The Reticulator

I’m reading “The Granger Movement : A study of agricultural organization and its political, economic and social manifestations 1870-1880” by Solon Justus Buck (1913).  On page 103 Buck mentions one of the ways the Granges used to exert some political influence:

Another favorite method of attempting to influence legislation was that of interrogating candidates for office regarding their position on certain proposed legislative measures.

We could use more of that.   Written Q&A forums are not unheard of these days, but if we had more of them we might get around the tendency of the MSM to ask only the stupidest, most irrelevant questions.    A Tea Party group, for example, could establish an identity by insisting that the candidates for all offices a set of good questions.   The format could include followup questions, to get around the tendency of candidates to provide bland, meaningless answers or to change the subject.

Newspapers would be faced with a quandary.   On the one hand, they desperately need readers.   Q&A like this lend themselves to print more than broadcast, so this would give them a way to compete.  On the other hand, they would interfere with their mission of obscuring information.   But with the internet there is no reason that newspapers have to be the medium.

Here are some questions I’d like to see asked:

• Is federal funding of NPR and CPB compatible with the first Amendment?
• Do you support de-funding of Solyndra-type programs in order to end the appearance of corruption?
• How important is it to replace a myriad of state regulations on insurance, health care, food safety, or any other topic, with uniform federal regulations?
• Is there a connection between uniform federal regulations and companies becoming too big and monopolistic — too big to fail, even?

So far the election results are disappointing in that the polls seem to have been pretty much correct. I haven’t seen any results that knocked pollsters for a loop. It’s best when pollsters err by underestimating the liberal-conservatives, but any kind of messed-up progosis is a cause for joy.

This means voters are telling the truth when pollsters call. That isn’t the sign of a healthy democracy.

NYT headline: “Obama Advisers Weigh Ad Assault Against the G.O.P.“

Does this mean he’s weighing the possibility of NOT doing a media assault against the GOP? How would that work?

I don’t much care whether the Republican party disappears or keeps going in some form or other, but I care a lot about stopping Obama’s imperialistic power grabs and about preserving human rights. With that in mind, I suggest that it would be far better for the vote on the next such issue to be 60 Democrats Aye, 40 Republicans Nay than it would be to have 59 Democrats Aye, 1 Republican Aye, 40 Republicans Nay. The Democrats are offended when they can’t get some Republicans to vote for their programs; else how are they going to have someone to blame when those programs fail? Arlan Specter will no longer be one of those Republicans who will give them the kind of bipartisan cover they seek.

Here’s a clue: If you think everybody in the room shares your enthusiasm (or dismay) over the ascension of Obama to power, you need to talk less and listen more. If everyone actually does share your enthusiasm (or dismay) you need to be in a room with a more diverse group of people.

I’ve been in rooms with both oblivious types (pro- and anti-) in the past couple of days. I managed to keep my mouth shut and save it for my blog.