Morning Fog

Excellent News On Privacy

Amid all the political brouhaha (emphasis on the HA-HA) these days, good news may get buried.

So let's not miss this: The FCC has approved new rules that would require internet service providers to get your permission to sell and share your personal data to others. As Chairman Tom Wheeler said in releasing this news, "It is the consumers' information. How it is used should be the consumers' choice."

This development is an immensely positive step toward data protection and privacy in general. 

Or would be, if we could count on it. Unfortunately it is not yet clear how and when it would be implemented and, as with any ruling that places an obstacle to corporate exploitation of the consumer, it may never be implemented. The referenced news article above points out that the big ISPs "may" challenge the ruling in court (gee, do you think?). Further, the decision came as a 3-2 vote along party lines; but the five commissioners are appointed by the President, with the current chairman's term expiring in 2018, so a reversal is very possible if the White House changes hands.   

Democrats! Republicans! Careful What Lessons You Learn!

Win or lose, Donald Trump's performance in exploiting the power vacuum in the Republican party, amassing a following without preaching GOP orthodoxy, and giving Clinton and the Democrats a run for their money, has the potential to alter the political landscape for both major parties.

The GOP, for example, had staked its future on returning to the past; it steadfastly refused to accept changes taking place in our society, but took refuge in a fantasy universe where changes in the fabic of civilization could be not only blocked, but reversed. The party was foundering, consistently losing the popular vote in recent elections, and clueless as to how to alter that. Yet when Republican politicians look themselves in the mirror, this is not the image they see. 

So it's quite possible that if Trump loses, they will claim his loss as justification for their own brand of regressivism. After all, he didn't spout a strictly Republican party line, and he lost. It's also possible they would misread a Trump win in the same way, but the real message for Republicans, win or lose, should be a wake-up call for change. Trump's peculiar brand of Republicanism may not be good for the country, but it could at least serve as a catalyst to modernize the party's message. At the very least, I would expect to see a lot of prominent, senior Republicans retiring from politics after a Trump win.

The Democrats, too, risk reading the election wrongly.  If they read a Trump loss as a resounding victory for themselves, they will be deluded. Democrats need to realize that currently, neither party is looked on with much favor by voters, especially not by the youngest political generation. If a Trump win sets Clinton on the road to accelerated progressivism, she can count (most likely) on more gridlock, or if not that, possibly further growth of the bloc that went for Trump this time.

To me, overreach presents the biggest problem for both parties. Republicans have already succumbed to it - backwards! - as winners, definitely, rolling back major legislation and shifting our attitudes on multiculturalism back to where they were in Eisenhower's time.  But even as they are casting themselves as losers, they assert that the election process must have been rigged (Trump), Clinton emails are a serious problem to be pursued endlessly (Chaffetz), and no Supreme Court justice will be successfully nominated by Clinton (Cruz).  A Clinton win risks Democratic overreach; in this respect, the recent stories that Bernie Sanders is ready to start cashing in his socialist chips, as soon as Hillary is in the White House, is particularly disturbing. 

Thanks largely to a guy named Newt, we no longer have the consensus on basics that has been the bedrock of our two-party system.  I hope the winning candidate/party will dedicate his/their efforts to restoring it. The party that does so is likely to be the true winner in coming decades.     

The Election: Don't Put Just One Egg In Your Basket

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that in the wee small hours of November 9, the pollsters are proved wrong: Donald Trump ekes out a victory in a couple of key swing states, maybe, and is elected President.  What should we expect from four years of Trump?  Well, we can count on a huge new wall to keep out Mexicans, which they will pay for. ISIS will be eradicated from the earth within a year or two, if not sooner, by means of a secret plan he's kept all to himself. On January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day), the Affordable Care Act will be voted null and void, never to be heard of again. Trickle-down economics will demonstrably and truly work as postulated for the first time in history. And miracle of miracles, America, within four years if not less, will be Great. Again. (Did we miss when Donald already made it great once before?)  ... Anyway, these are just a few of the things we can look forward to.

Except that we can't. We shouldn't expect ANY of these outcomes from a Donald Trump Presidency. Each goal presents, shall we say, some inherent challenges, but even if they didn't, a far more formidable, huge, ungainly, sluggish force stands in the way: The U.S. Congress.   Comprising at any given time at least 535 differing viewpoints on any issue, it's only natural (and perhaps another telling sign of the wisdom of the Founders) that Congress in modern times has become the rock on which Presidential plans founder. (Contemplating Congress, I am reminded of a humorous song title - from Mad Magazine, I think - "Hannibal Crossed the Alps, But I Can't Get Over You.")

All this is just my around-Robin-Hood's-barn way of saying that Congress is unlikely to agree to any of these radical Donaldian proposals. 

By all accounts, including their own, people who support Trump often say they expect he will "stir things up" or set the country on a better course.  But he won't. He can't.  Given his verbal-only track record to date we must of course be wary that Trump intends to dissolve Congress and declare himself Emperor.  But barring that, even he must know that these are silly and unachievable goals.  

Now to all you Trump voters out there, please understand, I don't mean to denigrate Trump's goals here (I have done that elsewhere).  For what it's worth, Clinton has similarly grandiose plans that aren't likely to be achieved either, and for the same reason.  And look what became of Obama's plans.

We put all our attention and faith in our choice of a President, but if we want him/her to succeed, we really need to concentrate more on picking our representatives in the House and Senate.

Are The Supremes A Political Group?

I spared the blog world my blather for almost three months but ... sorry folks, I'm b-a-a-a-ck! 

Having been absent so long, I feel like a visitor from Mars - so many political developments, it's almost like a new campaign in some limited ways:  Three and a half "debates," new scandalous revelations about Trump, a few skeletons in Hillary's closet, too.  On the other hand, nothing much has changed, either.  Trump is still a mentally unbalanced megalomaniac with no understanding of politics, economics, or foreign policy, and just generally a nasty guy too - ergo, still completely unqualified to be President of the U.S. What's generally disturbing is that his total inappropriateness for the office has been evident for many months, yet he still seems to have a significant following. Polls suggest he can't win, and I hope they're right, but I'm not complacent about the accuracy of polls.

I've missed lots of more specific opportunities to comment on the impoverishment of our political system over the past 90 days, but that's water under the bridge, so I begin with a narrow focus, a bipartisan criticism that bothers me considerably:  in the last two debates, I was shocked to hear Hillary's, and then Donald's, answers to questions about their views on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Laying aside any pretense of impartiality on the Court, each of them in turn baldly stated they would nominate to our highest court jurists who they believed would agree with and further their policy goals. I suspect every one of our current Justices was shocked, even dismayed, to hear these statements.

I can't with conscience argue that the Court is not politicized already; politics has played a role for at least two centuries. And I suppose it's a sign of the times - our political impoverishment - to put things in the most starkly honest terms and to wear our politics on our sleeve. Yet, whatever happened to nominating persons highly reputed for both legal acumen and independence? If the Court's political impartiality is a pretense, it's a very helpful and societally necessary one that has enabled us, over the years, to get on with business.

Pledges like those Clinton and Trump made recently will be used against them by their opposition in future nomination fights, creating still more legislative deadlock.  Not something we need.