The U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United case allows unlimited contributions to super-PACs, “political action committees” that aren’t (supposed to be) directed by any candidate or campaign.  They are generally issue-based, but can favor and support a particular candidate, as long as there is no collaboration between the candidate’s campaign and the super-PAC.  It was a super-PAC funded by a single Las Vegas couple that kept Newt Gingrich in the race long after rigor mortis has come and gone and he’d begun to stink.

The use of super-PAC money has increased significantly the amount of money going into politics—and, subsequently, the number of political ads you see and the number of obnoxious political robo-calls you get.  But that’s not all; it has also increased the amount of negative advertising (and fake polling calls disparaging the opposing candidate through carefully crafted “poll” questions).  Because no candidate has to say “I approve this message” at the end of a super-PAC-funded commercial, they can get down-right nasty and (presumably) leave no stench on the candidate the super-PAC is supporting.  This is why you see so many sallow, grainy, gray, red-eyed pictures of candidates on your TV screens.  Because the group responsible is something called “Good Folks for American Issues” or some other vaguely patriotic but non-partisan name.

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with Governor Romney’s timing?  Here’s what I think: Romney’s campaign always planned on moving leftward near the center, but they needed all the super-PAC support and money they could get (against a well-funded incumbent President).  So they held to the right lane, knowing that the real money o both sides is delved out by extremists and issues voters.  They continued, through September, collecting donations and super-PAC funding until the last possible second.

Then, in a debate on national TV, Romney changed lanes.  I think part of President Obama’s paltry performance was because he had prepared to debate the conservative candidate, but instead the former Governor of liberal Massachusetts reared his moderate head.  Romney suddenly became a viable candidate, satisfying the desire of moderate voters in swing states for a moderate alternative to Obama.

Whether Romney wins or not, this campaign will change the timing of all campaigns in the future.  Get used to it—more partisan acrimony (what the money wants) for longer times before candidates move to the center (where the voters want them).  This is 21^st Century politics.  Hopefully it’s not here to stay.

Romney has spent the last five years convincing conservatives that he’s a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners business man who will straighten out the economy by slashing entitlements (just not the world’s biggest entitlement—the U.S. defense budget; but I digress). 

Now, as he moves into the general election and tries to woo centrist independents in battleground states (most of our votes really don’t matter), he has to somehow convince them that he’s not part of the Wall Street bunch that helped create the current recession.  He has to convince them that, as a private venture capitalist, he’s different from the hedge fund managers getting million dollar bonuses for helping to saddle people (and taxpayers) with unsustainable debt.  He has to somehow convince them that despite the apparent increases in greed, dishonesty, selfishness, opportunism, etc. that the economy needs LESS regulation to keep these same maladies in check.  And all the while he has to maintain to conservatives that he’s not the guy that got elected in Massachusetts and championed the model for Obamacare.

“A new Fox News poll released Wednesday [June 27] shows that by a 14 percentage-point margin, more voters think Barack Obama (41 percent) has a clear plan to improve the economy than think Mitt Romney does (27 percent).”  What!?!  How is the Economy Guy, the Turn-Around Artist, the Businessman with Real World Experience scoring a third below the Community Organizer, the Academic on plans to improve the economy?  The centerpiece of Romney’s campaign is his ability to turn around the economy, but people just aren’t buying it.

It’s a matter of trust.  Do you trust the devil you know (Mr. Obama) or the devil you don’t, who, with his offshore accounts, his 15% tax rate, and his elevator . . . in his garage . . . for his cars(!) sure looks like the crooks on Wall Street?

As David Brooks said recently “”Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism. He’s going to have to separate his vision from the scandals and excesses we’ve seen over the last few years. He needs to define the kind of capitalist he is and why the country needs his virtues.”

I think centrist independents have lost so much trust in “business” (or more properly, 21^st Century American capitalism) over the last decade that being a businessman, as great as that seems to some, brings with it too much questionable baggage that could become a millstone for the Romney campaign.

“I have no other end in this writing, but only to discover myself, who, also, shall, peradventure, be another thing tomorrow, if I chance to meet any new instruction to change me.”  – Montaigne

The term flip-flop has become as ubiquitous in accusatory politics as the ridiculous “footwear” that bear the same name have become in the population at large.  I have to say that I prefer a change of mind to a precarious piece of rubber snapping at my heel.

In my mind, an elected official who never flip flops has ceased to think and learn.  Anyone who continues to collect and try to understand information on a subject will experience some movement in his opinions of the problem and the solution.  This developing understanding may not often cause a complete reversal of positions, but it will happen occasionally.  And as understanding changes—even if only a little bit—language, tactics, perceptions, preconceptions, goals, metrics, and meaning change.

Those who expect their elected officials—or anyone else, for that matter—never to flip flop have some serious misconceptions: either 1) that the official already knows everything or 2) that all new information that comes to light will support the official’s (or more truthfully, the supporter’s) stances.  Either way, the person is a fool.

Unfortunately, I think that in our Internet age when people are able to seek out exclusively those “media sources” that validate rather than inform, we will see less flip-flopping.  It will also fall victim to campaign contributions from the fringes, linked to particular issues.  As the people, the candidates, and the money circulate wildly in their echo chambers, there will be less time and opportunity for reflection and honest, respectful debate.

We should all respect a sincere flip-flop.  Who knows, we may learn something someday that puts us in the position of digging up the courage to do our own 180º turn.

In the movie All of Me the soul of Lilly Tomlin’s character is mistakenly trapped inside the body of Steve Martin’s character.  Anyone who has seen this movie has witnessed one of the great masters of physical comedy do some of his best work as his body lurches around, trying to obey the two wills trapped inside it.

It’s funny when it’s Steve Martin, but it’s not so funny when it’s your government.

With the money coming from the extreme wings of each of the two major party—and the influence that it buys flowing back out to them—our federal government and some state governments resemble Steve Martin lurching and tripping around, pushing agendas each farther from the center than the last set of representatives did.

Cover the kids’ ears
As most of the country pleads for reason and cooperation, the word “compromise” becomes a weapon in the arsenals of politicians: “I won’t compromise my principles of [fill in the superficial political objective]”; or “The other side refuses to compromise [while our side is giving up SO much ground]”.

But compromise is exactly what we need for the government to “govern”—and a centrist third party is the way to get it.

We’ve all heard the term “coalition government” but many of us don’t know what it is because it doesn’t really exist in the U.S.

A coalition government happens, primarily in parliamentary systems, when a party wins a plurality of the representative seats, but not a majority.  In order to create a majority and get anything done, the party that won plurality must form an alliance with another party.

This requires some give and take—or compromise—to align their priorities on which to base their agenda.  And this is what the federal and state governments are missing in most of the U.S.

In the U.S., “to the victor go the spoils,” and to the financer goes the influence; the winning party doesn’t have to compromise because they are a majority, and their money sources don’t want them to compromise, so they don’t—not even if it’s the best thing for the people.

When this happens, ideology rules.  It reminds me of another comedic movie, Erik the Viking, in which, when the island of Hy-Brazil begins to sink into the ocean, the government’s official line is to be calm because “This is NOT happening.”

On the other hand, parties in a country where one party rarely gets a majority know that compromise is inevitable.  And the inevitability of compromise makes it a fact of life rather than a flaw or a weapon.

Most of these coalition governments are either center-right or center-left, but the center is almost always a part of them.  Why?  Because that’s where the people are.

Center citizens
This centrism brings stability to the system.  None of the parties can take the government and run hell-bent for the fringes.  No center-whatever coalition will quote the refrain from Washington every other year, “The American people have given us a mandate . . .,” and take the agenda to the extreme.

So what do we do?

-          Support centrist candidates

-          Encourage existing officials to become independent (but you have to have a lot of support in your back pocket to convince him/her)

-          Influence your chosen party toward the center

-          Find a friend from the other side of the aisle whom you can talk to respectfully and intelligently about the issues

-          Support third parties (through activism, funds, and voting)

If we want a country that is not controlled from the fringes like a double-minded man, we must bring the agenda to the center.  And that requires people pulling the influence back from the fringes and into where the citizens are—in the center.

Last year I found a new Christmas song—really a (wild) variation on an older Christmas song.  It’s “Little Town” by a two-person band called Over The Rhine.  It’s a beautiful song (not at all the tune of “O Little Town of Bethlehem”) with a great message.  I encourage you to download it from iTunes or wherever.  Satisfaction is guaranteed in that I will pay you 100% cash back plus 1% interest if you don’t like it (refund must be in person and you must give me 24 hours’ notice so I can get a $1 bill).

Little Town – Over the Rhine

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy dark and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by

Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

The lamplit streets of Bethlehem
We walk now through the night
There is no peace in Bethlehem
There is no peace in sight

The wounds of generations
Almost too deep to heal
Scar the timeworn miracle
And make it seem surreal

The baby in the manger
Grew to a man one day
And still we try to listen now
To what he had to say

Put up your swords forever
Forgive your enemies
Love your neighbor as yourself
Let your little children come to me

When someone tells me we need a free market, I say “A totally free market means anti-freeze sold as snow-cone syrup.”  They retort, “Well, of course we need some regulation.”  And so it becomes an argument of the degree of regulation.

When someone says we need enough regulation to stamp out all cheating, corruption, waste, and lead paint from China, I point out that in order to do that we would need a government official assigned to monitor no more than ten people (and more people to monitor the monitors).  This is neither attractive nor financially feasible.  And so it becomes an argument of the degree of freedom to make mistakes.

Taxes are a favorite target of the right.  When in a discussion with someone who fancies himself anti-tax, I’ll propose we reduce the tax rate to zero—that will really get the economy humming!  He will concede that taxes are essential to an efficient and energetic government.  And so it becomes are argument of the degree of taxation.

On the other hand, when someone asserts we need to raise taxes on the rich, I say, “Should we return to the highest tax rate during WWII of 94%?”  Reasonable people will admit that is too high.  And so it becomes are argument of degrees of personal financial freedom.

In business there is the concept of a Pareto win.  If the seller sells a good or service for more than the minimum he will accept and the buyer pays less than the maximum he will pay, then they both win.  In politics particularly, but also in religion, this common ground is vast.  The fact is that most of us agree on more than we disagree on.  If we can first identify and explore common ground, then we can retain our respect, humility, and our communication skills as we broaden our perspective and learn from the experiences and insights of others.

Below are some of the best quotes I pulled from my brief and selective reading of Montaigne.  I’m sure I’ll be back to visit him.

From “Of Pedantry”
“We suffer ourselves to lean and rely so strongly upon the arm of another, that we destroy our own strength and vigour.”

“though we could become learned by other men’s learning, a man can never be wise but by his own wisdom.”

“these fellows, to make a parade and to get opinion, mustering the ridiculous knowledge of theirs, that floats on the superficies of the brain, are perpetually perplexing and entangling themselves in their own nonsense.”

“All other knowledge is hurtful to him who has not the science of goodness.”

From “Of the Education of Children”
“I have no other end in this writing, but only to discover myself, who, also, shall, peradventure, be another thing tomorrow, if I chance to meet any new instruction to change me.”

“the greatest and most important difficulty of human science is the education of children.”

“we may whet and sharpen our wits by rubbing them against those of others.”

“[the student] shall, by reading [great] books, converse with the great and heroic souls of the best ages.”

“The conduct of our lives is the true mirror of our doctrine.”

From “That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity”
“resolutely to condemn anything for false and impossible, is arrogantly and impiously to circumscribe and limit the will of God, and the power of our mother nature, within the bounds of my own capacity. . . .”

“How many unlikely things are there testified by people worthy of faith, which, if we cannot persuade ourselves absolutely to believe, we ought at least to leave them in suspense; for, to condemn them as impossible, is by a temerarious presumption to pretend to know the utmost bounds of possibility.”

From “Of Cannibals”
“every one gives the title of barbarism to everything that is not in use in his own country.”

From “That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion we Have of Them”
“The confidence in another man’s virtue is no light evidence of a man’s own. . . .”

“not he whom the world believes, but he who believes himself to be so, is content;”

“A straight oar seems crooked in the water.”

From “Upon Some Verses of Virgil”
“few will quarrel with the license of my writings, who have not more to quarrel with in the license of their own thoughts. . . .”

“Every one is wary and discreet in confession, but men ought to be so in action;”

“Every one avoids seeing a man born, every one runs to see him die;”

“there are . . . people . . . who value themselves upon contempt of themselves, and purport to grow better by being worse.”

“Amongst chief deformities I reckon forced and artificial beauties. . . .”

What is the most listened-to radio show in America?  Rush Limbaugh’s.  Estimates range between 14 and 30 million listeners.  In July of 2008 Limbaugh signed an eight-year, $400 million contract—hardly the kind of money a revolutionary gets for speaking truth to power.

What is the most-watched cable news channel?  Fox News Channel, which regularly has 50% more than, and often twice as many, viewers as #2 CNN.

What is the most-watched cable news show?  Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor, with its anything-but-journalistic host, regularly pulls in 3.5 to 4 million viewers.  Granted, his viewers are about half of the number watching a broadcast evening news program, but broadcast news viewership has declined by about a million viewers a year since 1980, while FOX News continues to grow.  Moreover, the broadcast channels feature 2-4 hours of news each day while the cable news channels broadcast “news” 24/7.  And let’s not forget that Fox’s broadcast channel shares a lot of personnel and an obvious conservative bent with the cable Fox News Channel.

So they’re huge; so what?

In a recent Pew Research Center survey on perceptions about President Obama’s religious life, they found that seven percent more people in August 2010 (18%) think Obama is a Muslim than did in March of 2009 (11%).  And not coincidentally “When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media.”  This is why it’s important.  People are outsourcing their thinking to ideologically driven pseudo-journalists—on both sides of the spectrum.  Sean O’Limbeck is more heard than Keith Mahrtthews, but only more problematic because of the size of the audience.

The right-wing is also very adept at defining the language of the debate.  Terms like “death tax,” “socialized medicine,” “death panels,” “welfare queens,” etc. have no counterpart from the left.  The left-wing finds itself in the unappealing position of some of our founding fathers who were, by default, labeled the Anti-Federalists because they didn’t define the language of the debate first.

So why does the right-wing continue to claim oppression by the “main-stream” media?  The right-wing obviously has a very large—and very malleable—audience.  Whence the stance of victimhood?  Because if you’re going to spur a revolution, “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil” (Hoffer).  The MSM is among many devils the right-wing uses to generate fear, anger, and dependency in their faithful listeners.  The left-wing also sets up devils for the same purpose, but I can’t identify one that is  as delusional and self-contradictory as the MSM when the right-wing is such a media juggernaut (comments to the contrary are welcome).  It’s common knowledge that people tend to seek out media that reflect their own values; but the right-wing continues to claim both that 1) America is a center-right nation, and 2) the MSM has a liberal bias.  This is a non-sequitur.  Either the MSM doesn’t have a liberal bias or America is a center-left nation.

Why does the right-wing choose the MSM as a target?  “[L]ike an ideal deity, the ideal devil is omnipotent and omnipresent” (Hoffer).  The MSM is so large and omnipresent, with so much fallibility that it makes an easy target as a menace, and one that’s not going away soon.  If one is looking for bias, the MSM is so huge that one can find bias of any kind—and vilify the whole for the bias of the part.

The right-wing–like the left wing–must be in revolution mode at all times for self-preservation.  Once people become comfortable with the present, they stop listening to dogma, ideology, and fearmongering.  If Limbaugh’s listeners think life’s OK, they’ll stop listening to him.

Americans love an underdog and a revolution.  As long as the right-wing media juggernaut can convince enough people that they are indeed a revolutionary underdog, they will set much of the agenda in American politics.

Dear Senator,

Please use your vote to help pass the DREAM bill allowing illegal immigrants in-state tuition.  It is the best thing for Utah, no matter your stance on illegal immigration.  In a time when fewer people are going to college because of the cost and difficulty, it is foolish to make it more difficult for a few who have the tenacity to get a degree.

Even if you vehemently oppose illegal immigration, giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition will benefit Utah.  First, if the climate changes and these students are someday allowed to work legally in the U.S., it would be best that they have college degrees so that they can contribute more to the state and not be a drain on it instead.  Second, if they should return to their country of origin, their U.S. college educations will serve them greatly there, making them less likely to return to the U.S.  They may also be able to effect enough change with their college educations that they can help to provide a better life for others in their own country, making illegal immigration to the U.S. less attractive.  Thirdly, from a security perspective, having more educated people among the illegal immigrant community will increase the likelihood that criminal activity will be reported and countered.

The numbers of college attendees and graduates continue to decrease as costs continue to rise.  The kind of person who is willing to confront these facts and overcome them is the kind of person we want as part of our state.

Please vote for the DREAM act to strengthen Utah.

Independents have three problems: 1) we think we don’t have the numbers to do anything; 2) we think we couldn’t come to agreement as a group on anything consistently enough to form any kind of cohesive influence; and 3) we’re seldom willing to contribute money and time to candidates or issues because we don’t live and die by single issues.

I think we’re wrong.  We’re obviously wrong about the numbers.  In Utah, as in most other places, independents constitute the plurality, if not the majority.  Granted, many independents are simply uninterested in politics.  But we cared enough not to simply put our parents’ party affiliation.  And enough are interested in what happens to make a HUGE difference.

Secondly, we’re wrong about coming to a consensus on anything.  It’s precisely the independents who can objectively, without the blinders of single-issue mania, see that our system is breaking, and that the only way to fix it is to bring back compromise and bi- or multipartisanship.  Only the independents can make the center (where the general population is) politically significant.  Our issue needs to be good governance rather than all the politicized issues out there that have no place in the halls of government.

The third doubt is the toughest, because it’s the truest.  Most of us independents don’t care enough to put anything into the political process.  However, a breaking point is approaching when the independent center must make its weight felt in order to preserve the forms of good governance.  If the independent center does nothing, we will one day suddenly find ourselves standing in a country torn in half by the money on the fringes.

So what does an independent do?  First, realize s/he is part of the centrist majority.  Second, learn about issues that affect us, and look into both sides to find common ground (this is really hard, because we often have to admit we’ve been wrong and we have to stretch our comfort zones and put ourselves in others’ shoes—but it must be done).  Third, talk to other centrists and independents about solutions to issues.  Fourth, start letter-writing campaigns to target elected officials.  If an official receives 10-12 of the same letter, we have his/her attention because we have shown that a) we’re talking about the issues, b) we’re organized, c) we’re watching him/her, and d) we care enough to act.  Officials also know that if there are a dozen people who sign the letter, there are several dozen more who have heard our opinions and are within our circle of influence.  And so with a dozen letters, we make ourselves a voting block, a “special interest group.”

Good governance isn’t sexy.  It isn’t a hot-button issue that gets the rank and file to open their wallets and pound the pavement.  But it may be the most important issue we can advocate in our current political climate.