The "White Horse" meets Eric Cantor

A quickie: all those folks worried about the Constitution "hanging by a thread" have a new enemy -- Eric Cantor:

Eric Cantor supports destroying the Constitution

This is Tea Party delusion at its greatest -- destroy the Constitution in order to save it. Since I'm a self-declared Millennial Positivist, my belief is antics like this will doom these guys to irrelevancy. They might try and succeed in one or two states (maybe. And that's if everything goes exactly the way they planned), but it won't take long for people to realize how ideas like this run strongly counter to their interests.

Baseball and Politics: Expansion

I desperately want a major league baseball team in Salt Lake.  I could see myself going to a few dozen games every season.  As a lifelong Red Sox fan I would have no problem switching allegiances to a new, local team (especially after the Sox have won a couple World Series recently).  The only way I see this happening is through expansion.

There are currently 30 major league teams.  There are 16 teams in the National League and 14 in the American League.  The reason they are unbalanced is because in baseball every team plays just about every day, and teams play in (typically) three game sets, so you need an even number of teams in each league to avoid scheduling problems.  This means that the NL Central has six teams while the AL West only has four.  It would be ideal to add a couple of western teams to even out the leagues and enfranchise some disenfranchised parts of the country (I think Portland would be perfect for a second team).

The common argument against expansion is dilution of talent.  You take the same number of major league players and spread them across two more teams, and it means you have to now have inferior players on major league rosters.  That's 50 players who weren't good enough to play in the majors yesterday now playing in the majors.  The response is the fact that there is a larger and larger talent pool from which to draw players, both from population increases in the US and the every increasing influx of talent from outside the US, which means the borderline players now were likely talented enough to be big leaguers in less diluted times.

The chart below shows how many Americans per team there have been since 1960, the last year of pre-expansion MLB:

Year    Tms   Popuation      Pop per Tm
1960    16    180,671,158    11,291,947
1961    18    183,691,481    10,205,082
1962    20    186,537,737    9,326,887
1963    20    189,241,798    9,462,090
1964    20    191,888,791    9,594,440
1965    20    194,302,963    9,715,148
1966    20    196,560,338    9,828,017
1967    20    198,712,056    9,935,603
1968    20    200,706,052    10,035,303
1969    24    202,676,946    8,444,873
1970    24    205,052,174    8,543,841
1971    24    207,660,677    8,652,528
1972    24    209,896,021    8,745,668
1973    24    211,908,788    8,829,533
1974    24    213,853,928    8,910,580
1975    24    215,973,199    8,998,883
1976    24    218,035,164    9,084,799
1977    26    220,239,425    8,470,747
1978    26    222,584,545    8,560,944
1979    26    225,055,487    8,655,980
1980    26    227,224,681    8,739,411
1981    26    229,465,714    8,825,604
1982    26    231,664,458    8,910,171
1983    26    233,791,994    8,992,000
1984    26    235,824,902    9,070,189
1985    26    237,923,795    9,150,915
1986    26    240,132,887    9,235,880
1987    26    242,288,918    9,318,805
1988    26    244,498,982    9,403,807
1989    26    246,819,230    9,493,047
1990    26    249,464,396    9,594,784
1991    26    252,153,092    9,698,196
1992    26    255,029,699    9,808,835
1993    28    257,782,608    9,206,522
1994    28    260,327,021    9,297,394
1995    28    262,803,276    9,385,831
1996    28    265,228,572    9,472,449
1997    28    267,783,607    9,563,700
1998    30    270,248,003    9,008,267
1999    30    272,690,813    9,089,694
2000    30    282,171,936    9,405,731
2001    30    285,039,803    9,501,327
2002    30    287,726,647    9,590,888
2003    30    290,210,914    9,673,697
2004    30    292,892,127    9,763,071
2005    30    295,560,549    9,852,018
2006    30    298,362,973    9,945,432
2007    30    301,290,332    10,043,011
2008    30    304,059,724    10,135,324
2009    30    307,006,550    10,233,552
2010    30    308,400,408    10,280,014

Every time the population per team gets around ten million, MLB has expanded.  As you can see, we live in a time now where there is a greater population per team since any time before expansion began in 1961.  It is time for expansion in MLB, and I think Salt Lake City is a fine potential spot for a team.  I won't go into the details, but I think the Salt Lake metropolitan area has a lot of positive attributes that could make it attractive to Major League Baseball.

Expansion brings the teams and league closer to Americans, balances power more evenly throughout the country, and improves the brand generally by making the game more accessible.  I would suggest naming the team the Utah Reds, but that nickname is already taken.  Maybe the Utah Smog?  I'm just brainstorming.

The United States House of Representatives could benefit from the idea of expansion, as well.  For reference, first, I'm taking my information from the Wiki page for the HofR and the Google fusion table for population.  In 1776 there were about 2.5 million Americans and 65 Representatives, for a ration of one Representative for every 38,462 citizens.  Below is a rundown of all the years the House has been expanded and the new ratio:

1776:  38,462
1791:  58,684
1793:  40,956
1803:  41,322
1813:  43,345
1815:  45,648
1817:  47,814
1819:  50,089
1821:  46,577
1833:  58,520
1835:  61,237
1843:  83,917
1845:  88,429
1847:  93,191
1851:  102,612
1853:  108,587
1857:  121,094
1861-1868 is the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it got all screwy and I'm not going to figure it out.  I think the numbers get normal again in 1869.
1869:  155,472
1873:  142,429
1883:  165,312
1889:  186,564
1891:  192,740
1893:  186,714
1901:  200,995
1911:  240,059
1913:  223,506
1959:  407,866
1961:  420,347
1963:  435,039

Today the population is about 310,232,863 and we still have only 435 seats, making 713,179 Americans for every Representative, or about 18.5 times the original ratio 1776.  This is a big problem.  Reducing the ratio would help in a few of ways, I think.

First, it would bring our representatives closer to us.  This would make each individual voice more important and more powerful.  It would allow us easier access to our representatives, and make them more accountable to us.  It would perhaps open up lines of communication between the electorate and the representatives that cannot exist with such a large ratio as we have today.

Second, I think it would affect campaign funding positively.  I recently heard on NPR, and I can't find a link to back this up so take it with a grain of salt, that something like 20% of all winning Representatives received less than 10% of their total campaign funding from their actual constituents.  And something like 75% received less than half from their constituents.  The rest of the money came from political action committees and corporations and labor unions and the like.  This is incredibly disconcerting to me.  Every single Representative has been bought by big interest groups.  If we expanded the House significantly that money would get watered down and the local constituent money might become more important.

Third, it could serve to weaken the political parties.  Because Representatives would be more concerned with their actual constituents they might be more likely to think independently and not just get sucked into the cogs of the machines.  They would have less fear of going against party leadership to serve their constituents because they would be closer to their constituents than to the party.  There would be more districts that were idiosyncratic in one way or another because of their smaller sizes, making it harder to fit in neatly with either party.  A dramatically larger House might even create enough room for a third party or regional parties that doesn't seem to exist now.

So, in the same way that expanding the MLB would strengthen its brand and increase its popularity with little to no effect on the overall quality of the product, so would expanding the House of Representatives be good for democracy.  There are plenty of good men and women who would make excellent political leaders if only the system were not so corrupt and distant from the People.  If we combined an expanded House with things like campaign finance reform and term limits, we might actually improve the government brand and make it function better.

Rant Time: Pres. Obama is No Liberal

And he's certainly no socialist, despite the popular conservative argument otherwise.  Here's what we have seen so far:

1. He gave away the public option before the debate even began.  Health care reform ended up being a huge win for the health care industry which will soon be flooded with new customers thanks to the mandate.
2. The stimulus was too small and included too many tax cuts for corporations at the Republicans' behest.
3. He has failed to follow up on, pursue, and prosecute Bush Administration illegal activities such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
4. The war in Afghanistan, which pretty much everyone agrees we can't "win" militarily, has been escalated instead of ended.
5. The financial reform bill was watered down in the face of the powerful financial lobby to the point of likely being completely ineffectual to prevent the sort of the economic meltdown we are currently working our way out of, over two years later and with no end in sight.
6. He is now backing down from his stance of letting the tax cuts for the super-wealthy expire and extending the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans permanently.
7. And now, reports are that the administration is stepping up covert attacks in Yemen.

What makes these items so infuriating for liberals is that public polling shows that Americans supported the liberal position in nearly ever single one of this issues.  Americans wanted a public option, at the time a big stimulus was popular to drag us out of the recession.  Americans hate torture and our Middle Eastern wars.  Americans wanted tough new regulations for Wall Street to avoid another economic meltdown.  Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  They want Pres. Obama to deliver on his promises, but he appears to be politically gutless.  I can't think of an issue where he has drawn a line in the sand and stood up for what he believes is best for America.

Compromise is inevitable, of course, and I'm glad we have a president who is willing to compromise to get things done.  The problem is he never seems to compromise from a position of strength and vigor.  When he was elected America had given Democrats complete control of the government because they didn't like where Republicans were taking them.  Instead of taking that mandate and arguing with strong voices for the policies that got them elected, Democrats capitulated and seems to retreat at every possible occasion.  As Pres. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party it was up to him to set the agenda and the tone.  He has so far failed.

I don't expect or even necessarily want a victory on every major point above, but certainly a few victories would be encouraging for liberals.  A few moments of inspiring leadership would be much appreciated.  A mere occasional reason to gloat wouldn't be the worst thing on earth.  If the President and Democrats had managed just a couple big wins in those issues they may have had a base that was more energized for the election and more willing to work hard to defeat the tea party surge.  But since there does not seem to be either 1) any real and deeply-held liberal convictions by Democrats or, worse, 2) any real difference between the two parties and thus no real choice, liberals largely stayed home on election day.

Pres. Obama has two more years to show some real leadership, but I'm not convinced he has it in him.  And I know Congressional Democrats don't.  The liberal renaissance we thought was coming in 2006 and 2008 has flatlined.

Skalestial Music Station

With liberals being betrayed by our elected Democrats on a daily basis now (more on this soon), I need to cleanse my palate, and that is often accomplished by the soothing and rolling sounds of ska music.  I've decided to share my Pandora ska station with all of you, for you listening pleasure:  Skalestial Music.

It's not perfect, by any means.  I still get a little too much pure reggae on the one side and punk on the other (I have a separate punk station I'm working on, but I'm rarely in a mood where I want the two to mix), but it's nonetheless pretty awesome.  I've put a lot of time into it, more than I'd care to admit, so please enjoy.  If anyone out there wants to share their favorite Pandora station with the rest of us, please feel free.  And if you want to learn too much about my affection for ska music, click here.

Millenial Positivism: Jacob Chapter 5 -- Breeding Out the Bad Fruit

As promised, here is the first installment of my series on "Millennial Positivism", or a version of pre-Millennial events that doesn't sound like something out of Mad Max.

The fifth chapter of Jacob offers a unique take on pre-Millennial events. Most other revelations on the subject tend to jump around and talk about various "signs" without presenting a coherent narrative. The fifth chapter of Jacob, on the other hand, runs straight through starting from some time after the exodus and ending with the burning of the earth following the Millennium and the great final battle between good and evil. It sticks to a single allegorical model -- olive trees in a vineyard -- throughout. It skips over many of the usual touchstones found in similar revelations; no talk of great tribulation, cataclysmic natural and man-made disasters, armageddon, or any of the other hallmarks of apocalyptic writing. Instead it focuses on the overall process of ridding the world of evil, and how that is to be accomplished in the "last days". The resulting tone is much more upbeat than one usually encounters in these sorts of revelations.

The story starts by setting the scene; we are presented with a vineyard wherein are found "wild" olive trees and a single "natural" olive tree. The vineyard represents the world, and the natural olive tree represents the House of Israel.

The focus is on producing fruit fit for consumption, and two people (the Master of the vineyard and his Servant) are the main human actors who attempt to manipulate the trees to achieve that objective. In the beginning the "natural" tree is old and decaying. The Master, who doesn't want to lose the tree, embarks on a series of schemes to try and obtain good fruit from the tree again.

The story thus progresses, with the Master and Servant working to manipulate the trees of the vineyard so they'll produce good fruit. By about half-way through the narrative, there is no longer any tree in the vineyard producing good fruit. At this point the Master unveils a new plan for saving all the trees of his vineyard:

62 Wherefore, let us go to and labor with our might this last time, for behold the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall prune my vineyard.
63 Graft in the branches; begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time.
64 Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them once more, for the last time, for the end draweth nigh. And if it be so that these last grafts shall grow, and bring forth the natural fruit, then shall ye prepare the way for them, that they may grow.
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.
66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.
67 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree;
68 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one.
69 And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard. (source: Jacob 5:62-69)

There is much to discuss here, but most of the action centers around verse 66. The bad is to be removed, not all at once, but as the good gains strength. This process is to continue until all of the bad is cast out of the vineyard. The vineyard, remember, is the world and the House of Israel is a single tree in the middle of it. Thus the process of preparing the Earth in the last days includes a gradual cleansing, one that is now taking place.

This runs counter to much of the cultural belief about the Millennium in the Church. Many people believe that the bad in the world will continue to grow and gain strength, that the believers will be few, and that we will only be saved at the last minute by the return of Christ and a mass destruction of the wicked. That is the "Mad Max" version of the last days narrative, it envisions a world covered by sin and ripe for destruction. Hence our job in the last days is to scrounge up the few worthy individuals that we can find in the world and hunker down in preparation for Christ's return.

Jacob 5 does say that the "servants" will be few, but it is explicit about where this process of gradual cleansing ends:

70 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few.
71 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the blast time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come.
72 And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things.
73 And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.
74 And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning. (source: Jacob 5:70-74)

This presents a much more positive picture of the influence of good in the world. The world begins as a corrupted vineyard, but through the diligent labor of the servants it is gradually cleansed. And, as the cleansing progresses the trees get stronger until the day comes that all of the bad has been removed from the vineyard.

Incidentally, this isn't the only narrative to present the struggle of good and evil as a progressive struggle ending with the triumph of good:

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. (source: Daniel 2:44-45)

Here again there is no great event where the wicked are destroyed in an instant. Rather, as the stone rolls it gains strength (I'll have more to say about this in a later post) and eventually consumes all of the kingdoms of the Earth.

So, to sum up, here are the main points that I take from these scriptures. Our job, as members of the Church, is not to hunker down and await the coming of Christ while watching the world waste away. Rather, our mission is to spread the good far and wide. Thankfully, that's exactly what is prophesied in these verses, and this mission will be successful. The bad in society won't go quietly, but it will be removed by degrees as history progresses. Ultimately good will prevail and the world will enjoy a thousand years of peace:

75 And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in laboring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard.
76 For behold, for a along time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which speedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken. (source: Jacob 5:75-76)

It is interesting to note that, at the beginning of the story, the Master was primarily concerned with a single tree, that which once bore the "natural" fruit. However, by end of the story the Master has reclaimed the whole vineyard. I believe that a similar process is at work in the Church; as we begin to gain strength and better understand our mission, our focus has shifted from our own salvation to spreading good throughout the world in whatever way we can. My next post, "The Day Dawn is Breaking", will discuss how this is happening today.

Utah's Republican Hegemony

Utah again elected a Republican as governor and a Republican as United States Senator.  Both Gov. Herbert and Sen.-elect Lee won by wide 2-1 margins against moderate-to-conservative Democrats.  These are perhaps the least surprising election results since racist Democrats owned the South from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era.  In Utah, Republicans win and they win big, particularly for governor and United States Senate, which are the big, important statewide elections.

It got me wondering when the last time was that Utahns elected a Democrat to statewide office.  It turns out that Utah has not had a Democrat in statewide office since Scott Matheson (father of current Rep. Matheson) left the governor's office in January of 1985.  That's about 26 years.  Utah has not had a Democrat in the United State Senate since Frank Moss was defeated by Sen. Hatch and left office in January of 1977.  Sen. Hatch, ironically, made a big deal that Sen. Moss' 16 years in office were too many and that he had lost touch with Utahns.  Sen. Hatch has now been a senator for about 34 years.

I then began to wonder how this Republican hegemony stacked up against other states that are perceived to be dominated by one political party.  The results were not good for Utah.  No other state has gone as long as Utah voting for a single party in the major statewide elections of governor and senator.  The results follow.

I first looked at governors.  Out of all the states in the Union, 42 have elected governors from both parties in the last 16 years (since the 1994 elections).  Those that haven't, with the last year of opposite-party control in parentheses, are:  South Dakota (last Democrat in 1978), Utah (last Democrat in 1984), Washington (Republican 1984), Oregon (Republican 1986), Delaware (Republican 1992), North Dakota (Democrat 1992), and North Carolina (Republican 1993).  Connecticut last had a non-Republican Independent governor in office in 1994, and a Democrat in 1990.  Every other state has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for governor in the past 16 years.

So I took those eight states that showed a lack of diversity in governorships and compared the last time they elected a United States Senator from the opposite party.  Connecticut was easy because while they have been voting for Republican governors for the past few years they have also been voting for Democratic senators.  Both current Connecticut senators are Democrats, and the last time they had a Republican senator in office was 1998.  So hegemony is not a problem there.

North Carolina was similarly easy in the opposite direction.  That is a conservative state but has been voting for Democratic governors consistently for years.  They have a healthy mix of both Republican and Democrat senators over the past few years and currently have one of each.

The Dakotas, I would have thought, would have been the conservative states to challenge Utah in terms of hegemony, but I was wrong.  North Dakota currently has two Democratic senators and South Dakota has one.

Delaware and Washington, a couple of liberal states, both last had Republican senators in 2000, and Oregon, another liberal state, last had a Republican senator in 2008.  That last Republican Oregon senator was Gordon Smith, a Mormon, who was defeated in the Democratic surge that year.

And that leaves Utah, who, as I mentioned earlier, last had a Democratic senator in 1976.  That means it has been 26 years since Utah last had a non-Republican hold major statewide office.  No other state comes close to that record of hegemony.  The closest competitors for this ignominious distinction are Idaho and Texas, both practicing hegemony for 16 years.  Idaho last had a Democratic governor in 1994 and last had a Democratic senator in 1980.  Texas last had a Democratic governor in 1994 (the election that George W. Bush won) and last had a Democratic senator in 1993.  Delaware and Washington, as outlined above, have seen ten years of hegemony.

This is a bad thing, as I've written about before.  It detaches the controlling party from reality in that they are not really accountable to voters and there is never a threat that their bad choices will be reflected in election results.  Most importantly, though, is that one-party hegemony suffocates opposing points of view, healthy debate, and thus democracy itself.  As the Deseret News reported recently, it also suppresses voter turnout at elections.  Utah has seen voter turnout decline for decades to go from one of the highest voter turnouts in the country to 48th out of 50 states.  Many Utahns feel that our elections are foregone conclusions, which in essence they are.  I doubt Utah has had a surprise election result in decades.

I'm sure we could dig deeper and look at state legislature control, party identification, and how close elections have been, and I'm sure they would all show that Utah is far more one-party oriented than any state in the country.  It is not hard to see why people believe that many, many Utah Republicans blindly vote for the party without studying the candidates and issues and voting with an independent mind.  If voters never knew which parties Herbert and Corroon, Lee and Granato belonged to and simply voted based on their characters and stances on the issues, I think this election would have gone much differently.  Herbert and Lee hold extreme positions on many issues whereas Corroon and Granato hold moderate positions on just about every issue.  The latter two, in my opinion, more closely represent the beliefs and positions of a majority of Utahs, unfortunately they both had a D next to their names and never stood a chance.

I've been saying for a long time that the time will come when Utahns will take a turn toward the left (or at least more towards the center) and start voting in a more balanced way.  I'm beginning to doubt myself, to be honest.  It may be that this rut will last for another 30 years, or it may be that some big scandal or decision will cause a sudden course change.  Or maybe we need some sort of Huntsman-esque Manchurian candidate type who gets elected as a popular moderate Republican and then reveals that s/he will switch parties to become a Democrat, broadening many horizons along the way.  In the meantime, the current hegemony that prevails in Utah is harmful to our state.

The Economy, Mitigated by the Tea Party

. . . unfortunately.

This was certainly a drubbing for Democrats, no doubt about it.  After making six years of gains they have lost the House in resounding fashion, lost a bunch of governorships, and lost a handful of Senate seats.  I have no problem with fluidity in political power, but when you take a look at the underlying factors in the Republican landslide last night, the picture isn't so neat and clear as it might seem.

Take a look at the polling that asks Americans which issues are most important to them.  The economy is always the most important by a wide margin.  In the most recent CNN poll 52% of respondents said it was the most important issue while only eight percent thought issues such as the deficit, health care, our lame wars, etc., respectively were the most important.  In a recent Pew poll 39% thought the economy was the most pressing issue, 25% said health care was, and 17% said the deficit was.  In a recent Bloomberg poll 49% listed the economy as problem number one, compared to 27% for the deficit and ten percent for health care.  In a recent CBS poll it was 57% for the economy, seven percent for health care, three percent for things like immigration and the deficit.  Exit polls from last night show the same thing.

When the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, the party in power loses.  When the economy is really bad, the party in power loses really badly (and when the American public gets upset . . . people DIE!).  It happens to both parties.  And since neither party is very adept at actually solving problems, voters are fluctuating randomly and widely, trying to find the right combination of people to get the country back on track.  I think we'll flop around between Democratic and Republican control of the various political institutions for a few years, to be honest.

But, in any case, the objective data show that this election had precious little to do with health care reform, or the budget deficit, or taxes, or anything else other than the health of the economy.  This was not a fundamental repudiation of liberalism or a fundamental acceptance of conservatism, just like the opposite wasn't true for the last few years.  This is an American public feeling lost and injured, trying to wend our way through the wilderness.  There are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and even more moderates and it will be that way for a long time.

The election was also colored by the Tea Party.  Last night MSNBC was running a graphic showing how Tea Party candidates fared.  The last one I saw showed that about 35 had won and about 60 had lost.  I can't find anything on this today, if you can please put it in the comments.  So while they generally raised Republican enthusiasm during the election, they were at best a mixed bag.  In the Senate, specifically, they might have cost Republicans control.  It looks like the new Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two independents that caucus with the Democrats (giving them essentially 53).  The Republicans threw away three seats because of the Tea Party: Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.  The thought is that if they had picked up those seats and brought the Senate to 50-50 they could have persuaded someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch and caucus with Republicans, giving them a majority.

In the end, Republicans can feel pretty good about this election, but they should stop with all the rhetoric about the American people finally waking up, repudiating Pres. Obama (who still has okay poll numbers, all things considered), or giving them some sweeping mandate.  We're actually totally depressed about our country and you are depressing, the Democrats are depressing, and we seem to be just randomly picking candidates at this point.

Divided we Stand, United we Fall

Election Day 2010. 19 Seats are in play for the Senate with the Democrats currently holding 46 and the Republicans holding 35. 111 Seats are in play for the House with the Democrats currently holding 150 and the Republicans holding 174.

I have a feeling that no matter what the final roll call is at the end of the day, there will be no satisfaction and there will be no progress. Why? Because the willingness to accept differences, concede changes, or invoke cooperation in the our delightful partisan government is as rare as rocking horse poo.

Along with my major frustration with political campaigning are the empty promises. Take Sharron Angle from Nevada for example. Set aside the fact that Mrs. Angle is as dirty and manipulative as they come, and focus only on her promise that her first act as senator would be to submit legislation to repeal "Obamacare". Fair enough, she's not alone in wanting to draft such legislation (Minority leader Jim DeMint and Colorado candidate Ken Buck, among many others). What bothers me is that there is almost no chance that they can repeal the healthcare bill. Let's assume that the predicted becomes reality and Republicans gain control of the House. This doesn't help any of the senators cause, because their legislation has to first be approved in the Senate. Let's assume that all craziness is realized and Republicans gain power in both the House and the Senate. Maybe under these conditions they could get legislation pushed through - right onto President Obama's desk, and next to his Veto pen.

So, we are going to have a new congress, with the same old problems. Despite what all the candidates are promising, and until enough of those that (ostensibly) represent us mature to the point that they can cooperate, there will be no revolutions. Maybe we should turn to the punks for advice:

"I'm tired politicians, of patriots and nots. I'm tired of deeper knowledge...It's hard to know the right choice to be made, and harder still to keep....Be not afraid to hold out your hand. Be not ashamed, to not understand." - Crazy Arm, Still to Keep

"Unity, as one we stand together. Unity, revolution's gonna come." - Operation Ivy, Unity

"Constant entertainment for our restless minds. Constant stimulation for epic appetites. Is there something wrong with these songs? Maybe there's something wrong with the audience." Against Me!, Don't Lose Touch