Stickybuffalo.com

In spite of my best intentions, I can’t help thinking about the 2012 presidential election and the incumbent Barack Obama fairly often. In combination, the two seem to make up about 75% of news coverage, after all.

And mostly, what I think about these two subjects all points to the single question “should I vote for Obama?” Obviously, this question has nothing to do with a choice between Obama and a Republican opponent. The best argument I could come up with in favor of even the most allegedly “liberal” Republicans is that, maybe, if one of them was faced with a solidly-Democratic congress, we might actually get some more progressive reforms than Obama could get with a similar congress just because a Romney, e.g., might prefer signing a cap-and-dividend law, e.g., to getting absolutely nothing whatsoever done, and a Republican majority might decide that a given reform isn’t apocalyptian socialism after all if it’s a Republican president signing it into law rather than a Democrat.

And even that’s pretty unconvincing, for various reasons. One, it will be a big surprise if we get solid Democrat majorities in congress again in the next few years. Two, even if we do, the idea that Republicans would be more cooperative (or at least less obstructionist) toward negotiated reforms, if there’s a Republican president involved, is very much open to question in the era of hyper-radicalized GOP politics. Recall how John Boehner agreed in principle to a “grand bargain” with Obama on the budget, then had to withdraw his agreement in the face of backbencher outrage. Meanwhile, three, a president still has tremendous control over foreign policy, and a Republican president could do a loooot of damage (again) as commander-in-chief which I simply would not risk, even if I thought we might break up the legislative logjam a bit, in return. (more…)

The alleged entertainment value of this endless Republican primary campaign is, to a very great extent, lost on me. I consider the whole spectacle an unhelpful, absolutely ludicrous farce, which of course consumes real attention and other resources which could be better spent on just about anything you care to name. I stand by my assertion that Mitt Romney is the Republican presidential candidate, and all the continued insistence that there is some sort of competitive race still in progress is just meaningless noise.

All that said, this is so choice that I do feel a smidge of gratitude for the context which prompted it, however ludicrous it is otherwise. Economist blogger N.L. of Chicago examines Newt Gingrich’s recent new personal record in campaign-trail clowning, the promise of a “permanent moon base” within just a dozen years, which would seem to exemplify the silliness of most coverage of this campaign. Yet in giving this implausible dream-scenario a serious look, N.L. somehow confounds all logic to produce results which are nothing short of sublime:

Technologically, then, it is feasible to get 15,000 people onto the moon for the kind of money that exists in America’s treasury. But then things start to enter the realm of fantasy [...] it will become necessary to work out how to create a closed-loop ecological system—where everything is recycled, reused and entirely sustainable. Energy must be renewable. Food must be grown, waste water must be reused and the air must be kept clean. In other words it would resemble the sort of crazy liberal fantasy that drives Republicans nuts on Earth.

Yes, that is quite good. Quite, quite good. The closing paragraph is really almost overkill, but hey, so is the entire campaign, so:

…as [Moon Base Gingrich] pursues statehood, we must consider whether it will swing Republican or Democrat. Lets think about this, the population will be highly educated, eco-friendly and very likely dependent on vast government support. Perhaps Newt [genuinely] has gone mad.

I’ve already posted about one of these, earlier, and neither is really yet at the point of being anything like what you could call a real “mission accomplished,” and etc., etc., so-on so-forth.

But I think the combination of these two positive policy developments, on the same day, is enough to really demand a brief note. Not often do we get even one item of good news like these, however compromised, let alone both:

• Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Proposal
• Sopa: US backers end support for anti-piracy bill

That’s not too bad. Both of these proposals epitomize the “migod can we just not do this completely stupid unhelpful horrible abomination” ideas that are all-too common in American politics. Yeah, sure, the list of reasons for restraining the urge to celebrate is long and familiar: Neither measure is really necessarily “dead” yet; industry-backed monstrosities like these are never really truly “dead” anyway. Even if stopped, for now, they’ll sneak back. Neither measure’s defeat really amounts to any kind of actual progress. Nor do these limited little “non-defeats” come close to being “enough” relative to the big-picture of the challenges we’re facing. Nothing ever seems like it is or will be enough.

All true, but, aside from the fact that if this is about as good as we ever actually do we might as well take the opportunity to celebrate when we can because otherwise we’ll eventually just die without ever having let ourselves enjoy the feeling of winning… (more…)