Now, go ahead and work through your rage.  I implore you, resist the urge to track this guy down and stab him.  I know he SEEMS evil, but he’s actually totally spot-on – and not JUST about Zynga and “social” games.

A Simple Fact About Games:

If you’ve played nearly ANY “popular” game, you’ve played a derivative game.

World of Warcraft is just DikuMUD with a decade of somebody else (actually, NUMEROUS “somebody elses”) footing the bill to work out the kinks, expand, revise, polish and improve it.  All Blizzard did was come in and (to lift   Bailey’s phrasing) “add a +1″.  Ditto for every popular shooter, RTS, DOTA-clone, etc.  Even “jackpot” indie hits like Minecraft are built upon the shoulders of earlier, less-polished efforts.

I feel bad for indie developers who come up with wonderful new ideas, achieve moderate success and then see their ideas devoured by huge Mega-Studios, but that’s just LIFE in every form of industry.  Invent a new, magnificent widget in your garage that takes years of effort and every penny you have, then becomes the “darling” of gadget-heads everywhere?  A factory in China will be making a cheap-as-hell knock-off a week after it hits the market unless you have the kind of legal and financial muscle to influence the Chinese government.  And if you dodge that bullet, you can bet your ass major electronics companies will have lifted every significant aspect of your design within a year.

Yes, Zynga is a particularly soulless example of this behavior, but it’s foolish to pretend that there would actually BE a games industry without derivative “inspiration”.  What Zynga does is creepy, sad and (perhaps) ethically dubious, but it’s silly to pretend that it’s NEW.  So go ahead and be mad, but be realistic.

“Ere the Moon has climbed the mountain, ere the rocks are ribbed with light,

When the downward-dipping tails are dank and drear;

Comes a breathing hard behind thee, snuffle-snuffle through the night–

It is Fear, O Little Hunter, it is Fear!”

- Rudyard Kipling

Over the past week, lots of folks from around the industry have been linking and nodding approvingly in response to this article offering “7 Reasons You Don’t Want To Work in the Video Game Industry”.  Like most things that get people worked up, there’s some truth to what is written there, but I take issue with much of what’s on the list.  My main complaint is the suggestion that most of these problems are unique to game development somehow.  With one exception, they are not – and I don’t mean that in the sense of the problems being shared in a limited way with a small number of other jobs. 6 out of the 7 are problems that apply nearly universally to ALL jobs.  Specifically:

7. You Won’t Work On A Game You Like

(1/2 true) You won’t ALWAYS work on something you love, but you often will. When I was getting started doing testing and support work, I had to deal with some stinkers, but I also got to work with lots of stuff I really enjoyed. Once I was properly into development, I never worked on a game I didn’t love again.  But beyond that, how many OTHER industries allow you to work on “things you like”?  Almost none, by my reckoning.  The worst thing I’ve had to do as a game developer is more interesting to me than the best thing I can imagine doing as a lawyer.

6. You’ll Be Expected To Move Far, Far Away

(true) Maybe not right away, but if you stick around long enough, expect to be shuffled all over the planet in cattle class. The good news: This usually doesn’t happen until you’re fairly senior in the industry.  I find it odd, however, that the author focused on the issue of having to travel abroad to work with international teams (which, as I mentioned, tends to mostly impact Management).  The more widespread (and problematic) scenario is that you’ll have to move around domestically to find work, often once every few years.  Regular state-to-state relocation makes it hard to do things like buy a house or feel comfortable starting a family.

Oddly, this wound up protecting lots of developers (myself included) when the housing market tanked.  I never felt comfortable or confident enough to get the $350-500,000 mortgage that would have been necessary to “own” a reasonably-sized home in the DC area (where I lived when the Recession hit).  As a result, when the housing market collapsed, I felt like I’d dodged a MAJOR bullet.  When I was laid off couple years later, I felt the same way.

5. The Fans Will Attack You For Everything

(true) Fans will get mad at you, but it’s only because they love (or want to love) your work. There are far worse things than lots of people giving a damn about what you do.  In addition, the fans will ALSO be your strongest, most steadfast advocates.  Personally, I get something out of both strong criticism and vocal praise, so I don’t consider this to be a “problem”.  This is probably the ONLY thing on the list that is “unique” to game development (and its other creative brethren).

4. Nobody Will Understand Your Job

(false) People understand game development WAAAAY better than many jobs. Imagine being a cop or a lawyer or a doctor, where a huge chunk of the population watches 30 hours a week of procedural dramas that TOTALLY misrepresent their jobs. THOSE guys are misunderstood, not us. In addition, almost no job is really “understood” by people outside that field. Do YOU know what your tax preparer does when it’s not tax season? I assume mine fights crime in a magical kingdom filled with math wizards.

Also, who CARES?  Honestly, unless you’re desperate to constantly be told how special and interesting you are, do you really give a damn about your spouse’s co-worker’s husband being intimately familiar with the ins and out of your daily routine during a chat at a dinner party?

3. You Can’t Complain – Literally

(1/2 true) You can complain about serious issues – forced overtime, hostile work environments, etc. just as much as any other person can. I know of NO cases where someone complained about a legit workplace problem and was then punished (much less fired) for raising it.  Most studios have well-trained, diligent HR departments who take that kind of thing VERY seriously.

Obviously, if you bad-mouth your employer or berate your coworkers or the product you’re working on publicly, you’ll get fired. But you’d get fired if you did that ANYWHERE.

2. You Will Work So Many Hours, You Will Essentially Stop Existing

(true) Yep. You’ll work long hours. Crunch exists and it sucks. Companies know this and (generally) try to make it suck as little as possible, but that doesn’t excuse it.   It’s worth noting that, as the Great Recession drags on, this type of “work more with less” approach is becoming the norm EVERYWHERE.  Leaving game development won’t magically help you “start existing” again (assuming you could find work at all).

1. You Will Get Fired

(1/2 true) You probably WON’T get fired. That would mean that you were removed with cause based on poor performance. If you do good work, you almost certainly won’t get fired. You probably WILL get laid off. If you HAVEN’T been laid off before, you’re probably very young. But that’s also true for nearly every OTHER industry in the world right now aside from repo men and undertakers.

So what’s it all mean?

To me, it means that the game industry has positive and negative features that you should consider before deciding to pursue it.  MANY of the negative features it has are shared with MOST professions, but very FEW of its positive features exist elsewhere. There are excellent reasons to think long and hard before diving into game development – even when times are good everywhere else, but there’s no reason to think about it as a “scary” industry that dooms all who enter to suffering and defeat.

We live in unsettling economic times, regardless of the industry we work in. This calls for caution and patience and long contemplation of our options. If you’ve done the leg work necessary to learn what game development would REALLY be like and the risks and labor seem “worth it” to you, then I say be not afraid – go forth and take your shot.

They are also not at all surprising to people who have followed his work over the years.  Doug has never hidden his political/moral views from public view.  While he’s best known (apparently) as the creator of Earthworm Jim, he’s also put together an impressive and diverse array of graphic novels over the years, many of which have included (with varying degrees of nuance) ideas and concepts that are obviously drawn from his religious and political views.  And in case those were too subtle, his website has always been a clear and obvious vehicle for his specific opinions.  Even a cursory consideration of his regular posts there would make clear his positions in a way that should have rendered his recent comments unsurprising, if not necessarily acceptable.

In his comics, more often than not, I have found his communication of his religious/moral/political views to be deftly handled and his presentation – even of things I don’t happen to believe myself – to be pleasant and attractive.  On only one occasion have I found content in his professional work that was so offensive that I could not, in good conscience, recommend it to friends.  In that latter case, I disposed of my copy of the book and went back to enjoying the rest of his work.

Which brings me to my major point.  Can you enjoy the work – creative or otherwise – of a person who you know harbors views that dramatically conflict with your own?  Can you enjoy their work SELECTIVELY?

This is an issue I’ve struggled with over the years.  I have friends who are “moral absolutists” when it comes to this sort of thing and they will permanently cordon off anyone who they consider to have offensive political, religious or moral views.  In some ways, I appreciate the purity of that position.  Without question, supporting ANY of the work of a person who has an offensive philosophy winds up subsidizing the rest of their efforts, so completely cutting them off makes sense in that regard.

*MY* problem is that I really, REALLY like some of the things that certain people (artists, mostly) have created who happen to have gone on to say or create fairly offensive things later.  The best example I can think of is Dave Sim.  The first hundred issues of his epic Cerebus series are astonishing, glorious and beautiful – filled with wit and humanity and great insight.  The fact that Sim went on to become a loopy, misogynistic, religiously fanatical hermit simply cannot undo the FACT that his earlier works were amazing, valuable achievements.  Even when the main narrative ran off the rails into strange, rambling metaphysical gibberish, I was able to enjoy the occasional oasis of sanity that popped up from time to time in the later volumes.

If I opt for the “absolutist” position, I can never watch a movie with Charlton Heston in it.  Or listen to Wagner’s operas.  Or ride in a Volkswagon.  Or ever watch a Mad Max film again (the horror!).  For me, that price is too high.  While there are obviously exceptions, I generally find it best to separate a creator’s WORK from a creator’s LIFE.

Now, I will admit that I have a dog in this particular race.  I make my living trying to get people to pay me for the things I help create.  I also have a fairly public persona and I don’t shy away from making my political views clear.  I hope and trust that the VAST majority of people judge my work on its own merits and judge my beliefs separately.

I know I have plenty of conservative fans who enjoy the games I make despite being aware of my rather Lefty tendencies.  I know I have religious fans who don’t use my lack of faith as an excuse to boycott my work.  I WOULD, however, expect them to refuse to purchase or support something I made if it was an explicit, ideological manifesto of some kind.

Which leads me to a final (admittedly fussy) point:

Some of Doug’s supporters are upset about calls for boycotting his work – going so far as to claim that it’s censorship or a violation of his rights.  This is silly and wrong.

While I don’t intend to do so, it is entirely right and proper to boycott someone’s work – for ANY REASON – if that seems like the best course of action to you.  It is not censorship.  It is not an abridgment of the target’s right to free speech and expression.  You have a RIGHT to speak your mind.  You do NOT have a right to do so unopposed and you DEFINITELY do not have a right to an audience.  If you bang offensive drums long and loud enough, people will eventually hear you and many of those people will decide they never, ever want to hear from you again.

For my part, I hope Doug keeps making excellent books for many years to come.  I am sure I will continue to disagree with him on nearly everything politically, morally and religiously, but I will always at least give his stuff a chance because his work has enriched my life greatly in the past.

Why, I’m running for President, that’s what!

I assure you, this is only PARTLY a shameless act of self-promotion. Stay tuned for more (but stay tuned on the other site, since… ya know… I’m lazy).

Actor in a leading role

Who should win: Colin Firth
Who will win: Colin Firth

Actor in a supporting role

Who should win: Geoffrey Rush
Who will win: Geoffrey Rush

A win for Bale would be great since he was equally excellent, but tie goes to the better film.

Actress in a leading role

Who should win: Natalie Portman
Who will win: Natalie Portman

To quote myself from elsewhere: She went down the “How to Win An Oscar” list and checked every box. Lost an unhealthy amount of weight for the role? Check. Straight actor doing same-sex love scenes? Check. Commenting on a comfortably damnable subject? Check.

Actress in a supporting role

Who should win: Hailee Steinfeld
Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld

There were some very weak contenders in this category. Steinfeld is the only sane choice.

Best motion picture of the year

Who should win: Black Swan, True Grit or The Social Network
Who will win: The King’s Speech

Anything but Inception will do, really.

Achievement in directing

Who should win: Tom Hooper or Darren Aronofsky
Who will win: Tom Hooper

Sometimes, precision and reserve can win the day. The lack of a nomination for Nolan seems to indicate that the Academy is feeling that way this year.

Adapted screenplay

Who should win: The Social Network
Who will win: The Social Network

Honestly… they made a movie about a website gripping and intense.

Original screenplay

Who should win: The Kids Are All Right
Who will win: Inception

I just have a bad feeling about this one. I hope I’m wrong.

Best documentary feature

Who should win: Exit Through the Giftshop
Who will win: Inside Job

EXtG was amazing. A Banksy acceptance speech would be potentially mind-blowing. But Inside Job lets Hollywood think it’s super-duper-important, so it’s got a leg up there.

Best animated feature film

Who should win: How to Train Your Dragon
Who will win: Toy Story 3

Not a great showing this year for this category. Toy Story 3 was deeply mediocre, especially by Pixar standards. HtTYD was at least wacky fun.

Achievement in art direction

Who should win: Inception
Who will win: Inception

I think Inception will pick up a lot of the more technical awards and get snubbed in all of the major categories.

Achievement in cinematography

Who should win: Black Swan of The King’s Speech
Who will win: Inception

People seem to think that CGI, slo-mo and practical gags Kubrick pioneered in the 70s are a revolutionary visual styling.

Achievement in costume design

Who should win: True Grit
Who will win: The Tempest

Not much thought going into this one. Alice in Wonderland shouldn’t win because it was pure CGI rubbish. The Tempest has Shakespeare on its side and sometimes that seems to help. True Grit had cowboys and I like cowboys. Meh.

Achievement in film editing

Who should win: Black Swan
Who will win: Black Swan

That movie scared the bejeezus out of me. Mostly due to its editing.

With that mea culpa out of the way, three cheers for all of our Community Managers! That should be coming from developers and players alike. A good Community Manager is equal parts ombudsman (or ombudswoman) and canary in the coal mine. They represent both sides of the player/developer relationship and it’s too-often a thankless job.

So regardless of what side of that divide you’re on, take some time today (or tomorrow… it’s getting late – though your Community Manager is almost certainly still up and working) and say thanks.

For developers:

How many times have you been talked down from a ledge (or talked out of an ill-advised response to a troll or slanderous flame-war) by your Community Managers? How many late night tests, patch releases and player events were overseen for you by your Community Managers? How many public floggings have they taken on your behalf? Do your karma a favor and spring for lunch tomorrow. At least. AND NO CHEAPING OUT ON THE APPETIZERS.

For players:

I know it’s hard to tell sometimes, but Community Managers have your back. They’re your voice for a variety of reasons and while it might sometimes SEEM like that voice isn’t being heard as much as you’d like, trust me when I say that this ISN’T because the Community Managers aren’t going out – every day – and fighting on your behalf. Every Community Manager I’ve been lucky enough to work with is a passionate gamer, a reflexive “people person” and a tireless advocate for what they think is right – even when that doesn’t make them popular. So cut them a little slack today. Make a point to track them down and say something overtly positive.

So… yeah. To everyone whose ever been saddled with the burden of keeping an eye on me because I can’t be trusted to look after myself, thank you. I love you guys!

Fans of video games aren’t getting the best, most creative work from our industry because the American health care system sucks.

Over the holidays, I spoke with a lot of friends and former co-workers just to say howdy and catch up. It was mostly a casual affair – reminiscing about past projects, poking around for gossip, trolling for swag, etc.

But one conversation really stuck with me.

I was speaking to a fairly close friend who I worked with for a few years a while back. He’d moved on and has been working for a Large and Well Known Studio developing A Highly Anticipated Game ever since. He’s immensely talented and creative and has – on a number of occasions – made it clear that he’s got some great, challenging ideas that would (in my humble opinion) make great games. And he hates what he is doing currently.

The explanation was no surprise – he’s working on another big team on another big game where creativity is suffocated by fifteen layers of management and every bold suggestion gets chewed up and ruined by bureaucracy and fearful marketing. There are other factors as well – hating the area he’s living in, being far from family and old friends, etc. but the main issue is that he’s doing loveless work on a product he has no passion for.

Obviously, I ask: Why don’t you quit? Go somewhere else? Find a small team that’s hungry and willing to take risks? He’s got the talent and experience and the types of ideas that would make for some REALLY interesting, truly different and unique games. Why stay somewhere you hate working on something you don’t give a damn about?

The answer was simple – he and his wife are expecting their first child in about 6 months. While he hates what he’s doing and where he works, Large and Well Known Studio offers him and his family fairly good health insurance. Quite understandably, he doesn’t want to risk losing that coverage with a baby on the way. So, instead of striking out and making something new and really interesting, he’s really got no choice other than staying where he is, doing what he’s doing and hanging onto that insurance.

I really had no good response to this. His concerns are 100%, totally valid.

Going from REEEEEALLY nice company-provided insurance to insurance I pay for on my own was traumatic, disappointing and expensive as hell. Luckily, my wife and I are both healthy and have had no serious prior medical issues that would have made it hard (or impossible) to find coverage. But if she HAD been pregnant while we were looking – or worse yet, if she’d had some serious problem in the past – I don’t like to even imagine how awful and terrifying that process would have become.

In the US, health care is one of those core needs that can either provide a great sense of security or a terrible sense of fear. The VAST majority of Americans rely on their employer to provide it for them. The result of this is that the VAST majority of Americans rely on their employer for their health and the health of their families. And THAT relationship kills creativity because it forces many people (ESPECIALLY in a weak economy) to be beholden to their employer regardless of the quality of work they’re doing.

When I left my old studio, I knew I wanted to do something radically different and challenging and – yes – risky. I was proud of the work we’d done and loved the people I worked with (and for). I know there are plenty of horror stories that go around about working for one of the Big Publishers (or for a studio consumed by them), but that never jived with my experiences. I was given opportunities that I am extremely grateful for and I was taken care of me the entire time I worked for them. Even leaving the studio, the experience was about as positive as I can ever imagine such a thing being.

Nevertheless, at this point in my career, I knew that I REALLY wanted to work for a small, independent studio. Luckily for me, my wife and I are healthy enough that I had the option of trying something bold and new. As a result, I enjoy work now more than I have in YEARS because I’m doing things my way, on my terms, with a small, dedicated team of people who are equally passionate and excited. I have high hopes that we’re creating something that will be fresh and entertaining to players.

But if my wife HAD been pregnant or one of us HAD suffered from some terrible illness previously, what then? I would – almost certainly – only have felt comfortable taking another position within Another Large and Well Known Studio. I would have climbed back into another huge team working on another huge project. In short, I would have been forced to curtail my creativity for the sake of my family’s health.

Talk about a shitty choice. And not just for me. As I said in that opening statement – FANS aren’t getting our best work because many, many people in our industry are afraid of risking their health for the sake of doing something new.

If you’re afraid that leaving or upsetting your current employer may – quite literally – cost you the health of your family, what sort of artistic or creative endeavor could possibly convince you to do so? What video game idea – no matter how excellent or exciting or new – would be worth risking the health of your spouse or your children?

To be clear, I am not SOLELY blaming our godawful healthcare system for the creative woes of the video game industry, but I CAN say with total confidence that things would improve significantly if people weren’t worried about something as basic as medical coverage. You’d see a huge explosion in independent development. You’d see bad games fail to launch because the people working on them would simply walk away. You’d see good games succeed because they’d attract those same developers.

And this isn’t just applicable to video games. How much innovation in EVERY field is lost because the people who have the ideas can’t risk the health of their families in order to pursue them? Opponents of universal health care often cite the (entirely theoretical) negative impact it would have on small businesses while also arguing that small business is what “drives” our economy. Leaving aside the rather dubious nature of both claims, how many people AREN’T starting small businesses because they don’t want to give up existing company-provided group health coverage?

Every person with a child on the way or with an existing child with special needs or a spouse who is suffering from (or who has recovered from) cancer or any of a THOUSAND medical concerns has to give up on the dream of self-employment. How many businesses has that sad state of affairs cost us? How many jobs are never created? How many great ideas and industries fail to develop? How many problems fail to be solved? How much art is sacrificed?

Now imagine a different scenario – one where, no matter what, you know your family’s medical needs will be looked after. What happens to my friend in THAT world? I can tell you this much – he wouldn’t be living in Los Angeles, working on a game he has absolutely no passion for.

If you don’t have to worry about your most basic, human needs, you are free to be infinitely more bold and creative and to take risks and to innovate. Great industry, great work, great science, great art – those are the fruits of that kind of confidence. And if that ever happens, we’ll all be better off.

Anywho, during the 2 1/2 months between now and the 2012 Campaign Season beginning, we’ll be left to reflect on What It All Means. My thoughts:

Democrats – It could’ve been worse, I suppose.

• Hanging onto the Senate means the President can be spared from constantly vetoing insane Tea Party legislation and the Democrats in general can keep things in check without resorting to constant filibustering.
• Harry Reid winning soundly is a big deal and strips the TPGOP of what would have been a very impressive trophy.
• The Blue Dogs have been nearly wiped out with over half of its coalition going down last night. This will make presenting a unified front much easier. This isn’t the 1950s and 60s. The current American political climate punishes “Big Tent” parties – sad, but undeniably true.

Republicans - It’s hard not to tip your hat to the sheer audacity and focus with which they’ve conducted the last two years of business.

• Last night’s sweep of the House presents a victory for their rhetoric and strategy, if not for their ideas (vague, at best) and agenda (likely going nowhere for at least 2 years).
• It’s hard to say whether or not getting in bed with the Tea Party was really beneficial. While it helped them develop a strong narrative to campaign around and that certainly helped with some races, it also cost them the Senate by replacing more moderate Republicans with wingnuts like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle who tanked dramatically in the general contest. Personally, I think the GOP would have found an equally effective voice without the Tea Party.
• Time will tell if the Tea Party will be good for them moving forward. The actual overlap between Tea Party “ideals” and anyone with real authority is pretty slim, but they may be able to keep the TPers riled up and in their pocket through 2012 by blaming gridlock on the Democrats.
• Wiping out the Blue Dogs basically kills any chance of Democratic defections on most issues, meaning that it will be nearly impossible to ever build a filibuster-proof coalition on any significant TPGOP legislation.

The Tea Party - Life in the Echo Chamber probably feels pretty sweet today. They managed to knock “Washington Insider” Nancy Pelosi out of leadership in the House and have replaced her with the fresh-face of John Boehner – a man who JUST arrived in Washington a scant quarter of a century ago. Enjoy it while it lasts, because now that the election is over, the GOP very much needs you to be quiet (at least until it’s closer to 2012 and they need you again).

• They had some wins – most notably Rand Paul – but they also lost races that a better, moderate candidate almost certainly WOULD have won. Because of the Tea Party, the GOP doesn’t get to crow about taking seats held by the Vice President and the Majority Leader.
• The overall “performance” of the Tea Party seems to mirror what happened with Ross Perot and his “Reform Party” in 1992. They’ve captured the support of an angry, disaffected 20% of the population and have managed to achieve a kind of “insurgent influence” as a result.
• As Perot’s supporters can attest, this is not an easy kind of movement to maintain once the initial cycle of energy and “revolution” passes. The novelty wears off, the cracks and foibles of your leaders become more apparent, things change and people just… wander off. The chances of Tea Party “rage” still resonating broadly in two years are slim and there won’t be nearly as many easy targets next time around because the majority of Blue Dogs have been purged from the Democratic Party.
• The actual Tea Party “agenda” is unlikely to see much movement over the next two years. Repealing health care reform, seriously rolling back stimulus funding, dramatic cuts of government spending or federal programs, etc. are ALL dead on arrival. And not just because of the Democrats. It’s politically toxic for the GOP to get too close to any of those issues because – while you CAN rail against them in general and survive – you can’t actually make any real proposals aimed at tackling them without committing political suicide. The best they can hope for are occasional, hilarious swipes at things like the NEA (which will fail) and occasional lip-service regarding “earmark reform” (which will pass easily, but be toothless and unenforceable).

President Obama - Let’s be honest – the next two years can scarcely be MORE frustrating than the last two have been. I’d love to believe that this will snap him out of his phlegmatic diplomacy and send him after the throats of the TPGOP, but that seems unlikely. He’ll wander further to the center and “pull a Clinton”, probably solidifying his chances of at least avoiding the embarrassment of a primary challenge in 2012.

The Next Two Years – Potentially a hilarious gridlocked disaster. If Boehner sticks to his “no compromising” rule, then nothing of substance will take place. If, on the other hand, he decides to actually lead and serve, there are decent chances of some compromise legislation making it to the President.

• The GOP’s easiest “win” would probably be tort reform. It’s a mostly useless bit of fluff that the Democrats don’t mind but that the Right Wing Radio World has been yammering for for years now.
• Taxes are tough, but not impossible, to work out. The Democrats would probably be willing to up the income ceiling on rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts to $1 million if the GOP is willing to concede that no billionaires are actually “small businessmen”.
• Health Care repeal won’t happen. The GOP will make some obnoxious, Quixotic runs at it, but nothing will change.
• The GOP will not make a serious effort to curtail or revoke TARP or the Stimulus because 1) they voted for it and 2) it serves their REAL constituency (big business).
• The GOP will continue to pretend it cares about the Tea Party – at least until it starts to fizzle and ceases to be politically useful to them.
• The TPGOP won last night largely because a HUGE percentage of progressives stayed home. Much of the frustration with health care reform came from liberal voters who wanted to see a Democratic Supermajority ACTUALLY use their mandate to push through a paradigm-shifting, single-payer, universal health care system. And when it comes to the economy, the bloodless, toothless “regulation” of the financial industry was an embarrassment.
• Democrats have a chance to circle the wagons and remember that they’re ACTUALLY a progressive party (at least in theory). With the Blue Dogs mostly dead, it’s time to take a few pages out of the GOP handbook and start seriously demanding loyalty and good behavior from its membership. I’m not suggesting a “DINO” hunt along the lines of the GOP’s targeting of moderate “RINO” members, but at least wielding sufficient influence over your own damn party to say that it expects buy-in from everyone on certain, key issues.
• Voters don’t ACTUALLY want weak, compromise legislation. The GOP knows this and uses it as a weapon. The Democrats ignore it and get punched in the face over and over again as a result. You’re the progressive party. BE PROGRESSIVE.

  Remember:

  Left side of the road – safe. Right side of the road – safe. Middle of the road – SMOOSH.

UPDATE – 11:43 PM: I know I mentioned the wipe-out in the Blue Dog caucus a few times, but how did the other side of the Democratic Party fare? Of the 80 members of the Progressive Caucus that faced challenges yesterday a total of 4 lost their seats. FOUR.

While I can’t attend in person, I can attend in spirit. With that in mind, here’s a tribute to the folks on the Right – the list of my Top 10 favorite Republicans:

10: Senator John McCain - Despite his rough showing over the past few years, the vast majority of McCain’s adult life has been heroic, principled and generally pretty great. I campaigned (and voted) for him in the 2000 GOP primary when, in my humble opinion, he was at the apex of his stature as a politician of character and conviction.

9: Senator Bob Dole – I campaigned for Clinton in ’96, but had a hard time mustering much gusto when it came to actively opposing Dole. To quote Bill Maher (who voted for Dole in ’96):

War is the great divider among men. I mean, you have been to war or you haven’t, and if you haven’t you just do not, I think, have the same mettle, and also, you haven’t given the ultimate sacrifice for your country. I do think if you are a war hero and you’re running, all things being otherwise fairly equal, that guy is going to get my vote.

Unlike Maher, I did not consider Dole to be the equal of Clinton when it came to policy, but his credentials as a man of courage and a leader people can proudly follow are beyond question. Bonus points: Much of the health care reform that recently passed was inspired by Dole’s proposals in the mid-1990s.

8: Wendell Willkie - Willkie’s main claim to fame was winning the 1940 Republican nomination for President. He went on to get pasted by FDR, but was sufficiently well-liked by his opponent that he was asked to join the Roosevelt Administration and in 1941 became the President’s personal diplomatic representative, traveling to Britain, China and the USSR regularly. He was a tireless advocate of Civil Rights and a major opponent of racism both institutionally and culturally. He criticized both Democrats and Republicans for failing to deal with issues of race and sought to convince Hollywood to stop portraying African Americans in offensive, racist fashions. He equated racism with fascism thusly:

The desire to deprive some of our citizens of their rights — economic, civic or political — has the same basic motivation as actuates the Fascist mind when it seeks to dominate whole peoples and nations. It is essential that we eliminate it at home as well as abroad.

7: Senator Jacob Javits - Offended by the utter corruption of the Democratic establishment in New York City, Javits was a lifelong Republican who nevertheless was loathe to reflexively support any policy out of party loyalty. Among his significant achievements were:

• Lifelong support for and outspoken advocacy of Civil Rights, beginning in his first Senate term with the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
• Sponsored the first African American Congressional page in 1965 and the first female page in 1971.
• Creation of the National Endowment for the Arts.
• Passage of the War Powers Act.
• On behalf of President Jimmy Carter, he traveled to the Middle East to lead discussions that eventually led to the 1978 Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel.

6: General Colin Powell - While his political role in recent years has been troubled in many ways, Powell has remained a clear, considerate and reasonable voice in American conservative politics. Some highlights:

• The “Powell Doctrine” – a significant statement of foreign policy ideology. In short:

  Force is warranted ONLY when political, economic, and diplomatic means of addressing conflict have been exhausted. Before force can be used, each of the following must be answered in the affirmative:

  1 – Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2 – Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3 – Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4 – Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5 – Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6 – Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7 – Is the action supported by the American people?
  8 – Do we have genuine broad international support?

  The Powell Doctrine was paid lip-service during his time in the Bush Administration, but was never truly or honestly implemented. In the years that have followed, a general consensus has emerged that early war efforts were woefully underpowered, goals were poorly defined, exit strategies were non-existent and international support was EXTREMELY limited – thus leading to the protracted and awkward situations that persist even today.

• Despite his role in implementing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the 1990s, Powell is a vocal supporter of its repeal now.
• He favors “reasonable” gun control while also recognizing the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.
• He recognizes the value of Affirmative Action.
• He opposes military tribunals for so-called “enemy combatants” and supports strict adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

5: Vice President Nelson Rockefeller – A pragmatist when it came to policy, Rockefeller spent much of his career making things hard for himself by doing what he thought was right instead of what his party told him to do. He was the heart of moderate Republican politics for more three decades, lending his name to the so-called “Rockefeller Republican” wing of his party. Many of the domestic components of Richard Nixon’s platforms that weren’t horrifying were the direct result of Rockefeller’s influence and advice.

4: Chief Justice Earl Warren – Earl Warren has the unique distinction of being a politician SO beloved that he was both the Republican AND Democratic Party nominee for Governor of California in 1946 (though he only ran as a Republican). Appointed by President Eisenhower, Warren’s time on the Supreme Court saw him initially serving as the lone conservative voice on a Court made up entirely of New Deal liberals appointed by FDR and Truman who were nevertheless deeply divided most of the time. Eventually, Warren became a consensus builder and presided over a large number of landmark cases:

• Brown vs. Board of Education – Banning the segregation of public schools.
• Gideon vs. Wainwright – Guaranteeing the right to legal counsel.
• Miranda vs. Arizona – Requiring that anyone interrogated by law enforcement be clearly notified of their rights, including legal counsel.
• Engel vs. Vitale – Outlawing required prayer in public schools.
• Griswold v. Connecticut – Establishing the Constitutional protection of the Right to Privacy.

3: President Theodore Roosevelt - War hero, Indiana Jones-esque adventurer, scourge of giant large-toothed beasties, bullet-proof monster speaker. Teddy Roosevelt is – unquestionably – our most BAD-ASS President, but his policy achievements and ideas were no slouch either:

• He was a trust-busting machine, punching corrupt corporations in the face with strong regulation and bringing an end to large-scale collusion and abuse.
• His “square deal” ideology helped him to bring mutually beneficial ends to conflicts like the 1902 coal miner’s strike.
• He was an environmental superhero, bringing the importance of conservation to the forefront of American politics.
• He was the first American to win a Nobel prize when he was awarded the Peace Prize in 1906 for his efforts to bring an end to the Russo-Japanese War.
• He passed the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Pure Food and Drug Act, providing Americans with protections against meat that was mislabeled or mixed with harmful chemicals and from impure or falsely labeled drugs, respectively.

2: President Abraham Lincoln - His credentials need no repeating.

1: President Dwight Eisenhower – Ike is unique in that his service as President is LESS significant than his earlier career. After all, just leading America IS kind of a step down from leading ALL OF THE GOOD GUYS ON EARTH. Nevertheless, it’s his life as a politician that puts him at the top of my list.

Beyond his obvious significance in WWII, Eisenhower was the kind of politician that normally only appeared in Jimmy Stewart films:

• He sought the Presidency only after he was drafted into doing so by a massive grass-roots movement and even then he ran with some reluctance.
• He proposed and signed into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and aggressively fought racism in the United States (cleverly referring to it as a “national security issue” to woo conservatives who opposed desegregation).
• He opposed domestic witch hunts for Communists and instead believed that diplomacy and strong alliances were the best way to curtail Soviet and Chinese influence.
• He extended Social Security coverage to millions.
• He championed the Interstate Highway System.

Beyond that, he – unique among modern Presidents – truly seemed concerned about the dangers that America’s new role as the leading free nation on earth would present. He showed deep trepidation about the amoral juggernaut that American industry had become in the years after the war – expanding for the sake of expansion, consuming recklessly both the material and intellectual resources of the nation for the sole pursuit of National Strength. In his famous farewell address he warned with chilling prescience about the risks post-war America would face:

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence–economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

…

As we peer into society’s future, we–you and I, and our government–must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.

And from a speech to American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this:

A modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…

Is there no other way the world may live?

Dwight Eisenhower tops my list because he was a man whose life was fully super-heroic. He could have lived out the last third of it with swaggering bravado and self-aggrandizing bluster, but instead conducted himself with humanity and humbleness.

And his highways are pretty sweet too.

Folks I know/who know me: Feel free to ping me with questions directly. Everyone else, leave comments here and I’ll answer what I can.