Doug Explains the Iowa Caucus

by Douglas Slayton

Editor's Note: this is the first in a new series of articles whereby Uncanny Valley Magazine Professor Editor-in-Chief Douglas Slayton explains important, newsworthy topics. If you would like to read Doug's explanation of a particular topic, please send us an e-mail at uncannyvalleymagazine@gmail.com.

In the run up to the crowning of the new President some of you have walked up to me on the street
and yelled indignantly, "What is Iowa?!" and one even was like, "What is a Caucus?" to which I probably responded by crying or running in the opposite direction, because I thought you said something else. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. In order to make this up to you I will now explain what the Iowa Caucus is.

Firstly, Iowa, contrary to popular belief, is not in fact a state. Iowa is a governing body responsible for transportation and farming regulations. Iowa is actually an acronym, but no one remembers what it stands for because James Garfield possessed the only documents outlying its meaning at the time of his death and everyone forgot he had them until after he had been shot into to space. Coincidentally, that is why we have a space program: to recover these documents from his frozen corpse. As the need to govern both transit and farming grew, the department of Iowa grew to the size of a state after purchasing land from the states surrounding it so the officials and their family would not have to commute in from the coasts any longer. As more people began to occupy the compound, it became necessary to create more civilized infrastructure to support this new population, which led to the current misconception of its statehood.

A popular dictionary defines Caucus as "not what you think it is you perverted little fuck, put the book back on the shelf and go to class." This does not clarify the situation. Throughout the course of the "election cycle" half of what are considered "states" hold Causcuses. They are an ancient and brutal ritual where the supporters of each party must battle each other to prove that the candidate they support leads the strongest warriors and will better protect us from roving clans of geese that Canada uses to oppress the United States.

While all of this is common knowledge, it is important background for the current dispute that is the topic du jour for the media. This past week, this election season's Causcuses began with an especially brutal bout among the Democrats, leaving thousands dead and ten times as many homeless in the rampage across the non-state of Iowa, with the front runners' (Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders) supporters being some of the most vicious and entitled Caucusers¹ of all time. Clinton's were mostly armed with money from rich people and Sanders's was composed mostly of those who were young and had nothing to lose. I don't actually know the results; as a noted apolitical and perpetual presidential write-in candidate myself, I am not legally allowed to follow any coverage until there is an official, final announcement.

I would like to take a moment and ask why I haven't been invited to any debates. Is it my unpopular stance on outlawing chicken wire headwear? Anyway...

On the Republican side, some stuff happened too, I am sure. Like, look at them: they obviously did some shit. Although, traditionally, Republicans are less brutal because they are all related and think that fighting within the family is inappropriate.

Now someone just yelled at me from across the bus asking what the difference between a Causcus and a Primary is. This is a good question.

Primaries are what the younger states use to decide the candidates. As such, they are less brutal and more civilized. The constituency all casts double blind ballots for their choice. As the ballots are double blind, the voter does not actually know what they are voting for, so it is basically luck based. Traditionally, the candidate listed on the right side of the ballot has done better because of the right handed dominance in our culture. In the last decade, though, officials finally noticed the trend and have started randomizing the ballots. But usually it ends up with useless results for "other" and comes down to whichever candidate has not been battered into submission from the press and public.

It is important to stay informed on these issues and political events, so when a estranged relative or potential sexual partner (haha, yeah right) asks about who it is you voted for or who you think might pull it out in the end, you can flippantly say something like, "Oh the brutality of it all is too much for my poor heart to take. Please, please let me die already." To which they will respond with a tearful assertion that life and politics have meaning and you will simply shake your head endlessly until they leave, confused.

---

1 Or, as they are commonly known, Caucasians.

 Douglas Slayton is Professor Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

Inequality and the Limits of America's Two-Party System

by Chris Alarie

Over the past several months, the American public and, perhaps more importantly, media have been deeply fascinated by the 2016 presidential election, despite the fact that we are a year away from election day and a few months out from even the earliest nominating contests. Some of that is a result of the necessities of the 24 hour news cycle, the horse-race-style¹ coverage of elections that the media favors,² and the particularly odd characters who populate the nominating contests. But another source of interest is the way that the battles for each party's nomination have put a spotlight on intra-party issues, particularly with regards to America's income and wealthy disparities.³ Both the Republican and Democratic parties are in the midst of battles as to how each party should best address the questions surrounding inequality. These intra-party debates illustrate one of the more pressing but under-discussed political problems in America: the way our two-party system is hurting the democratic process and preventing the government from properly addressing the economic concerns of the general public (in this case, the increasing divide between the super-wealthy and the rest of the country—a function of worsening income and wealth inequality as well as a lessening of economic mobility).

America is, for all intents and purposes, the only major democracy that has only two effective political parties. And the two parties are entrenched in such a manner that their respective areas of expected electoral control are, if not predestined, then highly predictable, at least. The Democrats have a distinct advantage in the electoral college, giving them an easier path to control over the electoral branch of the federal government. The Republicans have a stranglehold over much of the governments at the state level which, in turn, gives them a similarly overwhelming control of the House of Representatives. The only segment of the federal government that is currently a remotely open contest between the two parties is the Senate, depending on which seats are contested in each particular election. The manner in which these two parties are entrenched is a key facet of the worsening problems of inequality.

In a recently published Vox article, Lee Drutman explains how America seems to be stuck in a reinforcement feedback loop of income and wealth inequality that is both a product of and engine behind Republican control of the government. It is a well-supported, interesting article and is well worth reading in full, but for my purposes, can be summarized as explaining that the last few decades of largely Republican controlled economic policies have created an extreme level of income inequality that has created a less informed and less politically engaged electorate, which in turn favors Republican electoral goals. Essentially, the Republicans have used their control over the federal government to make the federal government ineffective in addressing inequality, which in turn allows them to campaign against the federal government as a solution for inequality in front of an electorate that, thanks to the aforementioned inequality, is less prepared to evaluate these problems and less likely to engage with the political process, both of which favor the perpetuation of this strategy on the part of the Republicans. While the reasons for this feedback loop are manifold and complex, it is, in part, a function of the limitations of our two-party system.

The Democratic and Republican parties have effective monopolies over, respectively, the liberal and conservative factions of the government, with the middle ground becoming more and more empty. And with these monopolies comes an increased focus on ideological consistency, particularly in the GOP, and a greater need to establish differences between the parties on most issues. The problem is that each party's ideology is unlikely to represent the beliefs of most voters on every single issue. Anything outside of either party's orthodoxy, even an idea that finds bipartisan support among the general electorate, necessarily becomes either a partisan cause—if it fits within one party's ideology—or an unsupported cause—if it doesn't fit within either party's ideology. Income and wealth inequality are problems that follow this first model in that they are a primary concern of a majority of Americans but are only identifiable as problems within the ideology of the Democratic party, essentially rendering a cause that should have broad support as a partisan cause that is subject to all of the problems and ineffectiveness of our polarized system of government.

For statistical evidence that a sizable portion of the populace is concerned about inequality, one could look at polls from the New York Times/CBS and Gallup. But for more anecdotal evidence that the issue is important to voters from both parties, one need look no further than the very different, insurgent populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Indeed, inequality is the primary issue on which Sanders has centered his campaign and a significant source of his unexpected success and momentum—to the point that likely eventual nominee Hillary Clinton has had to (perhaps unconvincingly) focus on the issue, as well. On the other hand, Trump's success is a bit harder to tie to any one issue. But it is still worth noting that Trump has addressed the issue of inequality more directly than any other Republican candidate, stating that he would like to raise taxes on hedge fund managers⁴ and has no intention of reducing medicaid or social security—which amounts to as much of defection from GOP orthodoxy on the subject of inequality as could be imagined by a leading presidential candidate. The strangeness of Trump's behavior and his attendant popularity has led to a veritable cottage industry of articles in which a journalist speaks to Trump supporters in order to discover the reasons behind their support. While the supporters' responses run the gamut from relating to his racist, nationalistic rhetoric on immigration to his supposedly self-financed campaign's freedom from the influence of special interests to his general blustery demeanor, many Trump supporters point to his comparatively stronger focus on the issue of inequality relative to other Republicans. Indeed, the enthusiasm for Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Trump illustrates the extent to which inequality is an issue of importance to the public across the political spectrum. However, the fact that neither candidate seems likely to eventually win the presidency or even capture his party's nomination demonstrates how the two-party system prevents the government from truly addressing the problem of inequality.

Once the primaries are finished, the general election will pit establishment candidates against each other, with Hillary Clinton almost certainly facing off against either Jeb Bush or, more likely, Marco Rubio. While they have made some brief overtures toward the plight of the middle class, Rubio and Bush are extremely unlikely to be concerned with income and wealth inequality than Trump.⁵ And while Clinton is much more likely to campaign against inequality than her Republican opponents, her history and connections to wealthy Wall Street donors renders her a much less convincing crusader against inequality than Sanders. In a system that had more than two parties, Trump and Sanders⁶ would be able to participate as candidates outside of the Democratic and Republican parties and perhaps stand a chance to campaign to a general electorate with their comparatively great focuses on inequality.⁷ But in a two-party system, we will instead be presented with a choice between a Republican candidate who has no interest in the issue and a Democratic candidate who does not have as much interest as a large portion of the progressive segment of the electorate and perhaps even less than some voters who generally lean more conservative. Inequality becomes a comparatively weakened partisan issue instead of the generally popular cause that polls indicate it to be.

Ultimately, a political system that features more than two viable parties would be more likely to represent the vast and varied concerns of the public as a whole. And perhaps an issue that is concerning to a majority of Americans across the political spectrum such as income inequality would be more likely to be addressed by the government. But the entrenched power of the two parties—fueled in part by the campaign contributions of the wealthy elites who benefit from inequality—makes this an impossibility.⁸ While there are a number of potential means by which outside parties could gain traction, such as ranked choice voting or proportional representation, the likelihood of any being implemented is extremely low. Instead, we are stuck with a two-party system that encourages reinforcing feedback loops and ignores broadly supported issues like inequality.

Chris Alarie is Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.

---

1  Beware the Vast Equine Conspiracy.^↩
2 And that the public devours.^↩
3 This focus on the economy is a reflection of how many, perhaps even most, political issues in this country are folded into domestic economic debates.^↩
4 Of course, the tax plan that he ultimately released does not follow through on that promise, illustrating just how significant the influence of orthodox conservative economic policy is.^↩
5 Or any Democrat.^↩
6 It is worth noting that lifelong political independent Sanders only recently joined the Democratic party in order to try to secure its presidential nomination.^↩
7 I should note that Hillary Clinton, like nearly any progressive, is likely more concerned about inequality than Donald Trump.^↩
8 Indeed, campaign finance reform is the elephant in the room on this issue, as it is in regards to much of American politics.^↩

Life Sans Politics

by Chancey Hector

Photo Courtesy of the Author

I don’t understand politics—not at all. Growing up, I was surrounded by friends and family who always knew who the Secretary of State was, or how the Senate works, or what a pork barrel is, but none of it rubbed off on me. Today, not much has changed; I still have no idea what senators do, I don’t know why the government is split into branches, and I still can’t tell you what a pork barrel is, politically speaking. All I can picture is a barrel with a lot of meat inside, which is of course silly and reveals just how little I understand the political world. That being said, not knowing much about politics has not been a detriment to my daily life. I can still cook, clean, drive, laugh, cry, and shop for knee-high boots without knowing who Joseph R. Biden is or what Sarah Palin does for a living.

My father’s eyes roll whenever we discuss current events. He reads the newspaper every day to catch a glimpse of the world’s happenings, and he can probably name the presidents of most countries in the world. He is on top of his political life. I, on the other hand, cannot keep up with the news. I have tried, and failed, to educate myself. The only thing I ever retain from watching Fox News or CNN is the weather report. Now that’s important information to have when you are planning picnics at the beach. Understanding Barack Obama’s political stance on immigration is not so tangibly useful—unless you are in the process of immigrating, which I am not.

When I think about it, I realize that perhaps it is thanks to this mysterious government that I am able to do all those things I like without concerns or worry. I imagine that thanks to import/export laws I am able to buy goods made overseas, and thanks to amiable treaties with neighboring countries I am able to enjoy low gas prices. I would surf on Google and see if any of my assumptions are correct, but the truth is that I am too busy to find out. I have a marriage, twin toddlers, rent and utilities, and a job that drives me nuts. My daily routine leaves me no time to investigate the political happenings of this country.

Not to be defeated by the complexity of the government, I turn to my best friend to gather information. He understands me, and knows that I will only absorb politics in a very diluted form, free of all the political jargon that floats around out there in the real world. He knows how to bullet-point the topics that we discuss, and he knows how to make it fun to learn—by inserting a lot of hip hop references into his stories, somehow. He makes light out of the depressing events that occur out there, outside of my small bubble of existence. He’s my personal version of The Daily Show. And thanks to his bite-size approach, I am able to glean a few important gems here and there, like the definition of filibuster and the history of Blue Dog Democrats. However, these factoids are soon replaced with more important information, such as the ingredients I will need to cook dinner tonight.

Dinner and laundry are more important to me than who has decided to run for the presidency next year (elections are next year, right?). My life cannot function without planned meals and clean clothes. One of my twins has a complete wardrobe change three times a day. Several times a week she routinely runs out of clothes to wear, so I have to run the washing machine twice a week to keep up with her. Sometimes I leave the news on while I cook or clean the house, but it’s all white noise to me. I don’t multitask; I can cook or listen to the news. I am not equipped to do both at the same time. But the beauty of it all is that I don’t have to multitask. I can focus on life at home while politicians focus on their life in Congress, or wherever else they meet and invent laws. I’ll do my job, they’ll do theirs.

In fact, I feel that the people out there in Washington are working very hard so that we don’t have to worry all that much. We have the option to participate in the elections but it’s not even mandatory! We can live peacefully and let the old men and women in charge of the country do what they think is best for all of us. We don’t have to know their names of even their agenda. We can pretty much coast on the outskirts of the political world and hope for the best. That’s all we can do, hope, because politics also have a dark side. There are corrupt politicians out there who do not have our best interest at heart: they want money and laws that allow them to keep it all, at all costs. Depending on who you are talking to, you will get a different list of corrupt politicians. It depends on what side of the spectrum you lie—Democrat or Republican, or Other. But so long as the good ones outnumber the bad ones, we should be pretty safe.

Politics may govern all aspects of my life, from the price of groceries to the price of gas, but I don’t know how it happens. And I will keep not knowing until things go awfully awry: the day my peeled baby carrots cost me $100.00 I will start paying very close attention to the confusing machinery that governs our country. Until then, I will spend my energy raising my children and being an attentive wife. I will keep coasting on the outskirts of the political world, and hope for the best.

Chancey is deeply committed to reminding the world that women are seriously just human. She also loves being French.