Welcome to Black November: The Election Post

*Edited and polished up for your enjoyment* - 11/3/10

Once, in high school, I had a long and impassioned debate with a friend of mine about something I knew for a fact but he was convinced of the opposite by popular opinion. A day or so later, when I demonstrated to him I was right, gloating and rubbing his face in it as teenagers do, he asked me a rhetorical question that still rings in my ears.

"Seriously, when you win an argument, do you drive down the road chanting 'I was right and they were wrong, I was right and they were wrong!'?"

Well, said person remains a good friend and reader of this blog, and the answer is still 'yes'. I think its safe to say most people love being right, but I do take special pleasure in it. The reason for this is that I'm exposed on a daily basis to arguments that to me, as a psychologist and political scientist, are the equivalents of the earth being flat. When people impassioned by ideology have the proverbial roundness of the earth demonstrated to them, they have a sickening trend of downplaying their passionate defense of a fairy-tale as reality 5 minutes prior and accusing me of being too argumentative. Being disagreed with and even proven wrong has little effect on me, but people's degeneration to emotions and personal attacks when they are faced with the fact that their argument derives from ideological rhetoric and they aren't aware of reality drives me to make a point of illustrating the stupidity of ideological density. THIS trend of people being OFFENDED by science so they can remain comfortable with their fairy-tales is what's wrong with our species, and I get harsh and brutal because the trend sickens me as I see right through it. This trend has largely shaped public response to this election, and will no doubt shape the discussions of results, so before that hogwash can take center stage, here is my "I was right and they were wrong" chant for your reading pleasure.

Probable Hindsight Arguments:

"You were wrong! Republicans didn't take the Senate!"

I NEVER SAID THEY'D TAKE THE SENATE, NOT ONCE. I get my information from an aggregate of statistical polls, not my introspective opinion of how the country must feel or misleading media prognoses. The final aggregate projection was a crippling sweep of the House, and 8 Senate gains, leading to a 51/49 majority for Democrats counting the 2 independents caucused with them. Mitch McConnell may have pretended to believe the Senate was going to be under his control, but I haven't the need to make such ignorant claims. In order for it to be even 50/50, every close Senate race would have had to go to Republicans, and that was extremely unlikely, so all you who celebrated or were disheartened when it became obvious that wasn't going to happen, you might as well have been surprised by the sunset. In other words, stop getting your information from Fox News. As I write this, 3 races are still too close to call - Colorado, Washington, and Alaska. Alaska is between the Tea Party Republican and the incumbent Republican who lost in the primary and ran as an independent, the Democrat has no chance, so for caucus purposes, that one hasn't changed. If CO and WA go as projected - CO to Repubs and WA to Dems, the final tally will be 52/48, counting independents. That makes my projections accurate with one very disappointing exception that I will discuss later, and it is still very likely to turn out 51/49.

"They didn't take the Senate, so policy won't change as you predicted, and the Tea Party won't be influential."

I don't know where anyone making this argument has been for the last 2 years, but Democrats have gotten relatively little done despite a supermajority in both houses. It took them many months to settle their differences and pass Obamacare, which I remind you passed in the House by a measly 3 votes despite an almost 40 seat tilt, and since then they have mostly been at each others' throats for how they want to implement their reforms. How having their supermajority cut down to one that is almost negligible in Senate and decimated completely in the house is supposed to help this situation is beyond me. I never suggested the Tea Party would instantly pass sweeping reforms reducing the size of government, there just aren't enough of them for that, and 2 or 3 more wouldn't have changed this condition. What the new Congress WILL accomplish is a very effective stalemate - no more economy-stalling stimulus packages or bailouts for special interests deemed 'too big to fail'. The Democrats had a hard enough time passing these WITH their massive majorities, and the key difference between Tea Party and establishment Republicans is the former's austere non-cooperation and refusal to compromise on these issues. Ron Paul is nicknamed "Dr. No" for this trend, now there are between 5 and 10 "Dr. Nos" in Senate and probably a couple of dozen in the House. The economy WILL hit bottom as these stimulus investments are purged (hence "Black November"), and then recover with deflated prices creating an investment-friendly climate. Republicans not capturing both houses makes me happy in a sense, because ignorant voters will be less likely to blame Republicans unilaterally for the looming initial downturn.

"Democrats are still a majority, so they won't split."

As discussed above, they have already split. The distinct dividing line, in my view, is between New Deal Democrats who are on a short leash from special interests that benefit from federalism - the banks in the Federal Reserve, the pharmaceutical and medical cartels, government employee unions, etc., and a growing fringe of Western European model progressives who want to break these special interests by socializing public services rather than paying these cartels with tax money for their awful and overpriced delivery. In a way, this progressive fringe is more similar to the Tea Party than to establishment Democrats, as the Tea Party shares the goal of breaking these cartels but with truly free market reforms such as abolishing the Federal Reserve rather than nationalizing it, repealing insipid medicine regulations that insulate cartels in that industry from competition pressures and taking away their mandate to remain a trust rather than socializing health care, and so forth. They also agree on a number of other issues such as gay marriage and a massive reduction in overseas military presence, contrary to popular rhetoric that the Tea Party are neo-cons in disguise. What this means is both fringes will form a barricade to the continuing "recovery" policies that only succeed at protecting these special interests from falling victim to an economic crisis THEY created, whereas establishment Republicans while claiming to be "free-market" have a long history of co-operating with this as long as it keeps the gravy trains of their own special interests such as oil companies and military contractors off the list of those forced to PAY for these programs. For example, remember that Republicans opposed Obamacare but offered no real alternative, claiming the failing system was perfectly fine, had real free-market options been present, the outcome would likely have been very different, and special interest affiliations far more evident. Again, because Democrats are still a majority in one house, it will be difficult for ignorant voters to blame the stalemate solely on "stubborn Republicans," instead they will see the emerging differences in both party lines.


Pre-election Arguments Debunked by the election:

The Tea Party will split the conservative base and allow Democrats to hold on to their majorities.

REALLY? Well, let's examine races relevant to this idiocy:

Kentucky:

Despite all the denial in the mass-media, calling the race "close" and "hotly contested", according to statistical projections Jack Conway never stood a chance. Rand Paul's margin of lead fluctuated between 15% and 5%, but Conway never managed to pull ahead, not even for a day. In the last few weeks, Conway even turned to right-wing authoritarianism, accusing Paul of having smoked marijuana and mocking Christianity ("GASP! Summon the Inquisition!"), hoping to invoke that proposed split and alienate the conservative base. Paul still slaughtered him, and I don't understand why this was a surprise to anyone; Kentucky isn't exactly a swing state, the Republican ticket gets quite a few "safe" votes regardless of smear ads, like Democrats in CA or NY.

Alaska:

It is still not clear who will win, but what is clear is that the Democrat never stood a chance. My best laugh of this election season was to hear the Democrats claim that they might have a chance once the Tea Party took the primary from the incumbent. Well, the incumbent ran as an independent, split the vote almost evenly with the nominee, and the Democrat is still trailing them both. Lisa Murkowski was the one establishment Republican incumbent I was sad to see go in the primaries, and Joe Miller is my least favorite Tea Party candidate, so its hardly relevant to me who wins. Point is, the idea of the Democrat standing a chance was pure bullshit, stop getting your information from NBC as well.

Florida:

Charlie Crist, another establishment old-timer ousted in the Republican Primary by Tea Partier Marco Rubio ran as an indepedent, and indeed split the vote - the Democrat vote. Rubio won by enough votes to beat the 2 of them put together. I had my worries as this was one of the most fluctuating races in the country, but Florida being a true swing state showed everyone just how sick they are of both party establishments. Good riddance, Mr. Crist.

Rhode Island (Governorship):

To my disappointment, the ousted establishment Republican turned independent, Lincoln Chaffee, managed to pull off a victory in the end, although this was consistent with the latest projections. But, as in Alaska, the Tea Partier lost by a tiny margin with the Democrat trailing both by miles.

Nevada:

The only significant race the predictions I rely on proved painfully inaccurate about, and the biggest disappointment of the day - not because Mitch McConnell didn't get his majority as I knew he WOULDN'T, but because I specifically like Sharron Angle and specifically detest Harry Reid as the king of the New Deal sellout Democrats. His only opposition as Senate leader for 4 years of Bush Jr. was to complain that his special interests in the medical cartels and unions weren't getting any funding, he was completely in favor of both wars and the Patriot Act - the same sellout platform that John Kerry couldn't beat disastrously unpopular Bush Jr. with for president. If that record doesn't scream "SEND HIM HOME," I don't know what does, but Nevada is an extremely unpredictable swing state. However, it is important to point out that the reportedly unpopular Reid managed a MAJORITY in a State with many 3rd party candidates and a None of the Above option. If every vote against Reid had gone to Angle, she still would have lost; that's difficult to blame on a split and an establishment Republican would not have done better. Had Sue Lowden (the ousted establishment Republican) run as an independent, she probably would have taken enough voted from REID to give the race to Angle.

I can go on to Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and likely Colorado, where Republicans and Tea Partiers have pulled it off in close races without any serious 3rd party or independent bid, but I think the trend I'm trying to present is pretty evident. However, I do need to address COUNTER-argument races.

Arkansas:

While we're talking about splitting votes, let's forget the insipid rhetoric that the Tea Party is limited to Republicans and commemorate the career of poor Blanche Lincoln, the Democrat incumbent who in the primaries aligned herself with the Tea Party, distancing herself from mega-unions and other typical liberal interests who spent millions of dollars to beat her in the primary but failed. Well, without her far-left base, Lincoln never stood a chance against Republican challenger John Boozman, who claims to also be Tea Party sympathetic but I must do more research and see how he will vote. Another place where the Tea Party managed to hurt Democrats rather than Republicans, with Lincoln one of two Democrat incumbents I'm actually going to miss, the other being Russ Feingold although we need the Tea Party more than we need him, but if I had it my way we'd keep him and send Reid home instead.

California:

I will save detailed discussion of how my home state handed our lives over to the odious SEIU tonight by electing Jerry Brown and passing Prop 25 once I can talk about it calmly, but it is important to mention that neither Meg Whitman, who ran against Brown, nor Carly Fiorina, the Republican who challenged Democrat lifer Barbara Boxer, were remotely Tea Party candidates, they were the same corporatist neo-con scum that has dominated the Republican Party in recent decades. Two Tea Partiers ran in the Senate Primary, either of whom would have sent Boxer packing, but they split their own primary vote. CA is hardly a swing state, and these races were still competitive although the Dems pulled through - they should count their blessings that they WEREN'T facing Tea Party candidates, not vice-versa.

"The Tea Party is racist, fundamentalist Christian, a sell-out and an astro-turfing scheme for the Republicans, etc."

I cannot express how sick I am of hearing this shit on every corner, and I blame it on both intentional and unintentional propaganda and hysteria-peddling originating independently from various public information outlets that present information that is simply conjectural and downright inaccurate.

The accusations of racism and fundamentalism come from two lines of flawed reasoning. The first, and the far stupider of the two, is the mass-assumption that views shared by all Tea Partiers are represented by the cherry-picked photographs, quotes, and actions, usually taken out of context, of a radical fringe of the movement that are hyped and harped upon by a media that hates it. Like every movement, the Tea Party has its share of idiot elements and ridiculous ideas, but why do the hinting-at-racism quotes of Tea Party Express clown Mark Williams who most Tea Party organizations don't even take seriously or some fundamentalist in the rural South and his congregation of 50 inbred relatives wanting to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11 deserve national media attention? Isn't that a little bit like taking pictures of a few African Americans in gang attire or illegal Mexican immigrants waving a Mexican flag at a rally and trying to use these as evidence for an argument that racism is justified or that illegal immigrants are dangerous and unpatriotic, trends the same media balks at when undertaken by establishment Republicans? The same thing happened to the Civil Rights movement in its first years, incessant attempts to marginalize it as Communist and Black Militant radicals by spotlighting these fringe elements that did exist within it as mainstream. The second line of reasoning for this ideological rhetoric is based on the logic that the Tea Party is so openly and vehemently anti-New Deal and anti-Great Society, the programs of which are commonly accepted as helping various minorities. The problem with this is the problem I described in the introduction to this post, widespread public belief in something DOES NOT make it fact. I have argued with all kinds of people who deify the New Deal and the Great Society for over a decade and have yet to see one scientific argument proving these policies actually worked. The New Deal did not cure the Great Depression, it prolonged it the same way Obama stimulus is prolonging the current recession. The dent it made in every economic measure associated with it - unemployment, poverty, homelessness, lack of investment - was roughly 20% (example: unemployment was 23% in 1932 and 19% in 1938), and the bulk of this dent was made within the first 2 years, after which it plateaued. Similarly, 2 years of Obama stimulus have made an approximate 20% dent (from 11% unemployment in 2008 to 9.6% today). This is the extent to which most economists agree stimulus can succeed in reversing economic trends, but the cost is that this artificial dent keeps prices from dropping to an investment-friendly level and allowing the economy to recover, creating an oligarchy of those lucky enough to fall into the benefitting 20%. This continues indefinitely until the government giving the stimulus is purged, which happened to FDR's Congress in 1938 and to Obama's Congress tonight. By 1940, unemployment was down to 14%, for comparison purposes. Of course, without said stimulus, the corporate special interests of both parties (banks, medical cartels, industrialists) who enjoyed massive subsidies and competition-insulating regulations before each recession (reminder: subsidies and protectionism are NOT capitalist or free-market) faced either a rollback of these favorable policies to let the free market fix the problem or literally being burned and impaled by the starving mobs their recession forced to the street. The Great Society was similar, turning minorities and the poor from an openly disenfranchised underclass that was ready to burn and impale its oppressors into a covertly dependent one; stuck with inefficient and wasteful government programs often funded and operated by the same oppressors, and wondering why this isn't creating equality. Whereas mainstream Republicans have always advocated a one-sided repeal of these policies and a return to corporate pandering and oppression, the Tea Party agenda is to take both the underprivileged AND their corporate oppressors off Uncle Sam's payroll and see just how well the latter do against the former mano-a-mano in a REAL capitalist economy where the military does not break up strikes or enforce laws in only one direction.

This should hopefully clarify the fallacy in the arguments that the Tea Party is a Republican conspiracy or has sold out to it. It is the first legitimate attempt to take one of the political parties away from corporate special interests in 50 years, and previous attempts have failed. This is why half the states with Tea Party candidates had the establishment mount an additional challenge, the ones in Rhode Island and possibly Alaska managing to succeed, despite the supposed threat of split votes in highly contested races. This is also why, realizing they can't marginalize the Tea Party, mainstream Republicans have taken to a strategy of domesticating it, which is what led to the past usurping attempts failing (Abolitionism in the 1860s, Progressivism in the 1910s and 1930s, the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s). Mitch McConnell realizes that without the Tea Party, his Republicans are still a pitiful minority, and more importantly Rand Paul is from the same state, meaning showing dissonance could send Mitch home in the next primary. The Tea Party, of course, is still a tiny minority and not accepting at least some form of coalition with Republican party leaders would be suicide. Assuming this uneasy alliance is a unilateral sell-out by Paul is stupid and unwarranted, and past usurper movements have not failed because they did the same thing, they failed because things got better economically and people stopped caring about politics before they controlled enough of the party to force out the crusty old elements.


Conclusion

With the notable exception of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party has succeeded overwhelmingly just as I predicted, and economic policies in this country will now take a significant turn down a different path. The centralized, special-interest-feeding collectivism of the New Deal and the Great Society is quite simply doomed in this equation - a growing fringe of Democrats support farther left policies and agree with the Tea Party that the New Deal has failed and sold out those it was supposed to help. The real question is whether or not the Tea Party will be strong enough to re-direct the Republican Party into supporting free market policies rather than compromising to repeal New Deal policies but leave intact traditional industrialist pandering, a component that must also be repealed for the death of the New Deal to be beneficial. If the Tea Party isn't successful at this, though, the ensuing 2012 re-alignment of the Democratic Party is likely to be that much more radical and in favor of socialized rather than New Deal policies. In either case, the re-alignment is under way and this election has ushered in a new era in policy, we shall now see how it turns out.