states’ influential farming lobbies — when they know damned well that Hispanics are a growing voter demographic? Why did Romney spout anti-immigrant rhetoric on the campaign trail? Republicans are compelled to prey on white voters’ fears because those fears actually exist — they genuinely do feel a nagging, not-always-conscious fear of losing their privileged position in American society, which they are actually losing — and conservative political consciousness is rooted in fear of change.
This leads me to think that Republicans simply CANNOT change in the sorts of substantial ways that would prevent their inevitable decline into political irrelevance — which would be wonderful, if only it changed anything fundamental about American political life. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the interests of a loss-of-privilege-fearing segment of the populace which exercises influence wildly out of proportion to its numbers: the wealthy. I didn’t mention economic privilege above precisely because there is not very much difference between our two major parties in that respect. (Libertarians are thoroughly wedded to the interests of the wealthy, too, so don’t look to them for change.) And as long as that remains the case — as long as Democrats remain nearly as dedicated to serving the interests of the plutocracy as Republicans are, with the only differences lying in rhetoric (and perhaps a slight, still-to-be-demonstrated-with-real-action willingness on the part of Democrats to undo a miniscule proportion of the past three decades’ upward-redistribution of wealth through minor policy changes) — American political life will not change significantly. Yes, women’s rights and welfare are better served by Democrats, as are the rights and welfare of ethnic minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, etc. And that does matter, and I’m glad for it — especially if Obama gets to appoint a few more Supreme Court Justices. But if the interests of 99.9% of the populace remain subordinated to the interests of the 0.1%, those comparative improvements will ultimately be no more than bread and circuses, providing only a bit of distraction and a few minor improvements in some respects while the inevitable collapse of our society proceeds apace.
In which I comment at Butterflies & Wheels on the important moral distinction — which a large segment of the internet seems to have entirely missed — between the justification for protecting free speech and the justification for protecting anonymity.
Not that my comments at B&W are long, but here’s an even shorter version:
Freedom of speech neither includes nor implies freedom from the consequences of your speech. Nor should it!
Anonymity DOES include freedom from consequences; protection from consequences is exactly what anonymity is intended to accomplish.
That is why anonymity must logically and morally be much more limited than free speech: Protecting people from the consequences of their own actions should be limited to a very narrow scope, and it can only be justified where those consequences themselves are unjust (such as protecting a whistleblower from suffering negative consequences for advancing the public good).
People using internet anonymity to be assholes without consequences is NOT something we simply must accept in order to preserve free speech. Free speech is not anonymity, and anonymity is not free speech.
This Sunday NYT article focuses on the over-arching problem that will, in time, destroy our nation as it has destroyed so many in the past — unless we have the courage and foresight to fix the problem. What is the problem? Basically, this:
Extractive states are controlled by ruling elites whose objective is to extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society. Inclusive states give everyone access to economic opportunity; often, greater inclusiveness creates more prosperity, which creates an incentive for ever greater inclusiveness.
The history of the United States can be read as one such virtuous circle. But… virtuous circles can be broken. Elites that have prospered from inclusive systems can be tempted to pull up the ladder they climbed to the top. Eventually, their societies become extractive and their economies languish.
That was the future predicted by Karl Marx, who wrote that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. And it is the danger America faces today, as the 1 percent pulls away from everyone else and pursues an economic, political and social agenda that will increase that gap even further — ultimately destroying the open system that made America rich and allowed its 1 percent to thrive in the first place.
The problem is economic in character, but political in both its origin and solution. Here, I’m not so concerned about the details of the solution: We already know how to make our society more inclusive and less extractive, because we pursued political and economic policies that accomplished exactly that from the mid-1930s through the late 1970s. So the question is not so much how to do it, but who will do it?
The policies of the Republican party are in every way designed to make the problem worse rather than better, to further benefit the haves at the expense of the have-nots, to advance the extractive society and undermine the inclusive society. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, and Republican political strategists put a great deal of effort into fostering such delusions. The current theocratic culture war, its predecessor the race-baiting “Southern Strategy,” the always-useful tactic of fanning fear and hatred of immigrants “coming to take your jobs,” bashing unions as job-destroying while promoting policies that destroy both unions and jobs — all these are just tools used to manipulate people into voting against their own economic self-interest.
Fortunately, the Republican party seems to be self-destructing, having lost control of their own tools of manipulation. Part of the problem is simple demographics: The segments of the population on which their tools work best are shrinking as a proportion of the whole. But part of their problem also seems to be self-created: Researchers on religion in public life (like the Pew Research Center) have consistently found that the rising tide of religious disaffection among young Americans is directly tied to their sense that the religion of their parents is too judgmental and too wrapped up in politics. In essence, the very culture war that the Republicans have promoted so ferociously and relied on to drive voter turnout since Reagan is turning the children of their “base” against them.
(Maybe the problem is that Republicans tend to read horrible hacks like Ayn Rand instead of true visionary geniuses like Frank Herbert. Certainly they should have heeded one of Herbert’s Bene Gesserit proverbs: “When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movement becomes headlong – faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles and forget that a precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it’s too late.”)
Unfortunately, what ought to be the opposition party has been turned into the more-of-the-same party by multiple corrosive influences which feed into one another: the perpetual campaign and fund-raising cycle, the lobbying industry, the revolving door between employment in government and the government-contract-seeking private sector (most especially the aforementioned lobbying industry). While policies advocated by the Democratic party do not actively promote the extractive society for the most part, they certainly do little to reverse the problem — and they never will, unless the party drastically changes in character. For the most part, Democratic party leaders studiously ignore the ever-growing gap between the haves and have-nots, or mention it for rhetorical purposes without acknowledging either  that it is a product of public policy choices (which it manifestly is), or  that different policy choices could reverse it (which we know from direct historical experience). For example, Obama’s plan to return taxes on top earners back to pre-Bush levels is trivial. The gap between the rich and poor has been growing since the mid-1980s, so the starting point for any sensible policy discussion would at least consider rolling tax rates on the wealthy back to Reagan-era levels — but no Democratic leader dares suggest such a thing. (Here are two very informative graphs connecting income disparity and top tax rates.)
Worse yet, there is currently no viable alternative in the American political landscape.
The Libertarians, for all their laudable stands on civil liberties (opposition to the drug war and the PATRIOT Act and so on), advocate the same regressive economic policies that Republicans do: Whether it is self-identified Libertarians or Republicans making it, the claim that unregulated laissez faire capitalism — if only we carried it far enough! — can somehow magically create a level playing field out of one that is manifestly un-level to begin with is not only unsupported by reasoning and evidence, but directly countered by all the historical evidence anyone has ever examined. It is an ideology held with dogmatic religious fervor, not a viable economic theory. Although they are usually explained in different terms, Libertarian economic policies are almost indistinguishable from Republican policies, and the same economics “authorities” are relied on by both. I was recently reminded by this article exactly how the economic ideologies favored by Republicans and Libertarians gained so much unwarranted respect and prestige.
(Short version for those who don’t care to read the linked article: The “Nobel Prize” in economics is not, in fact, a true Nobel Prize at all, but was created several decades later by bankers for the explicit purpose of promoting “free market” economic
ideologies theories friendly to the extractive society, like those of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. In fact, Hayek’s academic career was basically over — because his theories were considered wildly implausible and completely unsupported by the evidence — until the turd-polishing faery dust sprinkled on his theories by winning a phony “Nobel prize” suddenly made him seem respectable. Friedman was a much more respected and respectable economist on his own merits before winning his faux-bel prize, for whatever that’s worth; however, he also deserves primary blame as the Reagan economic adviser most directly responsible for the policy changes that started our slide towards an increasingly extractive society in the first place.)
Because the Libertarians are as bad as or worse than Republicans in economic policy terms, and because Democrats are basically Republicans-lite on economics (and other policy matters, such as foreign policy and the drug war), the only genuine opposition to the extractive society in the U.S. lies in progressive politics — currently embodied in the Green Party and the Occupy movement. Unfortunately, American progressives have no political traction, and every progressive movement seems more hamstrung by ideological purity and practical incompetence than the one before it. For example, the Tea Party may be full of extremist lunatics, but they somehow managed to get a bunch of their favored candidates elected in Republican Congressional primaries in 2010 — something the Green Party has never managed to do, nor really even tried to do. Meanwhile, the Occupy movement — which looked for a moment like it might be a nucleus around which a progressive successor to the perpetually ineffective Green Party could coalesce — appears to have already dwindled to a small core of activists who don’t seem to have a clue about how to grow a movement, and spend more time infighting than strategizing.
As Rebecca Solnit eloquently (and acerbically) argues here, there is a relentlessly negative and emotionally immature undercurrent in the American political left that leads it to undermine itself. Unless American progressives grow up — unless they learn how to hold and pursue high ideals without letting the unattainable perfect become the enemy of attainable goods — they will never amount to anything. What they should be trying to do is take over the Democratic party from within like the Tea Party has taken over the Republican party, but without the Tea Party’s self-destructive commitment to ideological purity that alienates everyone but fellow extremists. Will progressives ever see the need to do this? Will they succeed if they try? I don’t know. But if they don’t try, they surely won’t succeed, and we will continue to recede further and further from the inclusive society, until our extractive society collapses in on itself, like all plutocracies eventually do.
Suddenly, world events have made Sam Harris’ unwise attempt to rescue his torture argument and my criticism of it (see prior post) look prescient. Various torture promoters and defenders from theBush administration have already started coming out of the woodwork to claim that information obtained by torture led to finding Osama bin Laden. On the available evidence, it looks like this claim is as completely bogus as all their prior claims to have obtained valuable information from torture: New York Times reports on the subject with its usual subdued dispassion, and Andrew Sullivan rips apart the lies.
On my admittedly still shallow first analysis, it looks like the best-case scenario for the torture promoters is that the torture of two highly-placed al Qaeda figures may have led to negative corroboration: That is, they lied about the name/importance of one of bin Laden’s trusted couriers, a name acquired through interrogation of a more cooperative prisoner who was not tortured. Of course, there’s no reason to doubt that these highly-placed al Qaeda leaders would also have lied about the courier had they not been tortured: It was the cross-checking information from multiple interrogations that led to intelligence with real potential value, not the torture-extracted misinformation.
Update: A commenter here and numerous facebook friends have also directed my attention to this interview with a professional military interrogator who supports my claims that torture is ineffective. He also argues that the use of illegal and immoral torture methods by the Bush administration was not only a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda (and like-minded terrorists), but that it actually slowed down the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Another update: Somehow, I missed this Forbes interview with a current top U.S. military interrogator in Afghanistan, who says that…
torture played no role in locating Osama bin Laden, and that claims to the contrary by former Bush administration officials recently amount t0 “propaganda [that] degrades our intelligence operations more than any other factor I can think of.”