Political Cowards: Alameda's Malia Vella

The internet should have ushered in a new era where everyone could more easily access their politicians. Direct democracy could flourish, and voters would become better-informed, freed from the shackles of BigCorp media.

Of course that's not what happened. Instead, most American politicians, beneficiaries of gerrymandering, avoid online debate whenever possible, reasoning there's no upside to engaging with voters who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Why not limit your exposure to puppies and t-shirts printed with #Resist instead? In fact, that's partly the approach union-supported politician Malia Vella has taken when called out on her divisive rhetoric. Her Twitter account proclaims herself "Alameda City Councilmember, Wellesley Woman, Teamster, Lawyer, Educator, Culé, Art Lover, & Pragmatic Optimist." (Note: Wellesley is Hillary Clinton's alma mater.) Below is one of Malia's Facebook accounts. 

When I called out her prior mocking use of the hashtag #unionthugs on her personal FB page--which often replicates her official political page--she blocked me rather than engage. When I posted on her Alameda City Council page, she ignored it. Sadly, most American politicians today are mealy-mouthed risk-takers who would make the meekest accountant proud. Such behavior explains why so many Americans outside of California adore Trump. When your alternative is no discourse, any discourse is preferable.

Below are a few snapshots from the discussion--you'll see no admission that her prior conduct was wrong, or an acknowledgment that some voters' concerns about union coercion are legitimate: 

And that's when it got interesting. You see, Malia and are former law school classmates. We're trained to debate and use logic. My point is you cannot complain about Trump's language online while engaging in similar propaganda tactics yourself.  




Let's analyze Malia's logic. She's correct that not everyone associated with a particular incident is required to comment about the topic, but she still doesn't get it. A politician who has mocked people--including Trump, who's challenged labor unions' corruption--can't wash her hands clean when someone presents evidence that maybe, just maybe you shouldn't mock legitimate issues, especially when they concern the special interests who helped get you elected?

By not engaging publicly and by relying on carefully tailored images rather than practical issues to engage voters, politicians have created their own safe spaces. Meanwhile, in other countries, Cebu City's Tommy Osmena takes on all comers on Facebook and demonstrates no fear.

It is stunning that other countries have taken America's ideals of free speech and rigorous debate and utilized them better on American-owned social media than most American politicians. California in particular seems to attract a large share of political cowards because it's a one-party state. It wasn't always this way. 

When a questioner called out JFK's Catholic religion as potentially problematic, his supporters in the crowd jeered at the woman who questioned his loyalty. It was JFK himself who calmed the crowd, insisted on answering her question, and then delivered an inspiring response. Today, liberal American politicians claim to appreciate and even to idolize JFK while taking no risks whatsoever in political discourse. Meanwhile, voters worldwide have spoken. Except for the UK's Theresa May, they have demanded authenticity, even at the expense of civility and pragmatism. Admittedly, their choices seem atrocious when compared to the genteel politicians of yesterday. And yet, given the choices they've had, especially in California's political echo chamber, their approach makes sense: bravery over cowardice, bluntness over political correctness. Perhaps there's hope for the future after all. 

Bonus: from Alta Magazine (2019), 

April 2019

I'm Just Sayin'

D.C. Democrats tend to do okay, because the federal government can print money. States, unlike the federal government, cannot print money and must balance their budgets each year. Right now, the only reason many states are able to survive without massive cuts in services and layoffs is because the federal government has loaned them billions of dollars.

If your economic strategy is tax-and-spend, i.e., using tax dollars to create government jobs and to increase services, you have to make sure the private sector can generate enough revenue/taxes to support government employees and their salaries and benefits. In other words, if you want a bigger government, you have to make sure you can pay for it, which means you should also support a larger, more successful private sector. However, most people who favor bigger government want more regulation and more restrictions on corporations and businesses, which usually lower the government's revenue and therefore its growth.

Apparently the Swedes have found an economically-viable balance: high taxes and a strong private sector. They're like libertarians that don't mind high taxes because they see their taxes being used effectively. (Indeed, Sweden has one of the best education systems in the entire world.) California Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to understand basic economics: they continue to restrict the private sector--i.e., the people paying their bills--even as they demand more government. It's like a child telling his parents not to work and instead demanding that they stay at home and take care of him. It might work for a while, but after some time, the child will be homeless and destitute, perhaps regretting the decision to restrict his parents' time and efforts. Right now, though, California seems happy to have major industries leaving the state and choosing to hire elsewhere. It remains unclear how the state is going to pay for the bigger government it wants.

Bottom line: if you vote for a pro-union, pro-regulation Democrat without having a financial printing press ready to go, it's like having sex without a condom--stupid and unsafe.