KAS Political Stance

Subtype Progressive As 100% GOPPartchment

Kevin A. Sensenig | July 12, 2014 | Updated August 31, 2014

I am subtype progressive who is 100% GOPPartchment.

I support and identify with the 7 types GOP in the U.S. House Of Representatives.

I identify with the 3 types Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

There are Republican men. There are Republican women. I support each of these.

There are some types I am _not_.

I would work with the subtype progressive layer in the Democratic Party; but the hierarchical leadership has been problematic for some time.

Not everything with title “progressive” is what I mean. I mean a subtype progressive.

On the EPA.

The EPA for instance does _not_ need to be politicized. There is a sanity layer to the EPA, and I’ll cover their very reasonable MATS Summary document in another short essay, as the realistic way to work with the coal industry, while requiring clean technology. The requirements were stepped and matched to realistic practices. The document is archived at 20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf and is found at EPA.gov here. Here is the benefits and costs fact sheet, archived at 20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf and found at EPA.gov here. These documents are from 2011 and are the types of policy documents that should be the focus of attention.

On the environment.

I support serious environment efforts. Not all of the debate is helpful ... but what’s this about: Obama Opens Eastern Seaboard To Oil Exploration. Note that the article says, “Some exploratory wells were drilled before the U.S. Atlantic seabed was closed to exploration in the 1980s...”. I’m not sure the Republicans can’t have their own convincing interpretation of ecosystem function and subtlety. Then there is the subtype progressive interpretation. These can, I’m pretty sure, work together.

We’ll see.

On food.

I support diverse forms of agriculture, including organic. I support food as a substance, complex, designed for the body; and to consider nutrients, fuel type, and interdependent this and that.

On a characterization.

The United States is not a nation of laws, but a nation of music, art, mathematics, business, product, economy, creativity, reason, logic, religion, and philosophy. The individual, group, corporate, and state.

It also has Law.

On the DOJ.

I actually significantly support Eric Holder, as a person, although I disagree with Justice Department arguments before the Supreme Court, and I wish that he individually had a different stance on some of these, in policy. (If he grasped Rep Fed he may be a strong advocate, dunno.) I should be more familiar with the overall picture here; here’s a NY Post article. I’m glad the Justice Department did not prevail concerning cell phone; the Court ruled unanimously that cell phones are significant personal property, subject to Amendment 4 protections, and cannot be ad-hoc searched. Why the Justice Department would argue otherwise is beyond me. It also seems that there were 20 cases in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the Justice Department. Hmmm. Maybe they’re just ahead of their time? Dunno, but I wonder otherwise. There are some highlights to what the Justice Department has done in other spheres.

I’m not sure the DOJ doesn’t sometimes have the stance of to break up things that work, at least in significant ways; to have taken a significantly different stance than “to breakup AT&T”.

On the economy (just a bit).

I support TARP and the intent and design of the 2009 Stimulus. Both represented careful work by Treasury and the Fed. I supported Timothy Geithner and still do. I supported the Bernanke Fed and the Geithner Treasury. Teamwork, meticulous, documented.

That is, documented here, in 2012:

The U.S. Economy In Charts (February 2012)

The Financial Crisis Response In Charts (April 2012)

Recent U.S. Economic Growth In Charts (May 2012)

I’m not sure what is not clear. These PDFs are detailed, data-driven, charts, information, argument, and clarity. And, they were available, at Treasury.gov. You may or may not dispute them; but you have to start with them — and I’m not sure why substance like this was not presented in the media; unless it was. However, that’s what the Web is for.

After I complete Geithner’s book Stress Test later this year, I will likely support him in a very strong sense, and again the team at Treasury; that is, in more. I have not followed Jack Lew.

It may be that some of the regulations put in place 2009-2012 were unhelpful, and others helpful. I have no opinion on Dodd-Frank; some of it like readable consumer documents seem to have been helpful. The clarity and design of www.recovery.gov was nice to see; some of the totals were not the same as the sum of the items in the tables; but mostly the layout was helpful, information with drill-down to specific instances of grant/loans and geographic and notes on these. That’s the way to do things.

Why Obama didn’t do this for like issues (to map R/I/D ideas in similar ways, other types of charts and presentation and rhetoric) I’m not sure. That would have been Hope-And-Change.

ObamaCare debate and design. The budget. Immigration. Foreign policy. That would have all been structured in the first year, the Hope-And-Change, working with design and function, highlighting differences toward solving problems and re-negotiating standpoint. (This “hope and change” mentality is the stance I would have taken.) There is a moment for each thing, and that would have been the moment for this. That’s why I voted for Obama in 2008. Because of the problematic stance that Obama took in many ways, and the clarity of Romney, I voted for Romney in 2012. The stable way, even if still problematic on some points economic (other points economic being quite workable) and still difficult on foreign policy (although perhaps more informed than Obama on many points; maybe to work with). Likely better realism. But he needed to be concerned with the other 47%, to varying degrees. Even so, I voted for Romney because of clear consistency with what he said he would do, and corrective to this or that. (Also, you still have to treat the environment in a different way than he specified — I have imagery for the Republicans on that, that is neither liberal nor conservative; but is subtype progressive, put in vocabulary to consider, that is accessible, and could be defining, for the Republicans. The dynamic instead of the divide, simply multiple ways to look at the same thing, with similar features, different type of expertise.)

On the Obama political strategy.

Note that it was the W. TARP and the Obama TARP. The Paulson TARP and the Geithner TARP.

[ Obama keeps not-talking to Republicans, and he has set aside the Biden-McConnell efficiency ratio of late 2012 budget negotiations — the “if it works we ruin (or ignore) it” theory, to set aside the Biden-MicConnell 0.005 efficiency ratio to get something done. The 6 hours to get something done in negotiations in December 2012, a bill to solve a deadlock, a bill found in structure and format, using tools readily at hand. ]

Note that while Obama may be right in talking to high-tech corporate and small business, he has apparently nearly completely set aside direct engagement with the small businesses and manufacturers (that layer) — and these are the types of businesses the Republicans have passed, apparently, many bills on in the House; perhaps the economic recovery would be more convincing across the board, if Obama actually engaged Republican-sourced ideas, and worked with Republicans to solve these problems.

High-tech corporate and small manufacturers and small businesses are 2 different layers.

I reject Senator John McCain and former Sec State Hillary Clinton.

I reject President Obama’s national socialist theme; and I support some of the subtype progressive ideas out there that he likely has found and given expression to. I reject the idea “the aggregate” as introduced by Justice Kagan. What a disaster. I reject the arguments by Verrilli on ObamaCare premise.

I reject Obama’s foreign policy definition to date (August, 2014). I reject his thesis that “if only we could get a (vast) regulatory layer just right” then formulate an “edict of expulsion” for every Republican in America, that would solve things. [ This refers to Edward I of England, about 1290; see Wikipedia. For Edward I, it was the regulatory layer for criminal and property law, and the edict of expulsion for the Jews from England, until Oliver Cromwell 300 years later. ]

I reject Obama’s take on coal. A more smooth-curve idea would be better; with existing and modernized structures left in place, consistent with what I read as the sanity layer at the EPA (see the MATS document above). This takes care of existing coal jobs, and the coal economy, and the coal electric grid; while modernizing and improving this or that. It also means that you’re not suddenly shifting to an industry wherein you’re putting unnecessary stress to get pipeline and infrastructure in place, too quickly — putting pressure on industry, on infrastructure, and on some natural terrain and local expression (some local expression is fine with it). It should be done in structure, design, and sensitivity; meticulous-and-steel, planing and effort, with attention-and-the-space-to-work.

I’ve stated elsewhere that if President Obama had followed through on his repeated 2008 campaign promise to develop ObamaCare in the open, with open debate and input, that then he would have been factoring the budget, and then immigration. Not all of this to ideal at once, but certainly significant layers of illumination and functionality, respect and diverse views.

Instead, it was a closed-box system. It had better have worked.

Here’s what he said during his 2008 campaign, multiple times, with emphasis. “It will be on C-Span.” He would have been talking to the types of Democrats and the types of Republicans, the people, governors, insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceuticals, and other industry. A video recount of what candidate Obama promised: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3ZoKt0hxF0.

To state it again — with all these types and individuals and groups factored in, further debate on other issues would have been really dynamic.

On ObamaCare.

For why ObamaCare is problematic, see the topic “ObamaCare Problematic Theory — Introduction To The Problem”. Further links and resources are listed.

Foreign policy — that’s complex. Later.

However, I reject Obama’s 2011 argument on Libya as bullshit; and the results speak for themselves. Sec State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice are complicit in this, and in not finding the way to 1) Qaddafi stays in power; 2) some of the concerns of the rebel armed rebels are addressed in an open, sober, and supportive way. Libya was a disaster of a military/foreign policy effect. There are several ways the war could have been resolved soon after the rebel armed rebels took up arms; and a long-term, durable answer found, in stability.

Again, there might have been real complaints about the Qaddafi government. These should be acknowledged, but not the means. It is certain that Qaddafi would have respected our diplomatic team, for instance, if they were genuinely interested in solving problems. Contrary to the actual outcome: significant and uh noticeable very problematic results, so much hand-wringing by many, and lack of clarity from Sec State Clinton.

It seems that while you can lead from behind, at times, the foreign policy itself must be sober and grounded in reality, with various viewpoints and means supported, or at least recognized. I don’t think Obama has this, in significant ways.

I don’t know what the answer is in Israel, but I don’t care to see Tel Aviv hit by missiles. At all.

I wonder about the state of day to day life for young Palestinians.

On Russia and China.

I support aspects of Russian policy and China thought.

On governing.

I support Speaker John Boehner.

I support the Biden/McConnell efficiency ratio. Why Obama hasn’t tapped them to resolve what he claims is intractable obstruction by Congress I’m not sure. This after their surprising maneuver in the late 2012 budget negotiations.

I reject Senator Harry Reid and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ridiculous.

More later.

I am subtype progressive who is 100% GOPPartchment.