The Future Is Not So Bright

 I am not the author of this piece.  Bill Foster (see the link) is however a veteran of the USN having retired after 21 (I think) years of active duty.  I think the piece is important and deserves as wide of an audience as possible.  I am including the full text as well as the link.  Share it if you feel the urge.

In the interest of full disclosure, Bill has published several of my essays to his Substack and in theory, will do more as I write more.  Enjoy.  Discuss.  Share.

Bill Foster's Substack - Read a lot. Don't die.

On a Friday last month, shortly after midnight, in a move that was not covered properly by the media, the House voted on a $9 billion recissions bill, clawing back money already appropriated by congress. This bill marks the end of congress as an institution. It is the straw that breaks the camel’s back in a decades-long process of congress giving up institutional power to the executive branch. Our constitution establishes three coequal branches, with checks and balances between them. However, as the executive as accrued more and more power to itself, the legislative branch has simply rolled over time and time again. There are no longer people in congress who protect the institution itself. Instead of a coequal branch of government, congress has become the prize won after elections. It is no longer a battlefield. Instead, it is the reward for the winning team.

The Founders referred to political parties as factions and thought they had designed a system of government in which the built-in separation of powers would subsume competition. Factions would not arise because the separation of powers would create factions in government. Here is the thing though: Parties are inevitable. Every single time someone says to me (and it is OFTEN), “Man, parties are destroying this country,” I ask them to name a democracy without one. Hell, even China has parties within the communist party. People get together and compromise and that makes parties. You can no more have a democracy without parties than you can have an ocean without water. You can do whatever you want to your government but as soon as you say, “I want a law that makes it illegal to lasso a fish [TN]” and someone says, “I’ll vote for that if you vote to make whale hunting illegal on Sundays [OH],” well, you have a political party. It is inevitable.

And parties are ESSENTIAL Society is made up of different people who want different things so the way you get laws is through compromise. Parties are organizations that compromise and provide information. As a voter, what do you really know about tariffs? Probably more than you did a year ago, but I doubt you can discuss the differences between the GATT and the WTO and how one led to the other, let alone what the proper tariff rate is for rivets. Can you discuss how chickens relate to light trucks via tariffs? Can you discuss how tariff engineering influenced Converse sneakers? Where is the Court of International Trade and what are its powers (as you can probably see, this is a future column)? That is the purpose of representative government. I get irritated at online arguments where someone says, “you don’t know this or that.” Of course I don’t. The modern world is complicated, and it takes years to know most things. We try to elect a representative and a party that we agree with.

Unfortunately, a multitude of trends are working against representative democracy right now, first among them gerrymandering. When a district is gerrymandered to make it safe, it becomes impossible for a centrist to become elected. Candidates in gerrymandered districts don’t have to compromise. Their fear is being primaried by a more extreme candidate. When candidates on both sides of any individual issue fear facing a primary election more than they fear not accomplishing something, compromise becomes impossible. This is a much more serious problem than is commonly acknowledged.

The more extreme candidates that gain office because of gerrymandering are also to blame for congress no longer being a coequal branch of government. Neither party works to protect the legitimacy of congress as an institution. This has been going on for decades. It has been going on since World War II, minus the brief post-Watergate respite. It is congress’s duty to resist power grabs by the executive branch. At key moments in history, bipartisan movements have arisen to maintain congress’s power. For example, after the Vietnam War, congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Since its passage, it has been weakened because congress has refused to assert its powers as every consecutive president has violated it. The Constitution clearly grants the power to declare war to congress. The nonsensical argument the executive tends to make is that bombing another country is not declaring war. Congress could easily clarify that if they wished by amending the War Powers Act but there is no interest in doing so because individual members of Congress prefer to take credit if it goes well and assign blame if it does not. No one is willing to stand up for the institution and the reason they are unwilling to do so is because they are mostly in safe districts and there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

The situation is that we have a Congress in which trust is difficult to attain because of partisanship. Partisanship gets increased because of gerrymandering and incumbency advantages. This is why Congress has not passed a budget since 1996. Did you know that? It has been THIRTY FUCKING YEARS since we have had a budget. Instead, Congress passes a set of continuing resolutions every year because the compromises necessary to make an actual budget are seemingly unattainable.

Now, on top of this situation, we have added recissions bills. The recissions process comes from the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. When Congress passes a bill authorizing spending, the executive must spend the funds. If they refuse to do so, that is called impoundment. Impoundment is illegal but the Trump Administration is doing it anyway, and as a result there are several lawsuits working their way through the courts. Under the ICA, the administration can impound funds legally by notifying Congress that they wish to impound the money within 45 days. This is called a recission and this is why they had to wait till midnight to pass the bill as that was the deadline.

The bill cancelled $9 billion in funding for USAID, public broadcasting, various UN health agencies, the UN human rights council and refugee assistance. Now, what I have written so far is bad enough, but it is important to look at this in context. This administration has impounded many separate sets of funds for many months. It is important to look at how illegal this is. Congress appropriates money and the executive spends it. That’s it. If the administration refuses to spend the money, they are usurping the power of congress, which is a major violation of the constitution. Congress was not notified within 45 days about the funds in the recissions bill but only after many months. All of this is part of a pattern of the administration using a variety of illegal means to not expend appropriated funds for activities it doesn’t approve of.

This recissions bill is the largest ever passed, the first since 1999 and only the second since 1974. It fundamentally rearranges Congress. This is because budget negotiations are based on compromise. Let us say that one party wants increased defense spending and the other party wants increased spending for health care. They trade so they each get what they want. But now, the party that wants to increase defense spending can agree to the health care spending and then just pass a recissions bill to impound the health care money. You can make whatever compromise you want to get 60 votes, then pass a recissions bill and take it back with only a fifty-one-vote majority. This is literally the last straw, and I imagine that this is going to break the appropriations process and that we are headed for a major fiscal process as it is impossible to come to a compromise when the other side has a tool like this and has shown the willingness to use it in an abusive manner.

The only question now is how the Democrats will respond. We are headed for a couple different debt ceiling and budget showdowns, and the Republicans are not going to give. They will threaten a US default, which could have unimaginable costs, a 2008 style crash. However, if they are willing to compromise, how can they be trusted with recissions on the table? The Republicans are going to be terrorists threatening to shoot the hostages and, unfortunately, I don’t see any way out of the situation except to let them do so and hope the public recognizes who is actually at fault, just like they recognize who is at fault in most of Trump’s …. Um …. Shit …. We’re screwed.

WILL YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?

 

Serious question: What would a neighbor of yours have to do to justify the authorities killing you?  Think about it.  What if your neighbor was Ted Bundy, a prolific serial killer.  Would his living next door to you justify your demise at the hands of authorities?  What if Bundy was doing his serial killing next door to you?  Assuming you did not know it was going on, should you be killed for his actions?

What if your neighbor was Adolph Hitler?  What if after he had ordered or otherwise caused the murder of millions of other humans, he moved in next door to you?  If you were killed in the effort to capture or eliminate him, would you consider that just?

Personally, I have not been able to come up with a situation wherein my demise at the hands of those attempting to hold a neighbor responsible for actions taken without my assistance or knowledge could be considered "just".  To be honest, I don't feel like any level of injury to me would be justifiable in an effort to punish someone else for something they did.  However, you need not feel limited by my position.  If you can think of a suitable answer to the question, feel free to share it with me and the world.

Brett Hankison was a police detective in Louisville, KY.  He was very involved in the no-knock raid that resulted in the wrongful death of an innocent civilian, Breonna Taylor.  While by all accounts Hankison did not fire the round that killed her as she slept, he did fire rounds that went into or through her apartment.  Oddly enough, he is so far, the only officer to be charged and convicted of any crime associated with the poorly planned and executed raid.

The DOJ submitted a sentencing memorandum that recommended essentially no repercussions for the irresponsible detective.  Nothing about Taylor's death or the rather obvious violation of her civil rights appears to be of concern to the DOJ though Hankison's well-being - his PTSD and related conditions was a focus.

I have taught several folks to shoot.  I tend to tell those I am instructing that "There is no such thing as an accident. If you point the firearm at me, I will assume you intend to shoot me and I will do my best to get you first.  I'll explain it to your parents later."  Traditional instruction is that you do not shoot if you don't know where the bullet is going if it misses the target or goes through the target.  If you cannot say with authority where the projectile will go, it is reckless and negligent to pull the trigger.

I can only see two options, either Hankison and the other LEOs on the scene knew where their bullets were going or they didn't.  Those two options translate to either they were reckless and negligent OR, for whatever reason they wanted innocent civilians to be harmed.  You are welcome to argue the existence of other options but I am a reasonably experienced shooter so, you're looking at an uphill climb.

So put yourself in Ms Taylor's apartment.  She was never the focus of the raid.  No one accused her of illegal behavior.  The officers were allegedly targeting an ex-boyfriend of hers but not someone who currently or recently resided at the address.  So should I rephrase the question?  What would an estranged ex of yours have to do to justify your demise at the hands of authorities?  If you can't think of a reason, then you need to be more upset about the DOJ recommendation.

I have exes.  I have no reason to believe that I should be killed for stuff they might be doing.  I have no reason to believe any of them should be killed for stuff I might be doing.  Breonna Taylor and her loved ones deserve justice.  

Over the years I have known several individuals in law enforcement.  Military, FBI, U.S. Marshalls, TBI, Highway Patrol as well as several local officers/deputies.  I have no idea who I would go to to get a defense of Hankison et al's actions especially if I were able to ask them prior to them knowing about the event.  Perhaps some of them would choose to stand with their LEO brethren once they knew the actual details but none of them would have tried to claim that was the right way to handle things as a hypothetical EVEN if all of the pertinent facts were included in the hypothetical.  They know better.

If I were king of the forest, the author(s) of the memorandum would be charged with a crime.  The DOJ should be the lead in getting justice for Breonna and her loved ones.  They should definitely not be the lead in evading justice for those that murdered her and negligently endangered others.

A pretty standard trope in Hollywood when they want to shock or offend is to have a character describe what are the acceptable levels of civilian casualties.  “Collateral damage” is military verbiage but essentially is the same thing.  It should never be used outside of the military (and ideally, never in the military either!).  There are no acceptable levels of degradation of my health and physical ability due to something someone else did.  What about you?  What would I, as your neighbor, have to do to make you amenable to your demise or serious injury as a byproduct of my (attempted) apprehension?

If being collateral damage doesn’t work for you, then you need to halt that shit before it gets to you.  Louisville, KY would have been a good place to stop it.

VAMPIRES AMONG US

 

There be vampires among us.  

Now, I know what you're thinking. Vampires are the stuff of fiction.  They exist solely in adolescent fantasy movies and the fevered imaginations of those with no other way to explain the incredible cruelty or apathy with which some humans have treated their fellow humans.  But bear with me.

One of the constant themes common to stories of vampirism across various genre is the inability of mirrors, or other reflective surface, to display their images.  They have no reflections.  They cannot see themselves.

None of the various vampire stories with which I am familiar ever discuss the potential ramifications of a human lifespan - or several - spent with no direct knowledge of just exactly what one looks like.  Given the current popularity of "selfies" and the long known desire for one's "15 minutes of fame", this seems a very odd omission.  How would it affect your psyche, your personality, to never see what the world sees when they look at you?  How would it affect your confidence? 

How might the mass of humanity react if they were suddenly unable to see themselves?  If you fancy yourself a writer, you might well be imagining how you would write such characters.  If you are otherwise given to mental meanderings you might be currently wondering how you would act, how you might be different if you spent a significant amount of time completely unable to see yourself.

It turns out, we don't have to imagine at all. Writer or fantacist, we can dam the creative flow and simply observe that which is.  It aint pretty.

If you want to know what happens when you can't see your reflection, simply look at the vampires of the modern day GOP.  They cannot see the reflections of themselves or their migratory ancestors in the modern day refugees.  They cannot see reflections of GOP policies in the conditions that convince people with very little to leave even that little bit behind to embark on a trip fraught with danger for them and their families.  They can't see themselves in the light returning from those that have lost all of their savings due to an unavoidable medical issue.  Drug overdoses are not reflective in the least for them.  LEO abuses only happen to "others" and are certainly no reflection on them.  Nothing that happens to anyone causes any hint of self-recognition when the images reach their eyes.

Whenever you are asking yourself how a given individual or group can treat any other individual or group so callously or horrendously, it is because they cannot see themselves in that person or group.  Being a vampire apparently makes you completely insensitive to the travails others.  I would posit that it is the lack of reflection that causes this. 

If you look at a shiny-faced Dreamer and see yourself, then common sense immigration reform becomes important to you. If you can see yourself in the eyes of a child with cancer or when you see a suddenly homeless stay-at-home parent, your priorities change. 

But an awful lot of folks only see a false reflection.  They see themselves in Donald Trump but they have no rich father to start them out with several hundred million dollars.  They see themselves in the lottery winners even though they have a better chance of being struck by lightening which is particularly ironic since they do NOT see themselves in those that have suffered greatly in natural disaster.

In vampire lore, they have no tolerance for sunlight.  That level of illumination is a primary threat to their immortality.  This seems to hold up.  When we illuminate the behavior of our current day vampires, significantly fewer folks vote or otherwise support them.  Still, as with so many other circumstances, it is situational awareness that does the most to keep you safe.  Knowing about current vampires will give you greater opportunity to construct a bulwark against them. 

That is why I am telling you now, THERE BE VAMPIRES AMONG US!  As in a majority of the stories I have seen, you either are one or you need protection from them.  Our protection protocols are written into the Constitution.   Will you use them?

WE ARE US

 

Among the incredibly obvious things that apparently elude a significant percentage of humans is the fact that "we" are nested entities.

We are constituent parts of the universe, the supercluster, the local cluster, the galaxy, the solar system, the planet, the animal kingdom, mammals, humans, nations, regions, states, cities/counties, neighborhoods. We are a small portion of all of those things. All of those things certainly have other parts as well but, we would be included in any complete inventory of those entities.

The physical, social and cultural constructs of humanity are also constituent parts of all of those nested entities. While much of human misery throughout history is rooted in concepts of otherness, we are all parts of the same systems. Think about how your brain and heart and liver and lungs look nothing alike but are all part of you - such integral parts that severe injury to any of those parts can cause you to cease to exist. Not all of our parts are crucial in the same way. Some can be injured or removed without killing us but all our parts have a purpose, and we work better with them in place and functioning properly.

Some of those constructs of humans are not generalized. They function to affect humans of a specific type or location. Humans of other types in other locations might choose an alternate but corresponding function. Examples of such can be found in the various governmental and economic philosophies.

Earlier today I saw there had been established a GoFundMe for the victims of the flooding tragedy in TX. Rather obviously, GoFundMe is a social/economic construct of humans. What might not be as obvious is GoFundMe is in large part, a socialist construct. It is a collective response to a localized tragedy.

There are a lot of socialist elements in the government of the USA. We don't like to admit that because those who benefit from our fear of "the other" have conditioned us over scores of years to think of any "ism" other than capitalism as lesser. To avoid having to actually acknowledge the socialist elements they avoid using that term in the name or descriptions. It is disingenuous and hypocritical, but it is also effective. We embrace socialism to avoid financially inconveniencing those with nearly unlimited funds - but we avoid calling it what it is so as to avoid causing them even the slightest discomfort.

FEMA, under responsible and more ethical administrations, is an entity to enable and effect a collective response to localized disasters. It is socialist in spirit and effect but not in name. Medicare and Medicaid also meet that criteria. Though Medicaid in particular might be known by any of several names, what it does and how it does it is not dependent on the name. Social Security might be the most obvious socialist element in our government because the name hints at it but it is far from the only one.

I don't dislike GoFundMe. I don't even mistrust their intentions. In no way am I attempting to dissuade anyone from using that platform or similar platforms to assist our fellow citizens. However, I do find it ludicrous that in the richest nation in the world, and according to the specifics of the metrics, possibly the richest nation in history, we feel the need to rely on a voluntary platform to address real need. The folks in TX should not have to depend on the willingness of their fellow citizens to part with what little disposable funds they have. The same is true of those affected by other disasters.

Attending to citizens after a disaster is a right and proper function of government. There is nothing at all wrong with ancillary organizations helping be they neighborhoods, churches, professional orgs, online entities or even other nations. Sometimes we have an emotional need to help. We need to believe that we have done something to assist victims of tragedy over and above what the government organizations are tasked with. I have no issue with anyone doing actual good. I have a huge issue with government shirking their responsibilities and leaving it to ad hoc socialism to clean up the mess. Individually few of us have the resources and skills to replace government organizations. Responding ad hoc to each tragedy will ensure that some things, some people, fall through the cracks. We need to be ready to respond with a collective and capable response even if it absolutely reeks of socialism.

We are us, even when you don't like to think of us that way.

Maybe In A Couple Decades ...

 

Predicting the future is hard.  I suck at it.  However, I suck less at it than damn near everyone else I encounter IRL or on the interwebs.  Rare indeed is the week that goes by without someone making the most common mistake I see made when those trapped in the now try their hands at futurism.

That mistake is pretty much unavoidable for those without infinite amounts of time and memory but, envisioning potential future realities as a spectrum rather than an event might help but at some level the mistake is (apparently) unavoidable.  The mistake of which I speak is to pick a predicted product, service or event and envision it in the current social, cultural and technological idiom.

An obvious example of this mistake is displayed every time the subject of self-driving vehicles comes up.  Those in the discussion invariably talk about all those folk (usually including themselves) who will never give up the control and freedom of owning and manually operating their own vehicle.  I get that.  I've been a gearhead for a long time.  I like driving a car and riding a motorcycle.  But I also understand various aspects of capitalism.  So I point out that once the insurance companies understand they will pay out less if the cars drive themselves - and they are already collecting that empirical data - insurance costs will put legally operating your own vehicle on public streets out of reach for most of us.  Essentially, the insurance companies will change the economic paradigm which will lead to changes in the cultural paradigm.

It was also commonly made in discussion about electric vehicles.  When I point out that there were no gas stations in existence anywhere in the world when the Model T hit the market, the claims that we do not have the necessary infrastructure to "refuel" EVs the way we can internal combustion vehicles are shown to be ridiculous on their face.

A less obvious mistake has roots in the inability of folk to understand/visualize exponential growth.  A particularly vexing example of this can be seen in the commentary of those who were suspicious of the COVID vaccine(s) because they were developed so fast.  So even though there have been major advances in computers and more, "they" believe that vaccine development should take just as long as it did when the research was being written out longhand in candle light.  That the development was happening in a rapidly changing technological paradigm is ignored because apparently, "winning" the argument is more important than being correct or being healthy.

The truth of the matter is that there have been huge advances in computing, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine.  AI that was delivering inexplicable and unreliable results a year ago is being used in mission critical applications now.  Essentially the entire technological paradigm has changed but those who choose to be in denial refuse to even try to consider all the other changes.  "They" stupidly compare the speed of a specific event like COVID vaccine development to the development time for vaccines before we even had computers in common usage let alone the internet and AI and genomic research.

All of this lack of understanding is generally promulgated with uninformed statements about when the technology will be ready for mass consumption.  We hear that in a decade or two the tech will be ready.  I have heard that we are 50 years from trucks driving themselves even though they are already operating on the roads.

Everybody and everything exists within a given context.  Even though we are frequently told that "change is the only constant in the Universe", we act as though the context is not dynamic at all.  The actuality is that the rate of change is increasing in every hard science area of study.  If you want to be a better futurist, you must understand that the change is happening all around.  Telescopes and microscopes, particle colliders and tokamaks, battery tech and solar panels, computer memory and throughput speeds, battery chemistry and pharmaceutical development, all of that and more are changing far more rapidly than most of us seem to be aware of.  The technological paradigm is constantly shifting and advancing.  The tech paradigm induces changes in the social and cultural paradigms.  Whatever happens tomorrow or next week needs to be considered in the current paradigm or the probable future paradigm rather than any past paradigm if the analysis is to mean anything at all.  

We desperately need leadership that understands the nature of change.  While the nuts and bolts of politics may be as they were 20+ years ago, the issues politics are addressing are in a state of accelerating change.  I'm not an ageist, I swear I'm not.  But a 75+ year old that cannot set the time on their microwave may not be the best choice to make the rules that will govern various technologies.  We must either do better or we will watch the rest of the world leave us behind.

Prehistoric Stealth

 

You've seen it a thousand times in a movie or a television show.  It is such a standard gambit that some days it seems mandatory.  An object is thrown to make noise in a spot where the pursued is not in an effort to make the pursuer look in a different direction than the pursued's hiding spot.

There are variations on that theme.  A predatory animal is described as hunting motion.  If you stand very still the animal will ignore you as a stationary object which are not made of meat.

Either way, the foundational intent is the same.  If you can make the entity looking for you have no reason to look in your direction, you will not be found (or noticed or whatever). 

The corollary is that you are more likely to be found or seen or attacked if you call attention to yourself.  Hold on to this for a bit.  You're going to need it later.

One of the joys of modern existence is the ability to record and playback sights and/or sounds.  Still photography, video photography and audio recording affect everyone living a reasonably modern life.  Creating movies, television shows and music is the primary employment for an awful lot of folks.  The rest of us consume what they create in one way or another.  But our ability to record and playback does not stop there.

RADAR, SONAR and other sensing technologies can also have their outputs recorded and played back. For most of us, it would be difficult to find something we were less likely to watch or listen to.  However, since long-term storage memory is (relatively) inexpensive, entities like the NSA, or their foreign analogues, tend to hang on to such recordings just in case some later development makes them useful.  Therein (potentially) lies the problem.

In an example of what might be possible, an intelligence organization could acquire a cryptographic key in some method and apply it to recorded transmissions to read the contents.

Now instead of communications intercepts, let's cycle back to the sensing technologies.  If we "knew" for a fact the exact time and date an adversary's submarine was within range of our acoustic sensors, we might be able to play back the recording and use advances in computerized analysis to see if it could pick out a sound signature that a human or older computer tech might have missed.  If we can, voila!  We can now identify that sub whenever it gets within range of a sensor whether it is fixed or mobile.

In their rush to get publicity Felon47 and his DUI hire, Hegseth, have ensured friend and foe alike who might have appropriately positioned land-based or space-based or mobile radars have reason to replay those recordings to look for an anomaly that could be the signature of a B2 Stealth bomber.  They violated the precepts of prehistoric stealth in that they are calling attention to those planes.  Various entities have reason to look exactly in our direction.  

I cannot recall ever having seen reporting on the exact route a modern American submarine took.  Why? Because this ain't the Stone Age. Technological analysis can be applied post event - possibly months or years after the event or whenever a technological advancement makes revisiting such recordings potentially fruitful.  But we just did it with Stealth aircraft.

I personally consider this criminal malfeasance.  (Not that that will impress anyone)  I will likely never know if the stealth was compromised.  That is the sort of thing national entities like to keep in their metaphorical backpockets. However, I consider it very likely the misadministration was advised about it and decided publicity was more important than national secrets.

Those people are not patriots.

Linguistic Contortions

 

I swear there are days when I am convinced that language is absolutely wasted on humanity.

Perhaps if we could actually remember a time of pointing and grunting we might value actual specific words more highly.  We don't.  Now, I have written multiple essays on the meanings of words and sometimes on their misuse.  I have taken considerable ribbing over my attitude about word usage and/or linguistic evolution. (I'm agin' it)  I seem to be fighting an uphill battle.

The epiphany that has my knickers in a bunch today occurred because I do not consider myself aligned with either of the two predominant political parties in the USA.  I fully and willingly admit that the last 30-40 years have convinced me that I will never vote for a Republican for anything in the future.  A more complete version of that would note that while I will not be voting GOP I will likely stay largely pissed off at the Democratic Party.  Not pissed off enough to vote Republican but any other apparently viable, socially progressive, fiscally sane party could easily get my attention.

Today's burr under my saddle might seem subtle to some of you but I think it is meaningful.  On social media and even in person I have seen untold analysees on what the Dems can do to win elections.  I have seen it phrased as how Dems can beat the GOP or what messaging the Dems need.   ---  Do you see the problem yet?? ---

Let me help you out.  I will be the first to acknowledge that my social media footprint is not huge.  I am no longer on Facebook.  I do not and have not participated on Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, Snapchat, TikTok, and a bunch of lesser platforms.  I am primarily active on Bluesky (and I really miss Google+) and Reddit.  Still, I see a lot of posts.  What I do not see is anyone trying to tell the Dems or Independents how they can make the current situation less bad for us.  --- You see it now, right? ---

Look, I am no Pollyanna by any stretch of the imagination.  However, at the end of the day I don't actually give a shit who is in charge.  I care what happens to me, those that I know and love, those that I know and like, and those that I don't know from Adam's housecat.  We have contorted our language and belief structure so as to render what is actually done severely subordinate to getting elected - and even more importantly, reelected.  

As a general rule, I would agree that Dems are more socially progressive and that is important.  OTOH, I also follow politics closely enough to know that some of your favorite Dem politicians had to be forcibly pulled to the left and for some of them, I wonder if their beliefs actually changed or if they were just saying what they thought would get them elected. Off the top of my head I could point out that minimum wage hasn't gone up, healthcare has not gotten less expensive, predatory lending has continued under multiple administrations of both parties.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that one of the reasons General George Washington was opposed to political parties is the same thing that is annoying me.  The party's priority becomes the elected party official's priority and the constituent's priority has to take a back seat IF allowed on the bus at all.  I don't have a comprehensive plan to fix this idiocy but the general outline is we should all focus on making life hell on any elected official that is not actively making our lives better.  I acknowledge that electing someone from a different party might be an element of that but that should be a part of the journey NOT the destination.  If your party happens to be the one in power, that changes nothing.  You still need to pay attention and make life hell for any elected official that is not making your life better.

I'm not sure this could be any more simple.