Is America (and President Obama) Afraid Of Greatness?

I'm tired of small-minded, lazy, simple explanations. I'm tired of horse-race, he-said/she-said reporting that pretends to be objective but isn't and covers trivialities instead of issues. I'm tired of talking points.

I'm tired of cowering in fear after the deaths of a few thousand people. I'm tired of using the hatred of our enemies as a blank check to expand the power of government, shrink the accountability of government, and erode our privacy.

I'm tired of a government and political class that values the feelings of the wealthy over the well-being of the unemployed.

I'm tired of politicians who demand freedoms for journalists, dissidents, and protesters in other countries -- yet remain silent when those freedoms are threatened or denied in our own country.

I'm tired of politicians who demand liberty for themselves -- but deny liberty to women, gay people, racial and religious minorities, the disabled, the elderly, and the poor.

I'm tired of politicians who endlessly caterwaul about the deficit threatening the future of our children -- yet do nothing to address issues like global climate change, overpopulation, or renewable energy.

I'm tired of politicians who think endless war is the solution to every problem. There is no war on drugs, war on terror, or war on poverty that America will ever win alone. The biggest, most complex problems demand ambitious, large-scale, heroic solutions.

***

Conservatives often taunt liberals by stating that government is a parasite, but without government, America cannot and will not remain a truly great nation. Our government fails us because the people we put in charge of our government were incompetent and chose the wrong priorities. America is fully capable of attaining greatness, and our government should be fighting for its people on the front lines.

President Obama wants to help a few people with their mortgages, a few people gain jobs, a few people face less discrimination, a few people avoid deportation. President Obama wants a smidgen of deficit reduction, a token amount of investment: but all the small changes amount to nothing, so people see a status quo that hasn't changed and isn't acceptable.

President Obama is afraid of greatness. Mitt Romney won't stop talking about greatness and America at all hours of the day and night, but he doesn't mean a single word. When voters have two alternatives -- one candidate who has no vision and one candidate who has a vision that isn't trusted -- which candidate do you think will win?

When the candidate without a vision represents an unacceptable status quo, and the candidate with a vision successfully represents (in the minds of voters) a change from that unacceptable status quo -- which candidate do you think will win? If people don't like Mitt Romney, if people don't trust Mitt Romney, if people don't trust Republicans -- none of that will matter if Mitt Romney offers some kind of vision of America and President Obama doesn't. That's the current political situation, and President Obama and his advisers need to wake up.

I'm tired of hearing that America is the greatest country in the world from political leaders who do nothing but erode everything that's ever made America great. In 2008, President Obama won the White House because he offered a chance to change that situation. During the past four years, he hasn't done enough to fix the deterioration of American greatness, and he hasn't offered a plan to restore or expand American greatness during the next four years. The time is not too late for President Obama to change course and offer that specific, compelling vision. If Barack Obama can't win re-election in November, it will be - as Jimmy Buffett sings in "Margaritaville" - his own damn fault.

False Equivalences and Philosophical Politics

Earlier tonight, several acquaintances of mine were arguing on Facebook about Senator Scott Brown, the No Labels movement, and the political climate for Democrats and Republicans. Here's my contribution:

Fiscal liberal, social liberal, less hawkish on foreign policy...you're called a fringe, "professional left", un-Serious progressive, ignored by the Democratic establishment.

Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, hawkish on foreign policy...you're called a standard, mainstream, establishment Republican.

See the problem here? Liberals are losing the war on framing every day, and there are just far more ardent conservatives than liberals in America anyway. Conservatives have a party that fights for them -- do liberals? The Democratic Party and President Obama, if anything, are both moderate overall and hardly "socialist" as the hyperbolic Republicans claim.

Democrats continue to reward Republicans for their message discipline and intransigence by refusing to solidify and reinforce their own beliefs before the eye of the public. Democrats need to grow a spine. Also, I agree that No Labels as fool's gold in this political climate. Our main problem is conservative overreach and Democratic "compromise". You can't compromise with people like Richard Mourdock. I'm from Indiana, I know! When Lugar loses his seat for being a moderate, watch out. It's not a "both sides" problem. No Labels and people who agree with them are not seeing the problem clearly.

***

When I was describing this conversation to my roommate, he told me about a documentary he watched tonight that argued against the wind industry. He was annoyed that the documentary bashed the wind industry while refusing to offer solutions to the problems of energy consumption and climate change. I share my roommate's frustrations.

While talking to my roommate, I observed that we live in a world where there are often no good alternatives to some of our most pressing global problems. Sometimes, there are numerous flaws and drawbacks to even the best of all possible policies. To have a genuinely productive discussion, a responsible person must try to consider all the positive and negative consequences of every alternative.

Politics is often extremely superficial, short-term, bottom-line, and deeply unimaginative. At those times, I'm astonishingly thankful that I also studied philosophy while I was in college.

My roommate suggested that one reason that people behind the anti-wind industry film were criticizing the wind industry is because those filmmakers may be reflexively anti-business. I am a liberal, but I'm not anti-business. I am deeply skeptical of the idea that businesses can regulate themselves. Businesses are run by human beings. The market isn't a magic elixir that fix mistakes people make. I support well-regulated business. I'm a capitalist, but I am a realistic one!

In response, my roommate replied that government is also run by human beings. True. Those people in government also make mistakes. That's no reason to arbitrarily limit or abolish government. Liberals may be skeptical of unregulated business -- but there's no overwhelming desire to produce as little business as possible, in the way conservatives desire to produce as little government as possible.

Perhaps this difference exists because government is an unfortunate necessity, while business is neutral to positive in its effect on the world -- that would be a conservative position, and perhaps the opposite view is a far-left position. Why not compare those positions, their implications, and their effects? That's a realistic, thoughtful, genuine debate.

I don't want politics to remain a series of talking points. I want a meaningful, substantive, evidence-based examination of assumptions, values, and outcomes -- because I want the best possible policies that improve the lives of everyone. Politics shouldn't be a game, a horse race, or a pissing contest.

You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative, but you should strive to test your views against your best examination of reality. That one political movement (conservatism) attempts this practice far less often than another political movement (liberalism) is one of the greatest tragedies in modern American society. That sure doesn't sound like a "both sides" problem to me.

Everything Is Unfair

Here's a series of lovely thoughts: Life is never fair, and no one ever plays fair. If the appearance of fairness exists, it is either a temporary equilibrium or it has been imposed by force.

The best way to achieve a semblance of fairness is through empowerment. Expect the process to be slow, painful, and difficult. No one will listen because no one has to listen. You will repeat yourself - constantly. Other people will deliberately misinterpret, distort, and misunderstand your words.

Human beings spend a significant amount of their lives acting irrationally. You can try to convince other people to change their minds, but this will probably not happen until:
1. People are convinced by arguments (you thought this was the only step, didn't you? oh, no!)
2. From their perspective, there are more benefits to changing their mind than not changing their mind
3. They consciously decide to change their own mind and take ownership of that change

There is no guarantee that any notion of progress is inevitable. Things can always get worse. Society does not necessarily improve in every generation - but each new generation has an opportunity to improve on the previous one. That is the only advantage on the side of progress: death.

A generation can be as short-sighted as it can be, and another generation will still take its place. Death is a guarantee. What isn't a guarantee is that there will be another generation, or that younger generations won't inherit the stigmas of their elders.

If you really want people to follow, you must make it easier for people to join you instead of being passive and doing nothing. Defaults are powerful weapons: change expectations, and you will change behavior. Very few systems that are entirely voluntary make a real difference. (Sorry libertarians, you need to wake up and smell the civilization.)

Any successful political movement needs to remember the three steps of persuasion that I've outlined here. Additionally, the first step I listed is not necessarily the first step. Often, it will be more useful to start with the second step, and then the ground is prepared for your audience to tread the other steps in your path to persuasion.

Sometimes it sucks to be a liberal. Change is hard, and annoying. <-- Is this true, though? Is that thought worth thinking? Conservatives know quite a bit about change. Liberals can learn from their example. You don't take a country from FDR and LBJ to Reagan and George W. Bush without change.

There are some specific, extremely useful things you should have to change expectations and shift the default consensus to your views. You'll need: 1) money 2) journalists/other popularizers 3) ideologues/strategists 4) politicians 5) organizations [not listed in order of importance]

The "Occupy" movement disappointed me greatly. Protest without context is an empty, meaningless, futile exercise. You need organizations. You need spokespeople. You need message discipline. The bottom-up structure is a good way to attract anarchists and Ron Paul supporters, and it's a fantastic way to ensure that everyone else in America is ignoring you. Do you want change, or do you want martyrdom?

"Occupy" gave America a blank canvas. When only liberals talked about "Occupy", that was fine. When conservatives also talked about "Occupy", that decision became a disaster. When you have no clear, concise identity and agenda, people can attack you without end and those attacks will stick. You have to own your messaging. "Occupy" didn't.

People aren't going to listen to you because you're in the streets. People will listen to you if you're in the streets and you have a clear, simple, powerful narrative that is frequently repeated and echoed by credible authorities that your audience trusts. Being right isn't enough. Is that fair? No, no, it's not: but nothing in life is fair, and if you want people to change their minds, then you need to be smarter, more efficient, and more organized than the people who have an interest in silencing you. Let's go do that.