The Unprincipled Nature of American Consumerism and its Effect on Politics

My friend Andy and I have been talking a lot lately about consumerism and its pernicious place in American culture. Every trip to the West Village in Dallas makes me think of Solomon's words in the book of Ecclesiastes

All the labor of man is for his mouth,
And yet the soul is not satisfied.
For what more has the wise man than the fool?
What does the poor man have,
Who knows how to walk before the living?
Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire.
This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.
Whatever one is, he has been named already,
For it is known that he is man;
And he cannot contend with Him who is mightier than he.
Since there are many things that increase vanity,
How is man the better?

For who knows what is good for man in life, all the days of his vain life which he passes like a shadow? Who can tell a man what will happen after him under the sun?

But, I may have read the most disgusting reminder of American consumerism today in the online journal Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6892.html

Indeed, the need to consume, and to possess material goods is so strong that an iPod touch or some college tuition would buy a college student's vote. For a million dollars, most of them would even permanently forfeit their right to vote. Although these hypothetical scenarios are somewhat disconcerting, they are a reminder of the broader reality: that most Americans will give their votes in exchange for a portion of the government largess in the form of entitlement spending and pork. The rest of the country doesn't care, and doesn't vote.

I have a thought on this particular problem, one that came to me as I was walking to Starbucks (ironic, eh?) this morning. There is much talk about decadent nations meeting their doom. Individually, we are told in the Proverbs that "pride goeth before the fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction." I would assume the same is true of nations, but why?

Well let's go back to our example of college students exchanging their votes for an iPod Touch (which, by the way, is the most ridiculous product ever sold by Apple--why in the world would I want to buy an iPhone without the phone?). Things are pretty good in America. Left and Right seem to forget it, but the vast majority of Americans don't care about politics primarily because nothing is wrong enough (yet) to make them care. Consequently, they'd rather have an iPod Touch (even if it doesn't have phone capabilities) than a vote. Decadent societies, therefore, it would seem, decline precisely because when people have something to eat and drink, it makes it easier for them to "eat drink and be merry." Culturally, we have a nation of trust fund children, in the socio-economic and political sense. Trust fund children do not have to work, and usually turn out to be pretty miserable human beings. Our trust fund culture doesn't have to be diligent when it comes to the art of government and politics and so they aren't.

John Adams once famously said "I must study politics and war so that my children might have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." Unfortunately the generation of mathematics and philosophy students gave way to a generation of business students, who produced a generation of people who now have little incentive to do much of anything where government & civics are concerned. The few people who are interested in politics are right-wing and left-wing ideological zealots seeking to impose some form of greater order on their fellow man.

More or less, we have taken the easy road and "outsourced" our government to a handful of incompetent yokels (i.e. Congress), an Emperor without Clothes (i.e. President Bush), and a massive, inert bureaucracy that could not possibly be more disconnected from society. With the power of the Internet, and especially the re-birth of the Internet in Web 2.0, we have the unprecedented ability to impact national policy and indeed the future and fate of our country.

We will not use these tools for their highest possible calling, however, until we see a change in culture. That is going to be the toughest sell of all. We need our college students to be willing to trade in their iPods for a bit of their attention to important matters of national policy, and not just concerning the things that make the headlines, but the millions of devilish details imposed on Americans every day. I'm not saying they are all bad--I'm just saying we should think about them, and give them our assent or dissent.

In our legal system there exists the concept of a "fiduciary." A fiduciary is a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another." Every generation, in a sense, is the fiduciary for the next generation. We are all entrusted both property and power that we will one day hand over to a new generation. We have an ethical duty to preserve and improve both before our reign comes to an end. In business, the Director of a Corporation has a "fiduciary duty" to protect the interests of the Corporation, and the business laws that govern all of our states make it a crime for a Director to be negligent in his duties--"sins of omission" are punished, just as "sins of commission" are.

I hope Generation Y will wake up from its decadence and take the responsibility we have seriously. It isn't too late to do that in 2008.

Handicapping the Presidential Race at this Point

The Early-Mover advantage may be a thing of the past. Partly because of the general political fatigue and malaise, and partly because of the lengthy election cycle (something really must be done about this...), I do not think the early front runners have an advantage in this race, regardless of what the polls show currently. In fact, it is beginning to seem that they may be at a disadvantage. Thanks to the Internet, surges from obscurity can occur without large war chests, though nobody (except Ron Paul) really gets this. The Romney and Giuliani Camps on the GOP side, and the Clinton and Obama Camps on the Democrat side need to wake and realize that "two weeks is an eternity in politics" is obsolete. It is now "two minutes is an eternity in politics," and things can change overnight. Just as military strategy has changed in the post-Cold War Era to prefer light, nimble rapid fighting forces over large massive heavy forces, so in political strategy the Internet has changed the game entirely.

Iowa is developing into an extremely fascinating scenario on the Republican Side. In the latest Zogby Poll, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee showed support amongst 15% of primary voters, second to Mitt Romney's 31%. This is a 7 point gain for Huckabee since August, and a 2 point decline for Romney. Huckabee displaced Giuliani in the #2 spot, with Giuliani's support dropping to 11%. Thompson was 4th with 10%, and John McCain came in 5th at 8%. Because of some of Huckabee's populist stances on certain economic issues and his conservative (but not extremist) views on social issues, it seems that he has the most to gain by siphoning votes away from all of the other major candidates, and especially from Giuliani and Thompson. Thompson's poor performance nationally, and especially in the key early states has not been a great surprise to most national political commentators, as he was never known as a great campaigner. Huckabee, on the other hand, is an incredible campaigner, and is not only convincing, but has the potential to be convincing that he has a chance in the general election nation-wide. This same trend could occur in South Carolina. If he can raise some much-needed cash (double what his site says he needs by the end of November) and make a few strategic changes, Huckabee will enter the top three nationally (and in the rest of the early states), displacing Thompson.

Prediction: By the end of 2007, Thompson, McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter will be out of the race. Thompson's support will likely coalesce around Huckabee in the South, and be more evenly distributed amongst the other candidates nationally. McCain's support will likely bolster Giuliani, and the Tancredo and Hunter votes will most likely go to Huckabee as well, assuming the last sentence of the last paragraph proves true.

On the Democrat side in Iowa, things are less tumultuous and unpredictable, but no less interesting. Obama has made incremental gains since August, and Hillary's losses have been within the margin of error. Edwards and Richardson's numbers have also remained relatively steady. The key on the Democrat side is that Hillary's numbers have been stable within 5 points of where they were as far back as March, proving that as the most "known quantity" in the race on either side, her support is unlikely to increase measurably. Interestingly enough, though, Obama's support has been equally as stable in the same period of time. None of the minor candidates appear to be making a Huckabee-like surge into the top tier, and that presents a problem for the Democrats. If they get tired of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, they have nowhere to turn. Bill Richardson, although attractive on paper, is ineloquent and chubby. At the risk of being labeled a sexist, I think these two traits make it impossible for Richardson to escape the 2nd Tier, as he will never be able to break into the female voting bloc, which traditionally supports articulate, good-looking candidates.

The Democrats need an out. The problems presented by Hillary (50% of all men, and 55% of married men say they absolutely will not vote for her, for example) may be impossible to overcome in the Electoral College. A Giuliani candidacy puts her lock on New York in doubt. A Huckabee candidacy would almost assure a GOP shut out of the South (which was Al Gore and John Kerry's death knell).

Although I believe America could elect a female president, I am (sadly) less optimistic about its ability to elect a black president. Obama would lose the South against any Republican candidate, including Giuliani. It is no secret that there is substantive animosity between the African-American contingent of the Democratic Party and the other major identity groups: Unions, Hispanics, the Jewish community, and the GLBT community. In all of these cases, save the Hispanics, I believe the Democrats would rally behind whoever was nominated, though I firmly believe that all of the identity groups would be happier with a Hillary candidacy than an Obama candidacy. But, the Hispanic vote is fickle, and the Democrats do not have the lock on it that they have on the other major groups. I think it extremely possible that in the event of, say a Giuliani or Huckabee nomination (both candidates have reasonable and moderate views on immigration), Obama could face a split in the Hispanic vote, enough to turn the tables in key states like California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Florida, all of which the Democrats need to win, and save Florida, HAVE to win, in order to take the White House back in 2008.

Given all of this, I have a couple of predictions to make about the Democratic primary:

1) With Hillary's poor debate performance, Obama and Edwards smell blood in the water and will be taking off the gloves even more, trying to bloody her up.
2) The Democratic primary will be sharply divided all the way to the end, with a possible need for a convention vote.
3) No matter what, Hillary still gets the nomination. In this rare instance, the Democrats will nominate the front-runner, and "stick to the devil they know." If it goes to a convention, Hillary has it in a walk, because hard-core Democrats and the mass of Democrat insiders will support Hillary (if for no other reason than they view it as a second coming of their Savior Bill Clinton, who "rescued" them from the legacy of Reaganism).
4) The Democrats will leave the primary broken, battered, and divided, and we will have another dead-heat, down-to-the-wire general election.

4 more years of gridlock...let's get excited!