I have no idea who I'll vote for, can we have a do over?

Sometimes, on occasion, one of my employees will tell me about something another employee did.  Responding to that is kind of tricky, though some supervisors say you should discourage this entirely.  Too much tattletelling can create a work environment where everyone is suspicious of everyone else, and people may only tell on those they dislike...which lets personal issues get in the way of it.

On the flip side, I (as a supervisor) can not be everywhere at once.  And my people generally know when I'm around, and aren't stupid enough to do something wrong where I will see it.  So I won't really know there's an issue to address if I'm not told...

Stepping aside from those sorts of questions, however, is what happens if I do decide to address it.  First, I have learned to space things out from when someone talks to me and when I address it.  That's because one of the first things the employee does is to try and figure out who told on them.  To me, that's missing the point.  I'm addressing you because you did something wrong.  Something you should fix.  Who told me that you did something wrong is beside the point, and makes me feel like you don't really think you did anything wrong.  And probably aren't going to do anything to fix it or change it in the future.  (Or, at best, that you'll just try not to do it where you might get caught). 

Even worse, of course, is that whoever I'm addressing might try to take revenge or get back at someone if they figure out who did it.  And may even mistake the source, and make life difficult for someone who is completely uninvolved.  (I had someone at our mid-year review mention that she was mad at the HR person and me for a little while, because one of her co-workers claimed we had told the co-worker she'd said something.)

So anyways.  I generally try not to fill this blog up with work stuff.  I brought all that up more because I want readers to understand where I'm coming from when I say that I'm pretty disgusted with how the Democratic Party has handled a variety of issues over the last year.  Some of their arguments sound like something a five year old would say (i.e. "But everyone else is doing it!!!"), some of it is the response of my less mature associates (i.e. "Who gave you that information?!?  Was it the Russians?)...

and none of it actually addresses the wrong that was done.  It makes me think that they really don't see a problem with it, assume that this is just 'business as usual', and are more upset at having to deal with a media scandal than that they have any real belief that wrong was done.

One of my employees likes to talk politics, and he claims that the Democratic Party has always been corrupt, and that it's only this past year that's made it obvious to everyone.  Note: I am not looking for a "Republicans are just as bad" response, because that's just another way of looking away from the problem.

And is there a problem?  I think so.  The wikileaks e-mail dump about the DNC shows that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was playing favorites.  Howard Dean, who I presume ought to know as he was a DNC Chair himself, believed the DNC was supposed to be impartial.  If the Democratic Party can show that these e-mails were forged, then I would care more about Russian involvement.  (Their attempt to influence the election is disturbing, but it wouldn't have been possible if the DNC wasn't doing something wrong in the first place.  So to me this is a lesser problem than what the e-mails revealed.  Wikileaks allegations that there is more to leak is somewhat more disturbing, mainly because if they're going to leak it they should just get on with it.  This attempt to time when you release info shows that they aren't really about freedom of information so much as using an information  I get that loyalty is a prized trait in political circles.  So much so that they will value the loyal supporter over someone more talented (and this brings it's own issues, and has it's own implications, but that's a post for another time).  If Hillary wanted to take care of a loyal supporter - someone who wasn't supposed to act like a loyal supporter in the role she was in - than I'm sure she could have found an ally to hire Debbie.  The fact that Hillary felt no need to distance herself from Debbie, and hired her on (even if it's a token role), shows that Hillary really doesn't see anything wrong with what Debbie did.

All my arguments hold true, as well, for what I find disturbing about those defending Hillary's use of a private server. 

And the total lack of concern about this, the attitude that nothing wrong was done and it's all just conservative witch-hunting, kind of makes me mad.  I still think Trump is worse, but I just can't bring myself to say I would actually vote for Hillary.  Not when she, her staff, and the entire Democratic Party doesn't seem to realize that they're doing anything wrong.  In some ways I have more respect for the Republicans who are speaking out against Trump than for the Democrats who are willing to look the other way so long as their candidate wins.

And this ties in to another article I read, Politico's article discussing how Barack Obama decided Hillary should be his successor.  See, I get why he would want his legacy to continue.  I suppose there's reason to think Hillary's most likely to succeed.  Hell, according to a site I go to Hillary most closely matches my own views...and I guess I'm supposed to be a supporter.

But here's the thing.  How you get somewhere matters.  It's part of that whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate.  If the only way you can make your policies continue, if the only way to secure your legacy, is to do things that subvert the democratic process and basically take away our right to choose...

Than that's a pretty big problem.  Almost, but perhaps not quite, as big as Trump taking office.  It's presents a very different sort of problem, one not quite as big and bombastic, one that is perhaps even scarier in how quiet and subtle it is.

After all, nobody seems to think there's anything wrong with Hillary hiring the former DNC chair.

What Threatens America - Channels for Addressing Grievances, Cont.

Someone once said that when you're driving on a highway anyone going faster than you is crazy, and anyone going slower than you is overly cautious. 

I think this is true for a lot of things - we're not objective about it.  I want to tie this into two different things, and the connection is probably not obvious at first.

In Iraq back in 2006/2007 the Sunnis and Shia were really beginning a civil war.  I remember reading about how the moderates (who I love, since they seem the very people necessary to stopping the spiral of self-destruction) were targeted.  When people actively believe something, anyone who disagrees is a threat.  Like a person going slower than you on a highway.  It's almost worse when you think they 'ought' to be a supporter, because then it can feel like a betrayal.  (Like white supremacists who think white people who support minorities are somehow race traitors.)  And so the groups fighting bring pressure to bear, creating a situation where everyone has to pick sides.  If you're not with us you're against us, and a target.  (This is also a weakness in the jihadi movement, as they can splinter into separate groups arguing over whose beliefs truly represent what they claim is God's will.) 

In situations like this people get sucked into fighting 'the enemy', and forget that the key terrain is often the people in the middle.  And so you can win the battle and lose the war.

To bring this back to American politics - activists are called that because they are passionate about a cause.  They are activated to take action...which in some ways as good, since that's the only way change happens.  In other ways it's bad, since they can find anyone who doesn't share their passion a threat. 

We've had a two-party system for a long time, and in a way the people who are most involved in their parties are activists.  That's why my political science classes said that politicians cater to their base in the primary, then tone it down and pivot to the middle in a general election.

The thing is, when you're an activist like that, when you truly believe in your cause, you will support actions to 'win' that can be destructive to the larger whole.  You forget that the key terrain is the general public and you focus on defeating 'the enemy'.  Defeating Democrats, or defeating Republicans, or whoever.  That's probably why our Founding Fathers considered parties a threat, representing factions that were dangerous to the public interest.  Didn't do much good, as political parties started almost right away.

I brought that up for a couple of reasons.  First, because parties have made choices over the course of our national history that made sense in terms of winning, but ultimately are detrimental to the public interest.  Gerrymandering is the first one that comes to mind.  So, for example, Indiana has a political system more conservative than the views of it's population.  Part of what makes this so bad is that people don't feel like voting matters.  If you're district is set up so that it's always red or always blue, what does it matter whether you vote or not? Your district is still going to reflect - or not reflect - your views.

The parties have also manipulated the system so that it's easier for them to get elected, and significantly harder for any third party or independent candidate to win.  Candidates of the major parties automatically are put on a ballot, while anyone else has to jump through hoops.  Those hoops can involve getting more signatures, petitioning state officials, and more.

I brought that up because I've noticed some of the Democratic supporters seem very offended that Bernie ran as a Democrat, since he's been an Independent so long.  There have been arguments that the primary system is biased against him, and these defenders will say "but he's not truly a Democrat, and it's our party's primary in the first place.  We can do it however we want."

If they were taking about selecting the chair of the Democratic National Committee I would agree 100%.  But we're talking about a presidential election here.  We're talking about nominating someone who is supposed to serve all of America, and not just the Democratic Party.  And we're talking about a system that has made it so hard for anyone to run who isn't a Republican or a Democrat that it's to all intents and purposes impossible.  Like activists who are so focused on defeating the enemy that they forget where the key terrain really lies.

I know they don't think their threatening the public interest.  After all, you don't get that active and involved unless you believe it truly is in the public interest.  But the interests of any political party are not necessarily the interests of the public.

This, btw, also holds true to the Republican attempts to force their political representatives to toe the party line.  It makes them more cohesive in Congress, makes it easier to push the agenda of the party...and it also means they are less representative of the people who actually live in their districts.  (and just as in Iraq, the moderates become 'the enemy' and are targeted.  Less bloody targeting, but they lose critical funding and find it harder to get re-elected.)

In the short run it doesn't seem like an obvious problem.  In the long run, you wind up with more people feeling disenfranchised, disaffected, and upset by a system that isn't very responsive.