Politics: 2012 Election

2012 Election

The longer I've been following politics, the greater range of feeling I've had about it.  First, "Candidate A must win the election or the next four years will be terrible!" then, "well, how much is really going to change no matter who wins the election" then, "well, it depends on what happens in Congress, and in the courts, and at the state level, and the local level...".  And then it repeats.

I doubt that any of those three options are completely accurate.  I read in a recent Time magazine that those who are the most informed - and are thus typically the most partisan - have the hardest time accepting that a particular fact from the other side of the political spectrum might be true.  It's not very surprising.  Elections, in some ways, are like a sports league where the teams are different religions.  The way a team wins or loses is by receiving validation, internal or external, that it is right.  So every team can, and usually does, "win".  And yet, when there is a challenge to your team not being right, it is like someone is challenging the validity of your faith:  there must be some flaw or distortion in the challenge that makes it wrong.  We - and especially the most partisan among us - can't stand to lose an election because A) our "team" lost the "championship" and B) a majority of people (at least in the electoral college) had the gall to side with the other "religion".

I admit, I've felt pulled into this game more than once, particularly when I first really started to follow politics more closely.  But the electoral process is not a game, and the important work only begins once the politicians have been elected.  We, the people, must stay informed and also, yes, make politicians aware of issues that develop in society.  Then politicians must work together in order to solve those issues.  They must work together for two reasons:  1) obviously, they don't all share the same view so nothing will get done if they don't compromise (for reference, see the last 2.5 years); and 2) no side has all the right answers/no ideology if implemented will result in a perfect society, so we need to take the best ideas no matter which side they come from.

This is why the picture at the top is a sign for Stewart and Colbert.  They mock the self-righteousness and incompetence of both parties (admittedly, like me, with a liberal slant).  They point out the real pain and frustration that goes on in the world, and how the political process turns it into a pawn in the chess match while doing nothing about it, or any number of other ways politicians mess up.  It is important - perhaps crucial - that we be able to step back and laugh at ourselves, at least occasionally.

***

With all that said, next I'm going to specifically point out what I would like to see done on the various issues of the day.  As Obama has focused his campaign on his past accomplishments and why Romney sucks, and Romney has focused his campaign on taking both sides of every issue and why Obama sucks, I'm going to just take a stab at how each might handle the issues.  Here we go!

Deficit:  I address this first because it is entirely dependent on other issues.  I looked through national budget data since 2001, and my conclusions to deal with the problem are:  grow the economy (enormous effect on revenue), rein in military spending, and, most importantly, reduce health care costs.  Yes, the numbers look big and scary right now - but the deficit must be seen relative to these other issues.  As long as the economy continues to recover and we can address entitlements and military spending (much more in doubt), then the deficit will not seem so scary.
Advantage:  Obama (Seems much more level-headed about the issue; much of the Republican base has an exaggerated fear of the issue and would pressure Romney, a more fiscally-reasonable politician than the Tea Party or the rest of the fringe, to make disastrous spending cuts.)

Economy:  Ultimately, I think both TARP (although it was hard to stomach) and the stimulus were necessary to prevent a depression.  Beyond that, the government has no magic wand to wave and make the economy grow like China's in the short term.  There are way too many uncontrollable, global variables.  I do believe that if the government invests in education, infrastructure, and certain industries, it can help create a strong foundation for the long-term.
Advantage:  Obama (Romney has business credentials, sure; but it seems to me he favors short-term approaches that, while perhaps providing a temporary boost, may also hamper the nation long-term.  Obama supports the kind of investments I think are critical to that long-term foundation.)

Healthcare:  We have to slow the rise of healthcare costs, otherwise the nation will go bankrupt and/or healthcare will become a luxury for a smaller and smaller pool of wealthy Americans.  Luckily, there is a model for success here:  basically every other developed nation in the world.
Advantage:  Obama (Obamacare is not perfect, but at least it is a major step in the right direction.  Republicans, on the other hand, don't want government to have any part of an overall healthcare policy, despite its success internationally.)

Entitlements:  Much like healthcare, the rise in costs is unsustainable, at least for Medicare and Medicaid (I think Social Security is supposed to be basically sound).  On the other hand, these programs need to be able to do their jobs, both for moral reasons and economic ones (70% of the economy is based on consumerism).  Again, healthcare costs in general are a huge driver of the price of these programs, so it's hard to say exactly how much of the problem is structural.
Advantage:  Mixed (In response to Republican pledges not to raise taxes, many Democrats want no changes at all to entitlements.  I doubt huge changes are necessary in any event, but we at least need to be able to look at them critically.  On the other hand, Romney/Ryan have a plan that won't kick in for those 55 and older, which makes me deeply suspicious of their plan.)

Global Warming:  The biggest threat to not only this country but the entire human race, yet it is not a factor in the election at all.  This is a classic frog-in-boiling-water case.  I realize that it is literally not possible to entirely switch off of fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the near future; but that has to be the end goal, and it has to start NOW.  Efficiency is low-hanging fruit.  Fracking, while it needs to be carefully regulated, is a good start since natural gas contributes about half as much (if Zakaria's facts are correct) carbon as coal, which needs to go ASAP.  I'm even willing to talk about increased nuclear power, but ultimately we must develop renewable sources that are affordable and scalable, and fast.
Advantage:  Obama (Big investment in renewables in the stimulus was a good start, at least.  And Republicans will have a very difficult conversation with their kids if they continue to deny the very existence of the scientifically-verified, slow motion disaster that is global warming.)

Foreign Policy:  Yeah, this is a huge, diverse topic, but I'm trying to be as brief as possible here.  First, treat China - the world's other superpower - with respect, and build up a positive relationship with it rather than one of hostility.  Second, scale back use of drones but increase use of intelligence in tracking and controlling terrorist cells and organizations; al-Qaeda is still a threat, but we can't further alienate the people with collateral damage.  Third, don't demonize Islamist political parties in the new Middle East democracies but emphasize the democratic ideals that foster harmonious societies (education, women's rights, etc.).  Fourth, don't start a war with Iran.  Fifth, pay attention to Africa.
Advantage:  Obama (Both parties are fairly close in foreign policy these days, but Romney and some Republicans, at least at the moment, are too hawkish on China and Iran.  Tensions throughout the world seem to be rising, whether it's the economy in Europe, revolution in Middle East, or competition in East Asia.  The U.S. needs to be a calming, stabilizing influence.)

Immigration:  I admit, I know very little on this subject, mostly because I live in a part of the country that is >90% white.  But it's a very important topic nonetheless and, broadly speaking, I advocate for merciful policies for undocumented immigrants (and certainly clear paths to citizenship for their children), in addition to a modernization of policies for others:  for example, many bright young people study in the U.S. and then are forced to go back home - and take their ideas with them.
Advantage:  Obama (All of the public debate is on the undocumented immigrant aspect, and Obama again has the advantage of not answering to a major section of his base whipped into a frenzy by the Tea Party, Fox News, et. al. like Romney does.  I will say, Romney seems likely to be more moderate here than some others in the GOP would be.)

Drug War:  An utter disaster on so many levels, it must end now.  Probably the most insidious part has been its disproportionate impact on impoverished and minority populations, but it has also led to a culture of incarceration, crisis in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, and billions of dollars spent to not even put a dent in the rate of drug use.  Legalize and regulate marijuana (disclosure:  I've never tried it before, nor do I have any intention to).
Advantage:  Neither (Hey, the libertarians finally score a point!)

***

So, as you can see, I plan to vote to re-elect President Obama in November.  Was he perfect in his first term, or does he agree with me on every point?  No, but I think he's taking the country in the right direction on a number of the most crucial issues.  And to go back to the first part of my post, we've got to compromise and get to the best solutions, no matter the partisan bent.  Look at Obamacare:  it addressed one of the most critical issues in our country, and Obama championed it despite the fact that it was pretty much the same plan that a certain Republican used in Massachusetts.

Feel free to share your thoughts with me in the comments, for or against!

Movies: Argo

Score:  **** out of *****  (A-)

Long Story Short:  Argo is a big step forward for Ben Affleck, the director, and in my eyes it earns its current status as an Oscar favorite.  The film really nails a believable atmosphere, and because of that, a superb tension, particularly at the beginning and end.  Affleck's own character, the hero, is disappointing and shows that he has a little work to do in that area, but the supporting cast provides plenty of brilliant moments.  Highly recommended to all.


As more well-reviewed, limited release films come out, movie theaters around me continue to miss them... except for this Oscar buzz film, Argo.  After reading about the premise several months ago, I was interested to check this one out.  Plus, Ben Affleck impressed me with his work on The Town from a few years ago.  Once November arrives, the movie choices should continue to get better (and perhaps some previous limited releases will make their way to my area).  Argo was directed by Ben Affleck and stars him, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman.

The film starts with a brief narration of Iranian history, and the action begins in 1979, following the deposed Shah's escape to the U.S.  Revolutionaries gather and gain support in the streets outside the U.S. embassy, with the diplomats inside growing more and more nervous.  Eventually, of course, the Iranians break into the compound and take almost everyone hostage.  Six people, however, manage to escape and hide out in the Canadian ambassador's home.  Back in the U.S., news of the attack dominates the headlines, while the State Department frets about their secret knowledge of the other six. State is desperate to get them out, but the CIA squashes their ideas to get them out.

CIA agent Mendez (Affleck) comes up with another idea involving location filming in Iran, but his superiors, including boss O'Donnell (Cranston) are doubtful.  Still, it's their only lead, and so Mendez approaches makeup artist Chambers (Goodman) and producer Siegel (Arkin) in order to develop a legitimate operation to back up the ruse.  Back in Iran, the escapees grow restless even as the revolutionaries piece together that there are Americans in hiding.  When Mendez arrives in the hostile nation, the situation gets even more tense as he races against the clock to get them out.

The performances in Argo are very good for the most part.  Interestingly, however, Ben Affleck's role as the CIA hero Mendez is bland and mediocre.  Perhaps Affleck just put 90% of his energy into directing (which he did much better), but even compared to my low standards for him, he just gives very little personality or flavor to his character.  Fortunately, the roster of supporting roles has several stand-outs.  First there is Cranston, playing Affleck's boss; he disappears into the role of a dedicated, experienced, slightly arrogant yet intensely loyal CIA manager.  His biting humor and bursts of passion provide some of the film's best moments.  Next are John Goodman and Alan Arkin as his polar opposites, cynical and seemingly indifferent Hollywood vets.  Both are hilarious and Arkin delivers the movie's crass catchphrase based on the title of the fake film.  Several of the American escapees also give great performances, although the character names elude me.  Some familiar faces in small roles (Victor Garber from Alias, Kyle Chandler from Friday Night Lights) round out the great cast.

The name of the game in Argo is suspense.  Particularly in the beginning, as Iran's revolutionaries invade the embassy, and at the end when the Americans make their escape attempt, the film keeps you on the edge of your seat.  Sure, it goes away for stretches in the middle, but if it didn't, I think anyone who watched it would end up with blood pressure issues.  The key to Argo's success with tension I think is the very realistic feel given to the true story, and a sense of how dangerous Iran was, particularly in that time period.  The humor provided by Arkin, Goodman, and occasionally Cranston is a perfect complement to the tension, and it's an appropriate kind of humor, too.  I also need to give a lot of credit to the set designers and especially costume and make-up artists (the real ones!).  During the credits side-by-side shots of the film actors and their real-life counterparts are shown, and they are amazingly accurate.

***

Argo really shows Ben Affleck's growth as a filmmaker; not that The Town was bad, but this film is certainly superior.  Affleck nailed the tension and realism of an historical thriller about as well as any other I've seen - but he's still got some room to grow.  His character, in fact, is a good symbol of the area he needs to improve:  I simply did not feel pulled into the story by the characters; certainly not by his bland lead.  Yes, there is a palpable, thrilling sense of relief when the Americans have finally gotten away, and there are a few good moments relating characters (mostly on the strength of Cranston's, Arkin's, and one of the escapee's acting).  But it lacks that connection to character that, for example, Apollo 13, nailed.  Make no mistake, however:  this is an excellent film that I would recommend to any adult audience and many younger ones, too.  Perhaps over time this film could prove itself to be worthy as a classic of its genre.

Movies: Looper

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt extends his big year at the movies as he stars in this new sci-fi action film.  Built on a sturdy and intriguing premise of a man meeting an older version of himself, Looper puts the action in a gritty, well fleshed-out near future setting.  The level of violence may surprise you, making Bruce Willis a natural fit as the older Gordon-Levitt (facial prosthetics make JGL truly look like Baby Willis).  Very well done, if perhaps not a film that leaves a lasting impression.


Finally, a new movie review!  September, as usual, was a bad month for film, with Looper being the only one that got my interest.  There are two other films out right now, The Master and Perks of Being a Wallflower, that look good but currently are not playing in my area, unfortunately.  Anyway, when I first heard about Looper, it seemed like an interesting premise with an actor I like (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  And then I heard the actors seemed quite enthusiastic about the film, and it came out to excellent reviews (93% on Rotten Tomatoes).  This, combined with my recent drought in trips to the theater, made it an obvious choice.  Looper was directed by Rian Johnson (his third film) and stars Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt.

Looper is set in a near-future America (2044 according to Wikipedia; I don't remember this being said in the film).  The country has fallen into decay, and Joe (Gordon-Levitt), a young man, works for the mob in a rather unique way.  He is a Looper:  the mob from thirty years in the future uses time travel to send its victims back in time for disposal so that their bodies are never found.  Joe is good at his job, and enjoys the benefits (drugs, girls) that his employment provides him.  However, the reality of his situation begins to dawn on him when a friend goes on the run and asks him for protection; Joe sees how fragile his life really is.

Things take an even worse turn when Joe's next target turns out to be... himself (Willis).  Of course, his old self is not the usual hapless victim, and Old Joe escapes.  While Joe is desperate to put down his old self or be hunted like his friend, Old Joe has a mission of his own to stop a future personal tragedy from occurring.  As Joe struggles to decide what to do, another variable gets thrown into the mix and forces him to defend someone else for the first time.

The performances in Looper are good, though nothing especially outstanding.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt again does a very good job; as earnest and selfless as he was in The Dark Knight Rises, he is equally as convincing in his indifference and self-interest for (most of) this film.  Gordon-Levitt makes Joe likable enough, despite his character's flaws, to carry the film's emotional weight.  Bruce Willis as "old Joe" does a decent job; really he's basically a more ruthless John McClane from Die Hard.  Old Joe is interesting in comparing him to the his younger self, not in watching Willis do something new.  Emily Blunt does a fine job in a role I did not describe in the plot synopsis; all you need to know at this point is that she plays a normal woman with genuine, powerful concern for her family.  The supporting cast includes Paul Dano as Joe's friend on the run (brief but effectively creepy plot); Noah Segan as a mob hitman (dark comic relief); and Jeff Daniels as the mob boss (very entertaining).

The premise of Looper - a young man assigned to kill his older self - is the central and most interesting aspect of the film.  However, the futuristic setting itself is surprisingly well crafted, too.  There are plenty of near-future sci-fi films out there, and typically a few obvious details spell out how it's different from the present day, and then the rest is unimportant.  Looper, though, is filled with small but very interesting details about how this future America looks - not just using a few new gadgets, but in having characters interact so naturally with everything around them, from hoverbikes to eye-drop drugs.  The film also really drives home the horror of violence, which I was not expecting from previews.  This is an R-rated film, and there's plenty of blood and a few mangled bodies - but the anticipation of potential violence here is just as terrifying.  There is a little bit of humor in the film, but not much; it's the emotional stakes that are intended to balance out the violence and overall gloom of the future society.

***

Looper sets itself apart as perhaps the best near-future sci-fi action film in years.  It uses the idea of a man forced to confront his older self (don't worry, the time travel itself is not that important here; there's no Inception-level technical exposition) as the core and supports it with a bleak yet well developed setting that balances a ruthless, kill-or-be-killed reality with unexpected yet believable and powerful hope.  Now, that sounds like high praise, which I meant it to be - and yet, it doesn't quite close all the loops, I guess you could say.  As another reviewer I read noted, just about all the elements work, but there's no magic that ties it all together to create those special moments you get in a truly great film.  Most of the separate elements are well done to one degree or another, and they're thematically coherent (in contrast with, say, this year's Spider-Man), but it's not what I call a memorable film.  Plus, the one technical gripe I'd make about it is that it's a bit too long; perhaps fifteen minutes taken here and there could have been shaved off.  If you can't take R violence, you might want to avoid this film, but otherwise, I do highly recommend it as a (rare) entertaining and engrossing fall action film.