James Fallows has written a must-read article in the July/August 2005 Atlantic Monthly titled: Countdown to a Meltdown – America’s coming economic crisis.  A look back from the election of 2016.  I’d link to the article but it requires a paid subscription.  From my perspective the article is worth the price of a subscription.  (Full disclosure – I read a hard copy purchased from the magazine aisle at Safeway.)

The article is scary and informative.  Fallows gives us a ton of information (and the footnotes to back it up) in the form of a strategy memo from a campaign manager to a third-party presidential candidate who is, given events, clearly expected to win and govern.  Fallows also manages to make very complicated economic, monetary and geo-political issues understandable.  Our failure to maintain our educational lead on the rest of the world, our reliance on foreign energy and our economic relationship with China all create a house of cards just waiting to be knocked over.  Throughout the "memo" we are reminded of the role both the Democratic and Republican parties have played in creating or ignoring the mess.  At the end I had two questions.  Where is this third-party?  Why wait until 2016?

Surfing the web I’ve found a post entitled "Principles of Civil Discourse" by Nathan Azinger on his blog – Pajama Jihad – (subtitled) Declaring a Holy War on Stupidity.

This is the only thing I’ve read on this blog so far but it struck me as something everyone should read and consider.  Why?  The success of representative democracy hinges on the ability of government to resolve disagreements in a fair and civil manner.  It must seek public participation and respond in a way that encourages, rather than discourages, future participation.  I’m not sure our current political climate – at any level – is doing a very good job of this right now.

In today’s "After Deadline" column (Contra Costa Times) Dan Hatfield details reaction to the fake letters to the editor story in last Sunday’s paper.

Clearly what Kyle Vallone did, impersonate others, is wrong.  That he was able to get so many letters published is amazing.  Did it shift the debate?  What impact do letters to the editor have?

I’m not sure though that I agree with Hatfield’s attack on what he calls "astroturf" letters.

"As I have written here before, my colleagues and I also have to fight against what we call "Astroturf" letters. These are letters that are sent out by special-interest groups that use the same words and simply sign different names to them. They basically are fake grassroots efforts, hence the nickname."

If more than one person signs an identical letter and includes their name, address and phone number is it "fake"?  I don’t think so.  In this day and age – many people feel strongly about something but don’t have the time to sit and compose a letter to the editor.  They may rely on their trusted "interest group" to help them clarify their thinking and express it by providing sample letters. 

Knight-Ridder buys the ink so the Times and Hatfield get to decide which letters make the paper.  It can’t be easy figuring out which letters are real and fake – as the Kyle Vallone episode shows.  But Vallone’s letters were individually crafted fakes.  If done correctly – the so-called "astroturf" letters are, at least, honest representations of real readers’ opinions.