A lot has been going on in the past few weeks that is worth of comment, and if I had unlimited time I could write a half a dozen essays around current events. But for now I’ll just settle for some (relatively) brief observations on a few news items. Starting with news from home, Taiwan held local elections in cities and counties around the country this past Saturday, and the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) did much worse than expected, losing most of the mayoral and county commissioner races, including in usually KMT-leaning areas such as Taipei and Taoyuan. At the risk of over generalizing, this result can be ascribed to disapproval of the governments’ performance, with food scandals, economic issues, corruption, expropriation of land with poor justification, and attempts to force through the service trade agreement with China all contributing factors. I should point out, however, that it would be a mistake to overestimate the importance of Taiwan-China relations in voters’ minds, as a lot of people in Taiwan, like elsewhere in the world, are more concerned with local issues (in other words, the food scandals probably hurt the KMT more than the service trade agreement did). In any case, the results were good news for Taiwan as a whole, even though in places such as Taipei it was a matter of a mediocre candidate beating a terrible one, and places like Hualian and Taidong on the east coast remain in the hands of terrible politicians. Our local Green Party candidate unfortunately didn’t win election to the city council (though one Green Party candidate in Taoyuan was elected to their council with a high vote total) and the KMT mayor in our city won, though by an unexpectedly narrow margin. Still, while the KMT and KMT-leaning independents hung on in many places and even the winning DPP and DPP-leaning candidates who won around the country are in many cases just the lesser of two evils, I’m certainly much more happy with these election results than those in the US at the beginning of the month.
Speaking of the US, I have been glad to see US President Barack Obama take strong actions in a number of important areas, even if it is overdue and often insufficient. The one which garnered the most attention, of course, was his executive order allowing some 5 million undocumented residents of the US to remain in the country without fear of deportation. Many Republicans had a predictably hysterical reaction to this. But contrary to their claims, Obama’s action was neither unprecedented nor illegal, and it was clearly justified. Many presidents have taken executive action relating to immigration, and both Reagan and the first Bush took actions very similar to Obama’s. The Supreme Court just a few years ago ruled that the executive branch had discretion in determining when to pursue deportation and that the law did not obligate authorities to deport all undocumented people. Many Republicans also complained that Obama should have left immigration reform to Congress. The problem with this complaint is that he did leave it to Congress for a long time, and Congress – more specifically, the House Republican leadership – did nothing. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill (an imperfect one which placed far too much weight on “border security”, but better than nothing) almost two years ago, and the House never even voted on it. So how long was Obama supposed to wait for Congress to act? If anything, Obama should be criticized for waiting as long as he did, and for not covering more people with his executive order.
In news (much) further afield, last month saw the first soft landing of a probe on the surface of a comet when the European Space Agency’s Philae lander, dispatched from the orbiting Rosetta probe, touched down on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Admittedly, the landing was not without a hitch; the harpoons that were supposed to anchor the probe to the comet’s surface failed to deploy, so the probe bounced twice before coming to rest, the first time traveling as far as a kilometer before landing and bouncing a shorter distance the second time. This was because due to the small size of the comet, its gravity is extremely weak. It is estimated to be about one meter per second, meaning you could easily throw a ball into space and with a hard enough jump you might be able to launch yourself. In any event, the probe ended up next to a cliff that left it mostly in shadow, so it could not recharge its batteries with its solar panels. However, it managed to send off some data before its power ran out, and simply by landing the probe made history. We can look forward to more space exploration milestones in the near future, as an unmanned test flight of the Orion capsule that NASA is developing for future crewed space exploration is coming up which will send the capsule further than any such capsule has traveled from Earth since the Apollo missions ended in 1972. While this would be even cooler if it actually had a crew (after all, unmanned probes have traveled thousands of times farther), if the test goes as planned it will be an encouraging sign that we may say real human crewed space missions to destinations beyond low Earth orbit in the not too distant future. Finally, looking further ahead, next year the New Horizons probe will make its rendezvous with Pluto on the edge of the Solar System, and the Dawn probe will visit Ceres. While humanity is still trying to get its act together on Earth, it’s good to see us continuing to explore beyond our home world.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
2014 US Election Recap
So the results of the US election are in (except for a few close races that are still being contested, and the Senate race in Louisiana, which will decided by a run-off), and for the most part the Republicans came out on top. They won a majority in the US Senate, improved their hold on the US House of Representatives, and gained a number of state governorships. So how did the Republicans win, and what does their victory mean? Can this election be seen as a vindication of the Republicans' policies? What roles did massive amounts of anonymous campaign spending and voter suppression play?
In my opinion, the Republicans' success was due to a combination of factors, not any single thing. An important point to remember is that turnout was very low – at 36%, it was the lowest it has been since the mid-term elections in 1942, in the middle of World War II (when many eligible voters were fighting overseas and unable to vote). Aside from being appalling evidence of voter apathy, this means that even though the Republicans got the majority of votes cast, that only means they got the support of about 20% of the electorate, hardly a mandate for their policies. It remains an unfortunate fact that, as is usually the case, older white voters had the highest turnout, and this is the demographic that most favors the Republicans. This election certainly doesn't show that the Republicans have the support of most Americans, just of a small (and shrinking) but politically active block of voters. But the low turnout, and particularly the low turnout among minorities, can't be put down to apathy alone. Republicans throughout the country made obvious efforts to suppress turnout in general, and minority turnout in particular. In numerous states, they used the excuse of voter fraud, which is almost non-existent with possible cases over the last decade at most in double digit, to institute voter ID laws that prevented many thousands of people from voting. They reduced the time periods for early voting. Most blatantly, they closed down polling places in minority areas, so that not only did people have to travel farther to vote (often having to rely on public transportation due to a lack of their own vehicles), but lines were much longer at the polling places that were left, meaning that many with limited time had to give up without getting to vote. Then of course there was the failure of some Republican Secretaries of State to process many voter registration forms, Georgia being the most widely reported case. Of course these efforts to suppress the vote were hardly the sole reason for the low turnout, but in some races they may have done enough damage to change the results.
An additional reason for the Republicans’ success was the enormous amount of money that was spent by right-wing billionaires such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and corporate interest groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to support the Republicans – or, more commonly, to attack the Democrats. Recent dubiously reasoned Supreme Court decisions have unleashed an avalanche of spending, much of it anonymous (so-called “dark money”), and much of it going to attack ads containing so many misleading statements, factual inaccuracies and outright lies that if they were held to the same standards that we generally expect of product advertising, they would be immediately pulled off the air. You even had ads prominently featuring ISIL and Ebola (sometimes conflating them not with each other but the similarly unrelated issue of “border security”) and insinuating that President Barack Obama and by extension the Democrats running in the election were responsible, even though, first of all, claims that Obama is to blame are dubious in the case of ISIL and absurd in the case of Ebola; secondly, even if Obama were to blame that would not mean the Democrats in Congress, who have no control over the administration’s actions in these areas, were also to blame; and thirdly, ISIL and Ebola currently present negligible threats to the US itself. But these ads and others like them no doubt had an effect on low information voters, who unfortunately make up much of the electorate.
Some also have argued that the way the Democrats themselves campaigned was in part to blame for their defeat. Certainly candidates like Alison Grimes in Kentucky at times seemed intent on painting themselves as being closer to the Republicans than to Obama, just less extreme than the former. Few of them actively promoted progressive ideas, and those that did, like Jeff Merkley in Oregon (admittedly a heavily Democratic state to begin with), often won. I’m not certain that a more aggressively progressive campaign strategy would have gotten better results, especially in conservative states, but if nothing else it might have helped educate some voters and lay the groundwork for the future. In any event, running to the right didn’t pay off for the Democrats who tried it. Unfortunately, some don’t seem to have learned that lesson: while I wasn’t terribly inclined to go out of my way to support Mary Landrieu, the conservative-leaning Democratic Senator from Louisiana, in her run-off election against the (of course) even more conservative Republican Bill Cassidy, she recently destroyed any chance getting my support by introducing a bill in the Senate to approve the Keystone XL pipeline at the same Cassidy introduced a similar bill in the House. It is if the two are competing to show who is most beholden to oil and gas interests, hardly a strategy that’s going to appeal to anyone who cares about the environment or indeed the future of human civilization.
Another interesting point about this election, one that has been noted by a number of observers but largely ignored by Republicans and the right wing, is that even this small, relatively conservative group of voters passed a number of progressive ballot measures, even states where Republicans won Senate and gubernatorial races. Marijuana legalization referendums passed in several states, and a liberal medical marijuana measure got 57% of the vote in Florida, only failing because Florida requires a supermajority of 60% for passage. Personhood measures put forward by anti-abortion activists failed in conservative states like Colorado. In several states, including conservative ones like Arkansas, voters passed increases in the minimum wage. In Washington, a gun control measure was passed (while Washington leans Democratic, it is still significant that that the measure passed easily, in the face of the usual NRA scaremongering, and a pro-gun measure to hobble it failed by a substantial margin). So voters in many states approved progressive ballot measures and voted down right-wing ones, even while in some cases electing Republicans who took opposite positions on those issues.
While these indications that many progressive policies are popular – even among a narrow and more conservative electorate – are certainly heartening, the contradictory votes are also evidence of another reason for the Republican victories, one that was mentioned above: there are still far too many people in the US who are poorly informed, easily manipulated, full of biases and mistaken notions, or almost sociopathic in their lack of concern for the well-being of anyone other than themselves. No one who was well-informed, rational, reasonably objective and had any concern about the future could vote for a climate change denier, nor could anyone concerned about the long-term well-being of society vote for people who refuse to recognize income equality as a problem. Legalizing marijuana, treating undocumented people like human beings, making birth control easily accessible and making same sex marriage legal are all likewise easy calls. And yet people in many states elected people who not only oppose such things, but practically froth at the mouth in their opposition to them. Of course the US is hardly the only democracy where it is a mystery to many observers how some of the country’s politicians get elected: I still have difficulty comprehending how Israelis could elect not only Benjamin Netanyahu but the even more extreme politicians to his right, or how Australians could elect an anti-environmentalist like Tony Abbott, or the Canadians vote in the similarly fossil fuel-loving Stephen Harper, or the Indians vote in someone like Narendra Modi with so much blood on his hands (though I can understand their disgust with the Congress party). Humanity in general evidently has a long way to go on a lot of fronts.
But whatever the reasons, for the next two year, the US will be stuck with a Congress run by people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and with even more crazy people like Ted Cruz and James Inhofe exercising far too much of a sway. It would be nice to simply dismiss it as a problem for the Americans who allowed these people to get into office (whether by voting for them or just failing to get to the polls and vote against them), but unfortunately the US has far too much of an impact on the rest of the world to do that. For instance, even two years of letting the fossil fuel industry run rampant could do a lot of harm, possibly even making it impossible (or at least very difficult) to avert the worst case climate change scenarios. So we’ll just have to hope that Obama stands firm and makes as much use as he can of his Presidential powers to keep things from getting too bad, and when necessary and possible, give him what support we can for doing so.
In my opinion, the Republicans' success was due to a combination of factors, not any single thing. An important point to remember is that turnout was very low – at 36%, it was the lowest it has been since the mid-term elections in 1942, in the middle of World War II (when many eligible voters were fighting overseas and unable to vote). Aside from being appalling evidence of voter apathy, this means that even though the Republicans got the majority of votes cast, that only means they got the support of about 20% of the electorate, hardly a mandate for their policies. It remains an unfortunate fact that, as is usually the case, older white voters had the highest turnout, and this is the demographic that most favors the Republicans. This election certainly doesn't show that the Republicans have the support of most Americans, just of a small (and shrinking) but politically active block of voters. But the low turnout, and particularly the low turnout among minorities, can't be put down to apathy alone. Republicans throughout the country made obvious efforts to suppress turnout in general, and minority turnout in particular. In numerous states, they used the excuse of voter fraud, which is almost non-existent with possible cases over the last decade at most in double digit, to institute voter ID laws that prevented many thousands of people from voting. They reduced the time periods for early voting. Most blatantly, they closed down polling places in minority areas, so that not only did people have to travel farther to vote (often having to rely on public transportation due to a lack of their own vehicles), but lines were much longer at the polling places that were left, meaning that many with limited time had to give up without getting to vote. Then of course there was the failure of some Republican Secretaries of State to process many voter registration forms, Georgia being the most widely reported case. Of course these efforts to suppress the vote were hardly the sole reason for the low turnout, but in some races they may have done enough damage to change the results.
An additional reason for the Republicans’ success was the enormous amount of money that was spent by right-wing billionaires such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and corporate interest groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to support the Republicans – or, more commonly, to attack the Democrats. Recent dubiously reasoned Supreme Court decisions have unleashed an avalanche of spending, much of it anonymous (so-called “dark money”), and much of it going to attack ads containing so many misleading statements, factual inaccuracies and outright lies that if they were held to the same standards that we generally expect of product advertising, they would be immediately pulled off the air. You even had ads prominently featuring ISIL and Ebola (sometimes conflating them not with each other but the similarly unrelated issue of “border security”) and insinuating that President Barack Obama and by extension the Democrats running in the election were responsible, even though, first of all, claims that Obama is to blame are dubious in the case of ISIL and absurd in the case of Ebola; secondly, even if Obama were to blame that would not mean the Democrats in Congress, who have no control over the administration’s actions in these areas, were also to blame; and thirdly, ISIL and Ebola currently present negligible threats to the US itself. But these ads and others like them no doubt had an effect on low information voters, who unfortunately make up much of the electorate.
Some also have argued that the way the Democrats themselves campaigned was in part to blame for their defeat. Certainly candidates like Alison Grimes in Kentucky at times seemed intent on painting themselves as being closer to the Republicans than to Obama, just less extreme than the former. Few of them actively promoted progressive ideas, and those that did, like Jeff Merkley in Oregon (admittedly a heavily Democratic state to begin with), often won. I’m not certain that a more aggressively progressive campaign strategy would have gotten better results, especially in conservative states, but if nothing else it might have helped educate some voters and lay the groundwork for the future. In any event, running to the right didn’t pay off for the Democrats who tried it. Unfortunately, some don’t seem to have learned that lesson: while I wasn’t terribly inclined to go out of my way to support Mary Landrieu, the conservative-leaning Democratic Senator from Louisiana, in her run-off election against the (of course) even more conservative Republican Bill Cassidy, she recently destroyed any chance getting my support by introducing a bill in the Senate to approve the Keystone XL pipeline at the same Cassidy introduced a similar bill in the House. It is if the two are competing to show who is most beholden to oil and gas interests, hardly a strategy that’s going to appeal to anyone who cares about the environment or indeed the future of human civilization.
Another interesting point about this election, one that has been noted by a number of observers but largely ignored by Republicans and the right wing, is that even this small, relatively conservative group of voters passed a number of progressive ballot measures, even states where Republicans won Senate and gubernatorial races. Marijuana legalization referendums passed in several states, and a liberal medical marijuana measure got 57% of the vote in Florida, only failing because Florida requires a supermajority of 60% for passage. Personhood measures put forward by anti-abortion activists failed in conservative states like Colorado. In several states, including conservative ones like Arkansas, voters passed increases in the minimum wage. In Washington, a gun control measure was passed (while Washington leans Democratic, it is still significant that that the measure passed easily, in the face of the usual NRA scaremongering, and a pro-gun measure to hobble it failed by a substantial margin). So voters in many states approved progressive ballot measures and voted down right-wing ones, even while in some cases electing Republicans who took opposite positions on those issues.
While these indications that many progressive policies are popular – even among a narrow and more conservative electorate – are certainly heartening, the contradictory votes are also evidence of another reason for the Republican victories, one that was mentioned above: there are still far too many people in the US who are poorly informed, easily manipulated, full of biases and mistaken notions, or almost sociopathic in their lack of concern for the well-being of anyone other than themselves. No one who was well-informed, rational, reasonably objective and had any concern about the future could vote for a climate change denier, nor could anyone concerned about the long-term well-being of society vote for people who refuse to recognize income equality as a problem. Legalizing marijuana, treating undocumented people like human beings, making birth control easily accessible and making same sex marriage legal are all likewise easy calls. And yet people in many states elected people who not only oppose such things, but practically froth at the mouth in their opposition to them. Of course the US is hardly the only democracy where it is a mystery to many observers how some of the country’s politicians get elected: I still have difficulty comprehending how Israelis could elect not only Benjamin Netanyahu but the even more extreme politicians to his right, or how Australians could elect an anti-environmentalist like Tony Abbott, or the Canadians vote in the similarly fossil fuel-loving Stephen Harper, or the Indians vote in someone like Narendra Modi with so much blood on his hands (though I can understand their disgust with the Congress party). Humanity in general evidently has a long way to go on a lot of fronts.
But whatever the reasons, for the next two year, the US will be stuck with a Congress run by people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and with even more crazy people like Ted Cruz and James Inhofe exercising far too much of a sway. It would be nice to simply dismiss it as a problem for the Americans who allowed these people to get into office (whether by voting for them or just failing to get to the polls and vote against them), but unfortunately the US has far too much of an impact on the rest of the world to do that. For instance, even two years of letting the fossil fuel industry run rampant could do a lot of harm, possibly even making it impossible (or at least very difficult) to avert the worst case climate change scenarios. So we’ll just have to hope that Obama stands firm and makes as much use as he can of his Presidential powers to keep things from getting too bad, and when necessary and possible, give him what support we can for doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
