Las Vegas Gleaner

President-elect Bachmann's improbable crush on John Quincy Adams

Last January Michele Bachmann said that "the very founders that wrote those documents," referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

By the time the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865 even the youngest signers of the Declaration and the Constitution -- whether they owned slaves, ignored slavery in the former document or sanctioned it in the latter -- had been dead for decades. Everyone is making fun of Bachmann for saying this facile thing.

Of course a key part of being a Republican is never admitting you were wrong (especially to yourself), so Bachmann is still standing by her statement, using the same rationalization she used in January -- John Quincy Adams, the son of founding father John Adams, was himself a founding father. So everybody is making fun of her for that, too.

Just for the record, while John Quincy Adams fought against slavery, he could not have "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States" because he died 17 years before slavery was abolished.

Well, right-wing historical inaccuracy is fairly routine. Conservatives mixing up their facts isn't nearly as disturbing as their grand historical narrative built on a denial of truth and a rejection of objective reality itself. More on that in my CityLife column later this week.

Meantime, Bachmann's appeal to John Quincy Adams is particularly odd and incongruous -- or at least it would be if one believed she knew what she was talking about.

Adams kicked off his single term as president in 1825 by proposing a sweeping program of aggressive government activism. He advocated federal spending on canals, roads and the like (or "public improvements" as such things were called back in the day), government support for education and the establishment of a national university, scientific research, including the construction of an astronomical observatory, support for the arts, exploration of the continent and its coastlines and more. He also proposed more rigorous patent laws and the national standardization of weights and measures (or government-run weights and measures, as Bachmann might call it). All of this would be paid for primarily by higher tariffs on imported goods, the chief source of federal revenue at the time.

"The great object of civil government," Adams told Congress, "is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact, and no government, in whatever form constituted, can accomplish the lawful ends of its institution but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom it is established."

Historian Robert Remini, assessing the Adams program, declared that the "challenge to advance the nation's intellectual and material strength never had a more courageous advocate."

Alas, as Remini and others have explained, however courageous Adams may have been, he was also out of step with the age.  Constitutional strict constructionists in Congress and elsewhere were appalled by what they viewed as Adams's extra-constitutional government agenda. The quirky four-way 1824 election that was ultimately settled in a backroom deal had rendered Adams politically damaged goods before he was even inaugurated in any case, and his program was mostly DOA.

America's long heritage of persistent anti-intellectualism planted deep roots in the 1820s. The common man and "common sense" were exalted and glorified while learning and expertise were distrusted and mocked. The election of 1828 pitting Adams against Andrew Jackson was among America's most scurrilous, with each side brutally slandering the other. But the most effective tactic, one that captured a rapidly broadening electorate's preference for folkish wisdom over sophistication and formal learning, was the derisive dismissal of Adams as an over-educated aristocrat. The erudite Adams had studied all over Europe and at Harvard, where he served briefly as a professor of rhetoric and oratory. As Monroe's secretary of state Adams had written a treatise on weights and measures. He wrote poetry.

Jackson, by contrast, was the rugged rustic from the frontier, the war hero and "man of the people" who had pulled himself up by his bootstraps. His supporters, quoted in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, described Jackson as "the unlettered man of the West" who had "escaped the training ... of the schools." They meant it in a nice way.

Jefferson, John Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin -- all to lesser or greater degrees cherished literature, the arts, science, philosophy and history and were recognized as some of the era's leading intellects not only in America but abroad. The election of 1828, won handily by Jackson, signaled a shift away from the tradition of the American statesman as a man of intellect. As Hofstadter put it, "their type became obsolete in American politics," displaced by politicians who appealed to America's anti-intellectual "bumptious nationalism." John Quincy Adams "was the last nineteenth century occupant of the White House who had a knowledgeable sympathy with the aims and aspirations of science or who believed that fostering the arts might properly be a function of the federal government." The election of 1828, wrote Hofstadter, marked the difference between "what America had been and what it would become."

What America has now become is illustrated by a leading (for the moment) presidential candidate's witless affinity for a man whose presidency and principles she would abhor -- if she knew anything about them. Alas, hostile to "elitist" scholarship (i.e., scholarship that meets academic standards of credibility) and wallowing in cheap "patriotism" masquerading as star-spangled moral superiority, there's no threat that Bachmann or the Tea Party will develop an honest, informed appreciation of John Quincy Adams -- or any other historical figure, event or movement -- any time soon.

Harry Reid: Beacon of hope, guardian of democracy

In yet another sign of America's precarious status, as a going concern, it turns out that the nation's future depends mostly on Nevada's very own Harry Reid.

If Reid can't coerce Byron Georgiou out of the Senate race soon, like yesterday, then Dean Heller will win it. Lots of grown-ups are saying this.

Democrats are defending far more Senate seats than Republicans in 2012, add the aforementioned grown-ups, and Nevada is among the handful of states Democrats pretty much have to win if they hope to retain control of the Senate.

Now, if Republicans control the Senate, the Democrats will compromise with Republicans on the relentless redistribution of wealth up to the richest Americans because Democrats think that appeals to independent voters, who Democrats have ceded to the center-right in the battle of ideas. Democrats, however, would still be able to mostly thwart the more extremist outliers on the right's agenda, such as privatizing entitlements.

By contrast, if Democrats control the Senate, the Democrats will compromise with Republicans on the relentless redistribution of wealth up to the richest Americans because Democrats think that appeals to independent voters, who Democrats have ceded to the center-right in the battle of ideas. Democrats, however, would still be able to mosly thwart the more extremist outliers on the right's agenda, such as privatizing entitlements.

Clearly, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Just kidding. Mostly.

Anyway, all the cool kids agree: If Georgiou stays in the race, he might say unflattering things about Reid's chosen candidate (heaven forfend!), perhaps even forcing the chosen one to spend money in the primary that would be better spent telling everyone that Dean Heller is the only person in America who voted to kill Medicare not once, but twice. And in the unlikely event that Georgiou catches fire and actually wins the primary, he can't beat Heller, because ... if Georgiou is the nominee Heller's Medicare votes won't count anymore? A campaign focused on holding Wall Street and banks accountable can't connect in a state with the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in the nation? Financially struggling independent voters will reward Reid's preferred nominee because she was one of the few Democrats who voted for the first Bush tax cut, continues to support tax cuts for big business and promises to do everything in her power to make sure that John Ensign and Paris Hilton never have to pay inheritance taxes?

Ha ha none of that matters. The important thing is making sure that everything goes the way Harry Reid determines it should go. That's always worked out in the past.

Reid takes break from busy schedule

So everyone is captivated by the exciting mini-jihad Harry Reid has launched against fellow Democrat Byron Georgiou. No? Fair enough. It's probably safe to say that for the most part and at this juncture, the only people who care about it are those in the media-political subculture who are getting paid to care about it.

Anyway, maybe Reid's machine has some truly meaty revelations forthcoming, which is to say maybe Georgiou is genuinely icky. But thus far, all Reid has spoon-fed a "compliant media," as Georgiou calls it, is warmed-over Republican talking points about dastardly trial lawyers, an improbable tale wherein a company in Las Vegas is actually making and selling something, and the shocking news that rich people sue each other.

Presumably Reid & Co. will continue to throw whatever they've got at Georgiou. And why not? It's not like the Majority Leader of the United States Senate has any legislative agenda or some other hot priority on his plate, except to say that Paul Ryan is a dick, and every professional Democrat in America is already working that 24/7. But if this is the best, which is to say worst, material the Reid machine's got on Georgiou -- and saving stuff for later isn't exactly Team Reid's style -- well, pretty tame, really.

Reid Inc. is establishing two narratives. One is intentional -- Georgiou is shady and mustn't be trusted. The other narrative, one that Georgiou couldn't have constructed as successfully on his own no matter how hard he tried, is that an arrogant imperious Harry Reid, self-styled kingmaker and would-be omnipotent ruler of all he surveys, is trying to intimidate some guy out of running for Senate but dang, the new kid is standing up to the bully. It'll be interesting to see which narrative benefits who the most.

Oh, just as an aside ... the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to which Reid appointed Georgiou made several referrals to state and federal authorities for possible prosecution of financial service industry poohbahs who ruined the economy, especially Nevada's. Since Reid appears to have so much time on his hands, perhaps he'd like to say something about that.

Amodei: Osama bin Laden still alive and secretly ruling China

Some person named Mark Amodei left his job as a mining industry lobbyist moonlighting as a state senator in late 2008. Like so many Nevadans who found themselves out of work when the American financial system collapsed under the weight of its own jiggery-pokery, bringing the rest of the economy down with it, Amodei has been struggling to find meaningful employment ever since. Things got so bad, he decided that marginal employment was better than none at all, so he took a job as chairman of the Nevada Republican Party.

But now he sees an opportunity for a good-paying job with excellent benefits: doing whatever John Boehner tells him to do in the U.S. Congress. Here's his application:

 

I know what you're thinking. What if we need to raise the debt limit to make our military strong enough to turn back that Red Army?

Don't worry. Long before Mark Amodei is sworn in as a congressman, if he ever is, Wall Street will already have forced its congressional subsidiary to raise the debt limit, probably after the Democrats promise to detain Elizabeth Warren as an enemy combatant and agree to cut spending on enforcement of safety regulations at offshore oil rigs and underground coal mines. Plus, even if Amodei's elected, voters in his district are probably going to turn around next year and opt for someone who is a genuine grade A wingnut instead of settling for some desperate unemployable career politician wannabe who will say anything to get a job.

So chances are Amodei's ad is accurate, and he will never vote to raise the federal debt ceiling.

Meantime, Amodei's ad treats the voters of CD2 as the intelligent, thoughtful and serious people they have shown themselves to be time and again. But here's what I don't get: What if the Republican Party's most successful campaign promise of the 21st century is true, and Muslim terrorists conquer America before the Chinese? Will the Chinese still invade? And will America then host a true battle royale pitting al-Qaeda against the ChiComs? And if so, which American defense contractors stand to profit most?

On second thought, that last question misses the point. No massive defense contractor nor any other large corporation in America is ever going to have to pay their fair share of taxes, no matter what -- certainly not if Mark Amodei has anything to say about it -- and that's the important thing. If it's a choice between the Chinese Red Army and Islamic Jihadists partitioning America up post-war Germany style, on the one hand, or reducing the federal debt by making people and corporations who can most afford it start paying their fair share of taxes for a change, Amodei and the people in control of his party have sworn an oath -- no, not the oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies. The real oath: No new taxes.

Nevada Senate race may not necessarily have to totally suck

As everyone knows, this little website is ground zero for wild-eyed optimism. Always looking on the bright side, that's your Gleaner. Probably should be called the Las Vegas Pollyanna, really.

In this week's CityLife column, I put my unrealistic idealism on display for all to see and mock. Specifically, after interviewing Byron Georgiou, I entertain the possibility that the 2012 Nevada U.S. Senate race needn't necessarily be a disheartening contest fought within an establishment-tested, consultant-approved ideological spectrum (the entire boundaries of which can be found somewhere to the right of, oh, Joe Lieberman) where candidates from both parties will spend millions of dollars effectively reinforcing the right-wing stranglehold on politically acceptable public dialogue and, subsequently, public policy.

Sure, that's how the race looks now, assuming the Democratic nominee is who conventional wisdom thinks it will be.

But can't a lowly Gleaner dream?

Can the United States successfully transition to democracy?

According to President-elect Bachmann and every other Republican everywhere, all we need to do is cut taxes and government and that will make everything all better.

True, if unburdened by regulatory shackles, America's best and brightest in the financial industry could craft innovative investment products, as imaginative as they are esoteric, capable of creating trillions of dollars of brand spanking new assets out of nothing but thin air, and it's hard to see how that could go wrong. And when you cut taxes (some more), especially on the "producers," i.e., the rich, they turn right around and put that money into those parts of the free market that promise the quickest returns -- imaginative, esoteric investment products, most likely. What better way to create jobs?

*    *

Millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, real wages have stagnated or declined for those who are employed, and the economy is flirting with another recession (though given its persistently anemic performance since collapsing in 2007, whether the economy is technically in a recession or not seems to matter less and less anymore).

Ideally, the huge gulf separating politics and reality would be confined to the "feast of political dysfunction" that is the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

But no.

Though they control the White House and half of Congress, Democrats have let the Republicans dictate the top policy priority for both parties: deficit reduction. Meantime, Democratic economic initiatives, inasmuch as there are any, are bite-sized irrelevancies, driven not by a commitment to economic growth but a political concern for securing a spot in the news cycle. A recent representative sample: After assuring corporate CEOs that, don't worry, he'll trim the deficit and cut regulations, too, Obama announced an apparently voluntary plan for the private sector to help train 10,000 engineers a year, someday. The president billed it as an "all hands on deck strategy," presumably because that has a better ring to it than a "spoon-in-a-flood gimmick."

The plutocracy needs the Democratic Party, and the two-party system generally, because it gives non-wealthy masses the illusion of a meaningful choice. Health care or financial reform legislation may slow the increasing concentration of wealth among the richest Americans, a little. But such legislation, timid and deeply compromised, doesn't stop that transfer of wealth, let alone reverse it.

Meantime, when popular disgust reaches palpable levels -- a routine occurrence thus far in our young century -- voters can lash out at whichever party is in office. If that benefits the Democrats occasionally, well, it's not as if Democrats are going to inflict any significant harm on the plutocracy -- and of course overturning it is out of the question. If voters need to have a temper tantrum, better (from the plutocracy's point of view) that they get it out of their system by electing Democrats every now and again, and then, faith in their farce of a democracy momentarily, but only momentarily, renewed, the great unwashed can resume their unwinnable struggle against inequality and the crackup of the middle class.

Besides, no matter what modest hindrances the Democrats may place on the concentration of wealth, all will be more than made up when Republicans resume control.

*    *

So. Kids these days. Official unemployment among Americans aged 16 to 24 is 20 percent, but as Dave Lindorff explains (at This Can't Be Happening, which is a funny name for a website because ha ha obviously it can be happening), the actual rate is at "staggering Egypt-like levels: 30% for all young people, 45% for young Latinos, and as high as 66% for black youth." And (as Lindorff does) let's juxtapose that information with something that an "unnamed White House official" said a while back about the Arab Spring:

"I think it's important to note that the political movements of nonviolent protests that we've seen are rooted in part in a lack of opportunity in the region. You have very large populations of young people, many of whom -- too many of whom cannot find a job. You have a history not just of political rights being restricted but of economic corruption that has also frustrated opportunity.

"So we think it's important to note that some of the protests in the region are deeply rooted in a lack of individual opportunity and economic growth, as well as a suppression of political rights.

"We also know from our study of the past that successful transitions to democracy depend in part on strong foundations for prosperity, and that reinforcing economic growth is an important way of reinforcing a democratic transition."

Going into the 2012 elections the Democrats appear to have one issue: Paul Ryan. Hmm. That should drive jobless hopeless young'ns to the polls. On the other hand, if Republicans could quit bashing gays and Mexicans, the GOP might be able to dupe young voters with the same simplistic right-wing economic extremism that has successfully seduced so many of their parents and grandparents.

Either way, for younger Americans, the future looks totally screwed. If and when they figure that out, it'll be fun to see if they care to do anything about it. The only thing hanging in the balance is a functioning, legitimate democracy, but it still might be interesting.

Ask the Gleaner: "Pointless Joe Heck, Whatever" Edition

A Henderson resident, and hence a constituent of cardboard Republican Rep. Joe Heck, asks...

Q: Hi Gleaner, any thoughts on Joe Heck's triple about face on Social Security?

A: Eh, not really. He's not exactly an idea man, and who knows if he even believes any of the words that come out of his own mouth? Spending the rest of his adult life being friends with the likes of John Boehner and Michele Bachmann is his fondest hope. That lot loves 'em some lazy wingnut talk, so Heck was flinging some around -- Pyramid scheme! Boo! -- because he's a joiner who wants to be just like all the other kids. And, well, whoopsey-daisy. But along with his vote to kill Medicare, it'll give Democrats something else to toss at him instead of running on a Democratic agenda, which is good, because there isn't one.

Brian Sandoval's housing policy should turn things around any day now

The richest 5 percent of Americans owned two-thirds of U.S. wealth as of 2009. Fortunately for them, their fabulous wealth is diversified all over the place, like in the stock market -- 81 percent of which was owned by the richest 10 percent, again as of 2009. And since 2009 (losses in recent weeks notwithstanding), the Dow has increased nearly 50 percent.

Alas, for average middle-class Nevadans, assuming there is such an animal anymore, the largest single asset contributing to their net worth is their home. Or it used to be, until virtually every house in Nevada became a financial liability, eradicating individual economic security while guaranteeing that Nevada's economy will never recover, ever.

Preliminary inquiries from your Gleaner to the greater egghead community have thus far failed to unearth Nevada-specific wealth distribution statistics (if anyone knows where to find that data, if it exists, please provide a link in the comments, gracias). But idle speculation is a core mission here at Gleaner HQ, and given the Las Vegas economy generally and the catastrophic housing fiasco specifically, it is reasonable to assume that wealth inequality and polarization is yet another area wherein Nevada is a -- if not the -- national leader, and will be for the foreseeable future, doncha think?

Oh, by the way, another vigorous round of foreclosing looks likely:

Las Vegas housing analyst Dennis Smith, president of Home Builders Research, warned about the problem worsening as well in his recent newsletter to clients.

Without major legislation to force lenders into a program that addresses home values in severely distressed markets like Las Vegas, the foreclosure mess will continue for years, Smith said.

...

[UNLV Lied Institute's Nasser]Daneshvary said the best options for banks to prevent people from walking away is to restructure their loans and reduce the principal and share in any appreciation.

No one is expecting that to happen ...

But hey, look on the bright side -- as people lose their homes and embark on a new life-long existence of hopelessness and penury, at least here in Nevada, the banks that stubbornly refuse to help anyone don't have to pay a state income tax!

Brian Sandoval has made it clear time and again that when it comes to economic and fiscal policy, he is guided by belief, not facts. And he believes businesses, including (especially?) banks, should not pay a state income tax.

Well, if banks had to pay a state income tax, it would eat into their soaring profits, making it less likely that they would write down principal or -- gasp! -- loan someone some money. Which are things that surely a bank in Nevada will do? Someday? Because of no new taxes!

How President-elect Palin's bells get rung

Sorry, this is apropos of absolutely nothing and of no significance to anyone anywhere ever. But as it happens, this stupid Paul Revere thing is actually pretty simple. Here we go:

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Fascinating. But I digress...

M'kay, totally don't care about Palindrones trying to rewrite Wikipedia or Palin pretending after the fact that she knew Revere was captured by the British so provided everyone agrees to ignore her context and meaning, such as it is, and be very, very charitable, then technically she wasn't entirely 100 percent wrong blahblahblah. No, here's the important thing: if you plug "town crier" into the Google images machine, pretty much everything that comes up is a guy in a tricorn hat ringing a bell:

Representations of Paul Revere, or at least the ones most likely to be seen in a children's book, which is to say the ones with which Palin would most likely be familiar, also usually show Revere wearing a tricorn hat. And he was conveying information, just like town criers in oldy timey days.

In accordance with wingnut custom, Palin is uberconfident about her interpretation of the past -- "I know my American history," she asserted the other day. The history that wingnuts like Palin know, however, is more often than not a vulgarization based on banal sentiment and a superstitious divine providence theory of causation. Burdened by neither informed perspective nor relevant facts, Palin's oversimplification of a past that never was proved no match for the sheer force of vestigial images tucked away with the rest of the hokum, twaddle and trite ideological kitsch stocking the shelves in the flea market that is Sarah Palin's consciousness. So tricorn hat + messages in the olden days = bells. Guaranteed.

Rory2014!

Rory Reid, absolutely the best person the Nevada Democratic Party could find to run for governor in 2010, has admitted his campaign's financial jiggery-pokery was not just probably icky, but provably so. Now Rory will have to pay a $25,000 fine. And he can't pay the fine with ethereal Political Committee Imagine Dollars, either, but has to fork over money from his own personal stash, money he has earned as a well-respected member of one of Nevada's most highly regarded professions: full-time offspring of a powerful person.

America's entire campaign finance system is a morally reprehensible offense against sense, decency and justice. That it isn't a crime is in itself criminal. So for Rory to stipulate that if the case went to litigation, he'd lose, eh, ho hum. Loyal Democrats and key party constituencies will probably forgive him for that.

A more interesting question is, Should they forgive him for his 2010 campaign?

His only hope for victory was to run against filthy sociopath Jim Gibbons, so during the primary, Reid's cronies ran independent ads on Gibbons's behalf that promoted Gibbons's right-wing agenda by blaming Republican Brian Sandoval for "the largest tax increase in Nevada history." Rory followed that up in the general election by repeatedly promising no new taxes, all Republican like.

With Nevada facing the most severe budget crisis in its history, yet stubbornly refusing to tax those most able to pay, Rory and his associates spent millions of dollars reinforcing the knee-jerk, brain-dead anti-government sentiment that is responsible for so much that is wrong in Nevada in the first place -- a sentiment that of course effortlessly prevailed in the budget deal struck in the 2011 Legislature. And as Rory & Friends were actively moving the center of Nevada's political discourse further to the right, objections from Reid's fellow Democrats and the public employees, teachers and others who make up the Democratic base were ... voiced modestly, quietly or privately, if at all.

Well, it is the Democratic Way, especially in Nevada. From Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus boldly fighting for rich people tax cuts in Congress to the state Assembly speaker boasting that "When it comes to reducing the size of government, John Oceguera is taking the lead," Nevada Democratic politicians have shown time and again that they are more than willing, even keen, to embrace pernicious right-wing faith-based but fact-free economic ideology that facilitates policies designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Acquiescence to such political correctness is how Democrats win campaigns, and once they're in office, well, then they can promote a progressive agenda. Or so the theory goes. Why, maybe one day the Democrats will even win the holy grail -- the two-thirds supermajorties in both state legislative chambers required to raise taxes.

The ugly paradox is that when Democrats surrender to, even advocate, conventional Republican narratives -- and when Democratic constituents sit quietly and/or publicly go along, a la Rory2010 -- they assist the right's relentless presentation of facile ideological beliefs as if they were settled facts, making it all the more difficult for Democrats to win elections without hewing even further to the right. And there's always another election, virtually guaranteeing that in a Nevada political climate influenced in no small part by Democratic adoption of Republican memes, Democratic legislative supermajorities would by no means automatically enact progressive policies. In the meantime, for the vast majority of Democratic politicians who are afraid to discuss policy candidly, the lack of legislative supermajorities is super-convenient, providing an ironclad excuse they can feed to the base while allowing them to tell independents that Republicans supported the same taxes they did so "neener neener." Taken-for-granted rank-and-file party apologists chant "Democrats good, Republicans bad" or words to that effect, stimulus-response fashion. All the while, to paraphrase Richard Wolff, both parties squabble over which public services to cut and which government employees to fire to deal with a fiscal "emergency" their policies and narratives have manufactured -- and promise to worsen. And Nevada gets screwed.

A proposal to put a tax reform initiative on the ballot in a special election later this year appears to have fallen off the table, so labor, educators and other Democratic constituents are planning to put it on the general election ballot in 2012. With the possible exception of the presidency, nothing on that ballot, including the races for Senate and Congress, would be as important to the state of Nevada as that tax reform initiative.

Yet if Democratic politicians appeal to those core constituents and then it is determined that, dang, with so darned much at stake in 2012, this just isn't the right time to put taxes on the ballot, will anyone be all that surprised? Or will it be more surprising if the initiative actually does appear on the ballot?

As for ol' Rory, his last name is still his biggest problem. But if his political future depended only on the degree to which Nevada Democrats demand a willingness, let alone an eagerness, to stand up to deplorable Republican gibberish instead of echoing it, hell, he could go ahead and start planning another gubernatorial run in 2014.