American political life is evolving into a culture of "no," for one simple reason. While people will become quite agitated and animated in their insistence that their representatives put a halt to any policy objective advanced by the other side, they do not bring that same level of energy to calls for a better solution from their own side, even if they claim to be fatally dissatisfied with the status quo.

Cameleopard

Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle in on his way out, having come in third in a top-two primary election. A common criticism of the soon-to-be ex-mayor is that he ran Seattle City Hall too much like Chicago City Hall. This tell you one thing about a number of Mayor Nickels' critics - they've never lived in Chicago. Despite being a native of the Windy City myself, I don't consider myself an expert on the ins and outs of the city's political structure, but I do know what passes for a major scandal here in the Emerald City wouldn't even make the papers in Chicago. But I understand the logic. People here who considered Nickels corrupt saw a parallel in Chicago's infamous machine politics. And, not knowing any better, they were unable to tell the two apart.

The criticism that President Obama is a Socialist seems to work from the same principle - that is, that many (if not all) of the people who sincerely believe that the President is a Socialist have clearly never actually met one. Or, despite the rather close proximity of the Castro and Chavez regimes, understand how a socialist leader would operate. Again, not that I'm an expert on Socialism, but I have actually met a few living, breathing, card-carrying Socialists. I haven't spoken to one since the election, but I doubt they're exactly pleased with the current resident of the White House, any more than they were with his predecessor.

Okay, New Rule

Sometimes, you really have to wonder if politicians actually give a rip.

Once upon a time, the Governor of Massachusetts had the power to immediately appoint a new Senator to fill a vacant seat. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

But then, two things happened. Mitt Romney became Governor, and John Kerry ran for President. If Senator Kerry had won, he would have had to resign his seat. Massachusetts Democrats, fearing that the Republican Romney would appoint another Republican to the now-vacant Senate seat, changed the rules, so that a vacant Senate seat would be filled by a special election, to be held within 145 to 160 days after the seat becomes vacant.

But then, two more things happened. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, was elected to become Governor, and Senator Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer. Perhaps coming to terms with his own mortality, Kennedy realized that if he died, Senate Democrats would be down a vote - and that one vote might make all the difference. So rather than leave the Democratic caucus down a vote, potentially for several months, Kennedy is asking for the law to be changed back to the way it was.

I've got a better idea - just pass a law that says vacant seats shall be filled in whatever way is most politically beneficial to Democrats, and leave it at that. It's simpler and more honest.

On What Planet Do You Spend Most Of Your Time?

"Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."
Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass)

Despite the fact that Barney Frank gets on my nerves, I have to really hand it to him. His rebuttal of one of the "President Obama is a Nazi" fruitcakes at a town meeting was spectacular. He's going to take heat from Fox News and conservative activists for being "disrespectful," but since nothing other than cringing obsequiousness would be acceptable to them anyway, who the Hell cares?

I also appreciate the fact that Frank was unafraid to call the commenter out on the fact that she'd come to the meeting with her mind made up - and therefore was using her "question" to be insulting to both the President and the Representative, rather than as a request for information.

Goodspeak Only, Please

After John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods, ignited an outcry by proposing ideas for reforming health insurance that (unsurprisingly) didn't exactly appeal to Whole Foods' primary customer base, a lively debate has been raging. Part of this debate trumpets the idea that CEOs should keep their non-populist opinions to themselves.

"Corporate executives have a lot of social and political power in the United States, in a way that goes above and beyond the social and political power that stems directly from their wealth. The opinions of businessmen on political issues are taken very seriously by the press and by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Once upon a time perhaps union leaders exercised the same kind of sway, but these days all Republicans, most of the media, and some Democrats feel comfortable writing labor off as just an “interest group” while Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Jack Welch are treated as all-purpose sages. One could easily imagine a world in which CEOs were reluctant to play the role of freelance political pundit out of fear of alienating their customer base. And it seems to me that that might very well be a nice world to live in."
Matthew Yglesias

This may very well be true. But, from where I stand, I think that one could just as easily imagine a world in which CEOs didn't bother to play the role of freelance political pundit because we didn't give their opinions any more weight than any other random person we didn't know and presumably, didn't know very much about us. This, it seems to me, would be an even better world to live in.

In the end, this is my main disagreement with many self-styled liberals and progressives - their opinion that the common person is simply incapable (rather than unmotivated or unincentivized) to act in what they understand their own best interests to be. CEOs like Buffet, Gates, Welch and Mackey need to be muzzled by activist citizens because the non-activist citizens just can't be expected to take the opinions of such luminaries with a grain of salt, or understand that their proclamations may be self-serving, rather than recipes for sweeping social improvement. This assumption of constituent passivity among the greater masses leads to the quite logical conclusion that the world needs to be made safe for passivity - which, in turn, provides an incentive for that same passivity - after all, understanding exactly why what's good for Jack Welch may not be good for me takes time and effort than I could otherwise spend doing other, more desirable activities. So if people who, if I listened to them, might lead me astray are made to shut up, I don't have to put the time into evaluating the wisdom (or applicability) of their statements vis-a-vis my own position. Knowing that everyone who is allowed to speak is on my side, all I have to do to lead a happy, healthy life is listen and obey, rather than do the intellectual heavy lifting that critical thinking demands.

That's double-plus good all around.