Category: Uncategorized

We have two of the best dogs ever:  Buddy and Atticus.  They are different ages and breeds, and both come from unknown backgrounds. They are Rescues, with their own personalities, quirks, and endearments.  We love them both, and they get along great with each other.

Sick Puppies

Both have health issues. Buddy, our seven-year-old Border collie mix, is a cancer survivor.  When he was diagnosed in 2016, he was given maybe a year to live.  After surgery and a year of chemotherapy, its more than three years later and he is currently cancer free.  His every three-month blood test is normal.  He is the subject of research papers and medical seminars by his Veterinary Oncologist, with pictures of him chasing a ball in the back yard and sunning on Atlantic beaches long after he was supposed to be gone.   He is a medical success story, and we hope he’s saving other dogs.

Atticus is our two-year-old Yellow Lab.  We found him on the “kill list” of the Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio) shelter. His ears were completed infected, so much so that he really couldn’t hear.  The Shelter wouldn’t begin treatments without surgery, and couldn’t afford to take care of him.  We saw him on Facebook, and we couldn’t let him die.  

It took over six months to clear up his ears.  We found he was allergic to almost everything he wanted to eat:  beef, dairy, grains.  Atticus is now on a strict diet of a fish and sweet potato mix.  He can have very little else, except for carrots. Both Atticus and Buddy love carrots, and celery when they can get it.  

The Cost of Health

Special foods, medication for both, and the usual purchases of flea and tick pills:  walking into the Vet’s office is never a cheap deal.  Last month, it was cost $319.  As I was paying at the counter, I jokingly said, “…can I get these guys on my health insurance plan?”  

Instead of the expected giggles, I got information on Dog Insurance.  Nationwide Insurance, located here in Columbus, is a big “mover” in the pet insurance business.

There’s nothing cheap about Dog Health Insurance.  An average cost might by $40 a month per dog; but a dog as old as Buddy is closer to $80. But, when you add up our actual costs a year, we are way beyond that, at least $3000 last year, not including special foods.  So maybe we should sign up.

Now this is a political site, about politics and America and what’s going on today.  So you know there has to be a political side to this essay.

Pre-Existing Conditions

That operative term is: PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.  If you don’t get pet insurance from puppy-hood, which ain’t happening with Rescue dogs; then all of those problems we’ve had with Buddy and Atticus aren’t covered.

Sure Buddy’s covered for accidents and new problems.  But if it relates back to his lymphoma or treatments, it’s off the table.  He’s considered in “remission,” but never “cured.”  And sure, if Atticus comes up with something new, then the insurance would help.  But his main health issue, allergic reactions to most normal dog diets; doesn’t count.

So while we could go ahead and purchase dog insurance for them, the cost would be more of an addition to their current health costs than a savings. While it might avoid some future catastrophic costs, we would likely end up paying more annually.

Life without the ACA

It’s a lot like the alternative to the current human insurance rules under the Affordable Care Act. Humans may be covered under their parent’s coverage from birth, but once they leave “puppy-hood” and become adults (defined as 26 under the ACA, but it used to be 21) they are forced into the open market to find their own insurance, usually through employment.  And if their employer’s coverage doesn’t include the pre-existing conditions they bring with them, as many didn’t before the ACA, they are stuck.

So if you are considering “on the market” dog insurance, get it early, when your dog is a puppy.  That way, all of their health issues will be covered, and, as long as you don’t lapse coverage, it continues to be covered.  And since, unlike human insurance, they can’t “age out” of your coverage, you and your dogs will be protected.

And what about those Rescues, those dogs that enter the health world with problems in the first place? Just like those humans unable to get coverage for pre-existing conditions, they are going to struggle to afford health care.  Maybe they’ll get lucky, like Buddy and Atticus, and find people who will pay the price to take care of them.   

Some humans got lucky and found employers with insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. But if the Affordable Care Act, or whatever replaces it doesn’t force insurance companies to accept those conditions, then those humans will be out of luck, and out of money.

I’m a Democrat.  I’ve been one since 1960.  I was three years old, and Mom pinned a JFK for President button on my sweater.  

Fear Itself

But being a Democrat isn’t just about tradition, or parentage (Dad was a “Rockefeller Republican”.)  It’s about a series of ideas that the Democratic Party represents.  I am a Democrat from the political party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President that told us:

 “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Roosevelt took office in the depths of the Great Depression, when the unemployment rate was approaching 25%.  One in four Americans could not find a job.  But his assertion about “fear” applies just as firmly today.  Our nation, through the voice of the current President, is in the grip of a different kind of fear:  fear of change, fear of “others,” and fear of the future.  It is unreasoning and unjustified, but it is driving the Republican base to turn to Donald Trump.  We are retreating, not advancing.

Freedom of Man

And as my button (wish I still had it) indicated, I am a Democrat from the political party of John F. Kennedy.  He is the President that told us:

“…And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Kennedy assumed the Presidency at a time when the world was poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust and choosing between Communism and Democracy.  He urged Americans to rise to a calling higher than themselves; to serve both their country and the world.  Today, our world seems to be turning to authoritarian leaders rather than trust “the people.”  And our nation is being told that we should not only look within, but should “cleanse” ourselves of “others.”

This week President Trump nominated Steven Menashi for the Federal Appeals Court.  Menashi has specifically written about the need for “our liberal democracy” to become “ethnonationalist” to survive.  “Ethnonationalist” is a code word for racial and ethnic purity.  This future jurist, chosen by our leadership, is calling for a white America. (Here’s Menashi’s treatise on the subject – University of Pennsylvania.)

Example of Sacrifice

I am a Democrat from the political party of Jimmy Carter, who I had the honor of working for in the 1976 campaign. Carter recognized that America’s energy consumption gave control of our nation to the Middle East.  He prophetically knew America must move to alternative energies, and while the nation made fun of his sweater and solar panels at the time, it’s not so funny now. 

Jimmy Carter after his Presidency is an example of service.  From building for the homeless, to ending blinding disease in Africa, to assuring election fairness:  Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter continue to show Americans how to take power and influence and use it for good, even today, well into their nineties.

I am a Democrat from the political party of Walter Mondale, who did not become President, but warned America that taxes needed to be raised.  It cost him the election, but his words, still largely ignored today, warned of the Republican Presidency that tripled America’s debt.  Republicans, the party of “fiscal responsibility,” have continued to expand our debt each time they have been in office.

A Rainbow

I am a Democrat from the party of Jessie Jackson, who in 1988 presented America with the “Rainbow Coalition.” They called on Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, Whites, Men and Women to join together to change America. It didn’t work in 1988, but it set the stage for the American Democratic coalitions today.

And finally, I am a Democrat from the party that nominated and elected Barack Obama, a man of vision who offered a different, kinder, America.  President Obama led with grace, and presented America with stable leadership, empathetic understanding, and powerful intellect.  He raised the level of American discourse, and must have threatened segments of Americans who felt left behind.  Certainly Mr. Trump is a symbol of that counter-reaction.  

Today

I am a Democrat.  I am a member of a political party that has diversity even in its Presidential candidates.  We will choose from White, Asian, Black, or Latino candidates: from men or women, gay or straight.  We will choose from North and South, East, Midwest, Mountain and West.  Our candidates represent the spectrum of our nation, not just a narrowing class of the privileged.  That’s why I am a Democrat, a believer in the great liberal spirit that has run through my Party for the past one hundred years.

Armored vehicles line up on the border.  The “special relationship” between China and the city of Hong Kong seems on the verge of destruction.  The rest of the world, including the United States, has said little about it, helpless to even protest against possible Chinese actions. The memory of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when tanks rolled over thousands of protesting students in Beijing, is clear.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong, smaller than Los Angeles but with more than twice the population, is one of the major trading centers in the world.  A British colony until 1997, the United Kingdom ceded the city back to China under very specific terms.  Hong Kong was to maintain a democratic government, a separate capitalist economy including its own currency, and a legal system based in English Common Law.

That special relationship has benefitted China as well.  A big part of Chinese modernization into the world economy has been through the window of Hong Kong’s capitalism.  Hong Kong itself is one of the top-ten import/export nations in the world. 

Over the twenty-two years since Hong Kong became part of China, the Beijing government has quietly inserted itself into the Hong Kong government.  The Chinese government appoints Hong Kong’s Chief Executive.  This executive controls the courts, as well as the ability to veto laws and dissolve the elected legislature.

Democracy Threatened

The current crisis began when Chief Executive Carrie Lam proposed a law allowing the Chinese Government to assume judicial jurisdiction of some Hong Kong cases.   Those accused of “political” crimes would no longer be tried under Hong Kong law, but could be transferred to Mainland China for trial and punishment.

The young people of Hong Kong began protests in the streets, demanding that the proposal be withdrawn. After weeks of marches, Lam delayed the proposal but refused to completely withdraw it, and the protests grew more intense.  Police and protestors battled in the streets, and armed “provocateurs” sponsored by the Chinese government attacked protestors and created riots.  Hong Kong’s international airport, eighth busiest in the world, was closed for two days.

The Chinese induced riots create a pretext for direct Beijing intervention in Hong Kong and threatens the “special relationship” as well as the personal and political freedoms of the City.  

So what’s the “downside” of Chinese military action in Hong Kong?  The world seems willing to stand on the sideline.  The power of the Chinese economy over world trade and financial markets has silenced Europe, and particularly the United Kingdom. The United States has said little as well.  There is nothing to stop China from acting.

Tough Business

President Trump treats the threat to Hong Kong as an “internal Chinese matter.”  He tweeted (the official form of Presidential communication):

I know President Xi of China very well. He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a “tough business.” I have ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it. Personal meeting? Trump – 8/14/19

The “great leader” and “good man” is in a “tough business”.  Will President Xi take the “tough business” comment as permission to actually be “tough” and roll tanks into the streets of Hong Kong?  And would a personal meeting with President Trump simply grant him even more latitude to deal with Hong Kong?  

The Trump Administration is ingnoring the strong stand for democracy in Hong Kong.  With Trump’s transactional form of foreign diplomacy, it may be that he is willing to trade Hong Kong for a better trade deal with China.  The US is already faltering in that effort. Trump delayed raising tariffs on China so that the American people can get their “Christmas shopping” done. 

Dealmaker

The US cages migrants on the Southern Border, and supports the leader of Saudi Arabia after he butchers a newspaper correspondent. The Trump Administration has made it clear that they are willing to accept almost any behavior if they can “make a deal”.  We have a government policy without a moral compass, so “tough business” in Hong Kong probably won’t shake it.

Hong Kong’s democracy will be another pawn traded in the chess match of US world trade policy.  The American people may soon be forced to stomach the picture of Hong Kong’s youth, demanding democracy, being crushed under Chinese armor. 

 It will be part of “the deal.”

Nope – not talking about Epstein’s autopsy.  

Failure Analysis

On March 11, 2013, the leadership of the Republican National Committee released their “autopsy” on the 2012 Presidential election.  Incumbent Democrat Barack Obama soundly beat Republican Mitt Romney.   At least, it was a sound beating in the Electoral College, with Obama getting 332 votes to Romney’s 206.  The electoral outcome belied the closeness of the popular vote: Obama had 51.1% to Romney’s 47.2%, a mere five million votes more out of the 127 million cast.  

The Republican Party had lost four of the last six Presidential elections, and the popular vote in five out of six.

• 1992 – Clinton over HW Bush 
• 1996 – Clinton over Dole
• 2000 – W Bush over Gore* (Gore won the popular vote)
• 2004- -W Bush over Kerry
• 2008 – Obama over McCain
• 2012 – Obama over Romney

Regional Winners

But, Republicans were winning on the state level.  The “Red Map” gerrymandering plan was effectively gaining control of more state legislatures.  Thirty states had Republican governors.  Congressional maps were altered to improve GOP chances in the House of Representatives, gaining and expanding their majority control.  And the Republican “voter ID program” suppressed Democratic votes and impacted turnout, particularly in non-Presidential years.

But, on the national level, the Republican leadership felt their relevance slipping away. As the “autopsy” put it:

“Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us.” (Atlantic)

The Party of White Men

The “autopsy” recognized the Republicans must reach minorities, youth, and women to stay relevant in national races.  Otherwise the party would have influence only on regional matters.  They would become the Party of white men and demographically, a party doomed to fade away.

In 2013, the Republican leadership looked at the changing demographics of America, and agreed they needed to reach Latino communities.  The report stated:

“If Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesn’t want them in the United States, they won’t pay attention to our next sentence. It doesn’t matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think that we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In essence, Hispanic voters tell us our Party’s position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door.”(Atlantic)

The “Autopsy” also pointed out that the Republican Party needed to reach out to women.

“The RNC must improve its efforts to include female voters and promote women to leadership ranks within the committee. Additionally, when developing our Party’s message, women need to be part of this process to represent some of the unique concerns that female voters may have.” (Atlantic)

Golden Escalator

All of this was thrown out the window when Donald Trump came down the “golden escalator” and said about Mexican migrants; “…They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” (Time)

Or was it?

Yesterday I listened to Michael Steel, aide to former Republican Speaker Boehner.  Steel worked for Jeb Bush in the 2016 Presidential campaign. He made it clear that the Republican Party was forced to choose in 2016:  either to follow the “Autopsy” into the future, or cobble together the “old” coalition one more time.  

Donald Trump forced that choice by bringing a powerful combination of racism, nationalism and star power to a primary packed with “policy wonks.”  Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Paul; all made their marks as serious men talking about serious issues.  Trump blew them away with his disregard for policy, the truth, and social norms.  It was the exact formula to gain mass appeal that the others couldn’t match.

It worked in the general election as well, with Hillary Clinton the archetypical “wonk:” perhaps she would make a great President, but she was a poor candidate.

But the longer course of history will run in favor of the “autopsy results.”  The election in 2018 demonstrated the change:  even in Republican Georgia with the full force of voter suppression in play, Democratic Governor candidate Stacy Abrams came within a couple of percent of winning.  A Democrat won the Senate seat in Arizona.  If that can happen in these “Red” states, then it foretells a dwindling future for the Republican Party.  

Change or Fade

All of this doesn’t guarantee a Trump loss in 2020.  Democrats will need to field a candidate who can reach beyond “policy wonk” to touch American lives.  A successful nominee needs to bring more voters to the polls than Clinton did in 2016, knowing full well that Trump will maximize the “old white” vote, and may have the “hidden hand” of election meddling on his side.  It is a critical election.

But in the longer term, Trump will fade.  His “special mix” will be near impossible to replicate.  Lindsey Graham, Mike Pence, Donald Junior: all may hope to inherit the mantle, but none of them seem to have the “super power” that Trump has with his base.  

The 2012 “Autopsy” wasn’t wrong.  The Republican Party will either change or stop being a national force.  What Trump has managed to do, is delay the inevitable for four years.  

Democrats: nominate a strong enough candidate to make sure it’s not eight.

The United States has turned inside itself.  We are focused:  on Donald Trump, on the border, on the Democrats running for President.  And the Trump Administration continues to re-focus Americans internally.  Yesterday they issued two new policies.  

Species Endangered

The Trump Administration wants to revise the Endangered Species Act to factor in an “economic cost” in saving endangered species. Put simply, they want to allow consideration of the value of the lumber that could be logged out of a forest, over the survival of a species in that forest, such as the “Northern Spotted Owl.” This economic analysis is specifically prohibited in the original law passed by Congress. They thought that the fact that a particular species was endangered and could become extinct was a “beyond price” kind of problem. Bald eagles, grizzly bears, timber wolves, and many other species exist today because of the law.

The current Secretary of Interior, David Bernhardt, did legal work for a variety of businesses prior to coming to the Department. Familiar names like: Halliburton, Cobalt International Energy, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America were his clients. All of these groups were looking for oil wherever they could find it. Pesky endangered species got in the way of drilling.

Who Gets to Enter

The Trump Administration also announced that they would revise immigration regulations to require legal immigrants to be financially self-sufficient.  Immigrants applying for “green cards,” the symbol of permanent legal immigration status; would have to have “private” insurance, a good “FICO Score,” and a bank account.   

That might seem reasonable, except that’s not what legal immigration has been about for literally the entire history of the United States. Almost everyone has his or her own “immigration story.” Here is mine.

An American Tale

 Isaac Dahlman came from the border area between France and Germany called Alsace. He arrived at New York in 1869, before the Statue of Liberty or Ellis Island, and went to join relatives already in Cincinnati.  He married Clara Dreyfoos, became a “rag” dealer, and had four sons.  One of those sons, Ben, became the sports editor for the Cincinnati newspaper, the Post. His son, Donald, became a successful broadcast executive, developing a popular national talk show.  That was my Dad.

Many Americans have that literal “rags to riches” story to tell. Isaac didn’t have private insurance, or a FICO score, or a bankroll when he came to America.  Neither did any of the millions who arrived with him, including Frederick Trump, who emigrated from Germany sixteen years after my great-grandfather.  He started as a barber, and then joined in the gold rush of the 1890’s by running restaurants and brothels for the miners in the state of Washington.  

He ultimately ended up as a hotel manager in Queens, New York, where he began to acquire property.  His son, Fred continued buying up property, and set up his son, Donald, in the field.  The rest is history.

This is America’s story.  But the Trump Administration decided that we don’t want “those” kind of people, probably because today’s immigrants are coming from Central America and India not Germany or France.  The Trump view of the traditional American dream is not just in black and white, it’s in white only.

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane

So we worry about the borders, and we worry about the next attack on the American Dream from the Trump Administration.  And while we worry about all of that, we better worry about what happened in the world this week as well.

There was an explosion at a military base on the White Sea in far northeast Russia.  At first, it was described as a failure on a “test platform” with several casualties. But then radiation levels in a city twenty miles away went up 200%.  It now looks like the Russian’s were testing their vaunted “nuclear powered” cruise missile, what they call the “Burevestnik” but NATO has named the “Skyfall” (thank goodness.)  This test failed, and at least five were killed.

The “Skyfall” cruise missile, if it worked, is a “game changer” in the nuclear missile field.  It uses a small nuclear reactor to superheat air, and then propels it out of the tail of a missile.  This “scramjet” engine could produce speeds of up to 20000 miles per hour, and could remain in flight for – wait for it – months.

Extinction Isn’t Just for Animals

The combination of speed, flight time, and a traditional cruise missile profile of near-ground flight; makes it near impossible to defend against.  Up until last week, these kinds of missiles were banned by treaty, the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF.) But the Trump Administration let negotiations collapse, and a nuclear weapons race seems ready to takeoff.

Yes, this test failed.  The five scientists killed have been buried with full honors, “Heroes of Mother Russia.” But while we are focused on our internal problems, we better look out. 

 It isn’t just the Northern Spotted Owl that is threatened by the Trump Administration.

Jeffrey Epstein:  child predator, friend to high society and government, a man of wealth and privilege; is dead.  Sometime on Sunday morning before 6:30 am, he died in a cell in one of America’s most notorious prisons, the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in lower Manhattan, New York.

Down at the MCC  

The MCC is one of the Federal system’s best-known prisons.  911 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, complained the MCC was worse than Guantanamo.  Mafioso John Gotti and Mexican drug lord El Chappo both said the conditions, particularly the isolation, were near intolerable.  And all of these men were being held for trial, theoretically “presumed innocent:” just like Jeffrey Epstein.

Did Epstein manage to commit suicide?   Certainly most Americans would understand why he would; he was accused of recruiting young girls to “service” himself and his friends.  If convicted, he would never see his New Mexico ranch or Caribbean island getaway again.  The inside of a prison cell would be his lifetime view.  

But Jeffrey Epstein was connected to some of the most powerful people in the nation.  The current President, a former President, the former Governor of New Mexico, a Prince of the United Kingdom, a prominent law professor at Harvard, the richest man in Columbus, Ohio; all were “friends” or “former friends” of the shadowy finance guy.  If you have a conspiratorial bone in your body, Epstein’s death raises your suspicions.

Suicide Watch

So what happened to Epstein in that cell in the MCC?

The current theory is that he managed to hang himself in his cell; completing the suicidal act he started a couple of weeks ago.  Then, he was in a different cell, one with a cellmate, when he was found curled on the floor, unconscious, with marks around his throat.  The MCC revived him and placed him on suicide watch.

Suicide watch makes a prison even worse.  No sheets, no belts, no shoelaces, no cellmate, a cell with no way to tie off a makeshift rope.  The prisoner is watched twenty-four hours a day, and is evaluated twice a day to determine suicidal status.  It not only is tough on the prisoner, it’s expensive.  The MCC is already faced with a guard shortage; present employees routinely work 16-hour shifts.  The cost of keeping one guard eyeing one prisoner is exorbitant.  The financial pressure is to get a prisoner off of “watch” to cut the costs.

So perhaps the MCC did the expedient thing:  they judged Epstein safe and left him alone.  They put him on an “every 30 minute” watch, giving him plenty of time to create a makeshift rope and find a way to tie it.  They found him hanging in his cell; he died despite attempts to revive him.

Conspiracy Theory 1

It just seems so unlikely. The highest profile prisoner in the United States, perhaps the world, who already tried to kill himself:  and they left him alone.  Epstein has always has “a way” with people.  Les Wexner, the billionaire founder of Limited Brands, gave Epstein unlimited access to his fortune.  In return, Epstein made Wexner an even greater fortune, and managed to steal about $40 million along the way.  And the guards in Palm Beach, turned themselves into Epstein “security detail” while he was serving a thirteen month solicitation sentence.  He went to his office every day, and at night the door to his cell was left unlocked.

Epstein had a way of influencing people.  Perhaps he influenced the guards, or the psychiatrist at the MCC.  Maybe it was just bribery, but more likely, it was the “Epstein guile” that served him so well in life.  Maybe they just fell for it.

Conspiracy Theory 2

Or maybe Epstein represented a threat so great to so many important people; that the guards were influenced to turn away and let him die.  Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, Dershowitz, Richardson, and how many others were implicated in Epstein’s sex scandal.  How “nice” for all of them that he just “went away” with all of his memories.  For those on the list who were innocent, now they have no way to prove it.  And, perhaps more importantly, for those who enjoyed Epstein’s perversions, now it’s harder to be implicated.  

It will make a great movie someday, whether it’s true or not.  How the rich and powerful managed to “seal off” this access to their sordid lives.  Whether Epstein did it himself, or whether he was assassinated, it will be a blockbuster.

Justice

The sad part about Epstein’s death is that it makes it unlikely that there will ever be justice, or closure, for those young girls.  They were lured by money, power, and fame to Epstein’s homes, then pushed to become sex objects.  They were kids, dragged into a dirty adult world of massages turned into orgasms.  There is little chance of retribution, or of a world saying to them:  even the powerful shouldn’t get away with what he did.  That’s the only sadness in Epstein’s death; the victims lose their chance at vindication.  

However Epstein died, we can only hope that the investigation doesn’t die with him. There are plenty of “co-conspirators” to go around, even if they are rich and powerful.  They believed their power gave them the right to commit crimes. Justice demands that we call them to the bar for their actions.

We are haunted by the actions of the Founding Fathers.  They have left us a legacy, the “wonder” of the Constitution.  Their diverse group, from plantation owners and Boston merchants; lawyers, doctors and bankers; aged philosophers and young stars; found a path to compromise.  They also found a way to establish a long lasting experiment that survived civil war, the industrial revolution, and growth into a world power.

A Long Hot Summer  

They spent May to September, the long hot summer of Philadelphia in 1787.  No one likes August in Philadelphia, but they recognized that if they didn’t fix the government, the United States would no longer be. Our nation would become a series of squabbling states, probable prey to European expansion.  Their hot work in Philadelphia saved the American dream.

But it wasn’t over when they left for home in September.  There was fear that the rights of Americans hadn’t been explained.  The conventioneers came from the tradition of English Common Law, believing that those protections were inherent, a part of the “self-evident truths” that Jefferson espoused in the Declaration of Independence.  They were afraid that delineating those rights would serve to limit them:  if they said a “right to this” but didn’t mention “that,” then “that” was not protected.

But those who feared the power of a central government more than any other threat demanded a “Bill of Rights.”  They wanted clear delineation of what the government COULD NOT do, and they wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without it.

Restrictions, not Freedoms

So the Founders wrote and ratified the first ten amendments, mostly clarifying the limits of the new Federal government.  For example, our “School House Rock” education of the First Amendment says Americans were guaranteed five freedoms:  religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.  But that’s not really what the First says.  In part it states: “…Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion…or abridging freedom of speech or of the press…” 

It was a prohibition on Congress, and through that body, the Federal government as a whole. We already had those freedoms; this was simply a further statement protecting all citizens from an overreaching Federal government.

The Founders, and particularly the actual authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights who put pen to paper, were men of the Enlightenment.  They believed in the power of the written word, and they understood that both law and government could hinge on the placement and order of each sentence.  Nothing was “left to chance,” nor written carelessly.

The Written Word

The Second Amendment was written in clear language:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our “School House Rock” version is “the right to bear arms.”  But that’s not the clearly stated wording in the Amendment.  The Founders simply did not say that.  They included the opening clause, demanding a “well regulated militia” to protect our “free state.”  So what did that mean, then; and what application does that have today?

The Second Amendment was not written about hunting, or gun sports.  The Second Amendment was written in fear of a national standing army. Americans in 1787 had a clear memory of the British Army enforcing the will of the King on the American people. More than half of the Declaration of Independence delineates those abuses.  Many were so concerned about the threat of tyranny a powerful Federal government represented, that they did not want the sheer force a national Army added to it.

So, in this sense, the “Second Amendment crazies” are right.  Those who pressured for the Second Amendment in 1787 were worried about an overreaching Federal Government; they wanted a counter force to the National government and its Army.  

But the counter force was not about individuals keeping weapons of war under their beds or in their closets.  The language of the Amendment makes it clear what the Founders intended:  “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State…” 

A Balance of Power

The Battle of Lexington and Concord, the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World;” happened when the British Army was out searching for weapons stores and met armed resistance.  “Weapons stores and well regulated militias” are not the same as having a weapon of war at home.  The Founders would not have accepted someone having personal “cannons.” Artillery was for the well-regulated militias controlled by the state governments.  Today we would call that the National Guard, organized by the States.  

The Founding Fathers did not envision every citizen as a personal army.  In fact, they would have seen that as an ultimate form of anarchy. They wanted to balance the power of the Federal Government with that of the States.  When we argue, again, about the power of our personal weapons, we need to be clear what the authors of the Second Amendment intended.  They balanced personal freedom with controls.  

We cannot afford to do less.

Remember Rob Blagojevich?  He was the two term Democratic Governor of the Great State of Illinois, known best for his “mop-top, Davey Jones” hair.  Besides being the Chief Executive of the home of Lincoln, he joined in a great Illinois political tradition:  he’s in jail.

An Illinois Tradition

Some of his fellow Governors spent time for more “exotic” charges, like Dan Walker who in his post political career was convicted for bank fraud. And, of course, Illinois political leaders going to jail is a bipartisan phenomenon. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert served time for bank regulations violations. It was really about paying hush money to an athlete he molested as a high school coach.  

But Blagojevich’s corruption was pretty much straight forward; he traded influence for money while in office.  In fact, he tried to sell the US Senate seat vacated by newly elected President Barack Obama to the highest bidder.  For that, he was impeached and removed by the Illinois legislature. So the former Governor went on a publicity tour.  

From Letterman to the Daily Show, Blagojevich proclaimed his innocence.  He also developed a “celebrity” career, starting a two-hour weekly radio show. And, he made a fateful appearance of the 9^th season of Celebrity Apprentice, where he earned high praise from host Donald Trump.  That was right before he was fired in the fourth episode.

The US Attorney for Northern Illinois wasn’t impressed by the notoriety, and charged the former Governor with 24 Federal charges of corruption. It took two trials, the first ending in a mistrial, to convict him on 17 charges.  Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in Federal prison.  He is now held in a minimum-security facility in Englewood, Colorado, just outside of Denver.

Ask the President

This week President Donald Trump “tweeted” that he is considering commuting the former Governor’s sentence.  It’s been seven years in jail, and Trump’s famous “many people” asked him to look into ending his prison term.  

Trump told reporters that Blagojevich was imprisoned “…over a phone call were nothing happens,” and that he “…shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio.”  The Governor was recorded on a wiretap asking for money in exchange for appointment to the Senate seat.

But it makes sense that Trump would relate to Blagojevich’s fate. Both Trump and “Blago” are “media” politicians, using their personal charms to speak directly to voters.  They also both have penchant for strong language, with “Blago” stating about the Senate vacancy: “I’ve got this thing, and it’s f**king golden.  And I’m just not giving it up for f**king nothing.”

The President knows what it’s like to hear his own voice on secret recordings.

And, of course, they both are known for their hair.  But what cuts closest to the bone for the President, is that “Blago” tried to use his office to financially enhance himself.  That’s something the President can directly relate to. He continue to receive profits from the various Trump properties benefitting from his Presidency. Who knows if that might be considered corrupt by some future Administration.

Perhaps Mr. Trump is trying to establish some kind of precedent.  Corruption is office isn’t such a big deal, as the President said:  “being stupid, saying things that every other politician, you know, that many other politicians say.”

It’s About the FBI

The President also took the opportunity to criticize the FBI and Justice Department officials who prosecuted Blagojevich, saying “…And it was the same gang — the (James Comey) gang and the — all these sleazebags — that did it.”  That actually isn’t quite true; Comey was in private practice and wasn’t with the FBI or Justice Department at the time of the prosecution.  But we get why the President might be sensitive to investigations.

And finally, Trump clearly admires something that Blagojevich has.  

“I’m very impressed with his wife,” he said. “She’s one hell of a woman.”

Don’t be surprised to see Rob Blagojevich released from custody soon. Maybe he’ll be back on television, perhaps a Celebrity Apprentice reunion show after Trump leaves office.  Or maybe sooner, surely the President would have time to record one while still President. We’ll see.

It’s a Saying

My English mother had a saying:  “that’s the pot calling the kettle black.”  It’s from a time so long ago, that many don’t even “get” the expression. Cooking in my mother’s house in 1920’s England was done over a coal-stoked stove.  The flames would coat the cookware with carbon.  Both the pot and the kettle were black.

On Fox News

I watched Fox News for a bit last night.  That’s not a common occurrence in my household, but I wanted to see Tucker Carlson. I remember Tucker as a much younger man: he was the “conservative” voice on MSNBC a decade ago.  It was a different time, when CNN and MSNBC tried to have conservative voices balancing their more progressive “stars.”  At the time, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were the liberal lights on MSNBC.  Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough and Carlson were the “balance” on the other side.

MSNBC seemed “smaller” then. They were closer to “mother” NBC News during the daytime, mostly “hard” news.  It was in the early morning and the evenings that it’s “Progressive” flag flew. But it was in the late afternoon that Tucker got his time, and he tried to present a “reasonable” conservative view.

The White Nationalist “Hoax”

I turned to Tucker last night, because the night before he claimed that the “white nationalism” issue in America was a “hoax, not a real problem.”  It shouldn’t be surprising, Fox as a whole claims that lots of things are “hoaxes” including Russian involvement and the Trump campaigns’ cooperation in the 2016 election.  But I wanted to see how the murder of 22 people in El Paso by an avowed white supremacist was somehow a hoax.

Carlson’s logic last night was quite contorted.  His argument: that “white nationalism” is a “straw man” presented by MSNBC to distract from the real issue of, wait for it; economic inequality!  Carlson argued that the rich commentators of MSNBC were defending their “class” against changes that would make economic improvements.  This, about the same network that Fox claims is “in the pocket” of progressives, like Sanders and Warren who absolutely want changes to reduce inequality.

Let’s start with this: Tucker Carlson makes $6 million a year. His direct MSNBC competitor, Chris Hayes makes about the same.  MSNBC’s star Rachel Maddow makes about a million more than that, while Fox’s Sean Hannity outdistances everyone at $36 million a year.   Looks like everyone, on both networks, are in a class way above that of the “average worker.”

So the argument that somehow Carlson and Fox are representing the “common man” while MSNBC represents “rich elites” is a little hard to swallow.  

Distractions

But it is a distraction, something that Fox, and the President they represent, desperately need. The Presidential tweets and statements that were racist and incited violence are too clear.  The violence of El Paso is too real.  It is hard not to draw a straight line from one to the other.  The President, and Fox, needs to somehow blur that line, and make someone else at fault.

So MSNBC is a great candidate.  

Carlson used one commentator of MSNBC as an example of their “craziness.”  Frank Figiluzzi is a former FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence.  On MSNBC he has often expressed his concerns about the dismantling of the Countering Violent Extremism program in the government.  That program had in-depth knowledge of the white supremacist movement.

Figiluzzi pointed out that white supremacist’s have a known symbolic “code” around the number 8. “88”  to them stands for “HH” which are initials for the Nazi salute, “Heil Hitler.”  The White House ordered that flags be lowered to half-staff because of the Dayton and El Paso shootings, then raised back on August 8^th, or 8/8.

Figiluzzi didn’t say that the White House was intentionally signaling white supremacists.  His point was that they blundered into an action that supremacists will take as a “dog whistle” of support.  If the programs with that in-depth knowledge were still active, the White House would have known better.

But Carlson cherry-picked Figiluzzi’s comments, claiming that the former FBI agent was saying the White House was intentionally calling out to the supremacists.  He used that to buttress his claim that MSNBC was inflaming America against the President.

On Both Sides  

Carlson called on MSNBC to “calm down.  His words:

This is not a white supremacist country, plotting the slaughter its own people. It’s a kind country, full of decent people of all races who, like all people everywhere, make bad decisions from time to time, but mean well and generally try their best. Going forward, give them the benefit of the doubt, even when you disagree. Maybe especially when you disagree. These are your fellow Americans. Cut them a break. They deserve it. And remember: The alternative is disaster.

Isn’t that sweet: Tucker says that everyone is well meaning.  It’s just like the President:

 “…there are good people, on both sides.” 

Guess I’ll go back to Chris Hayes.  

The Story

It was twenty-nine years ago.  Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court by Republican President George HW Bush to succeed liberal icon Thurgood Marshall.  Thomas, like Marshall, was African-American,  but that’s where the similarities ended.  He was an “arch-conservative,” a “literalist” when it came to the Constitution.  Thomas saw much of the social progress made by the Supreme Court since the 1950’s as Constitutionally unfounded.

Joe Biden was the Democratic Senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  The Committee held extensive hearings on Thomas, dramatically questioning his libertarian views and particularly his thoughts on abortion rights.   The committee hearings concluded and the nomination was sent to the Senate floor for debate. Then Thomas’s former assistant, Anita Hill, came forward claiming that he sexual harassed her.  Biden reopened Committee hearings.

The entire nation watched, riveted by Hill’s testimony.  It was, for the time, shocking; with discussion of pubic hairs on Coke cans and the “Long Dong Silver.”   After the first day was over, Hill had other witnesses prepared to back her statements.  But Biden did not call them.  Instead, Clarence Thomas presented his supporting witnesses.  The Committee ultimately sent his nomination back to the full Senate without recommendation.

In an era when Presidents were given wide latitude to choose their Justices, Thomas was confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate, 52 to 48.  Eleven Democrats voted for Thomas, two Republicans voted against him.

Man of the Time

Today we see those hearings in the reflection of the recent the Kavanaugh debacle.  The same tensions and emotions swept the room, and the Senators were faced with a similar “he said/she said” situation.

Joe Biden is running for President of the United States in 2020.  In today’s incredibly partisan atmosphere, it is easy to look back and say that he could and should have stopped the Thomas nomination.  Certainly if Democrats controlled the Senate in 2018, Kavanaugh wouldn’t be on the Supreme Court today.  We are in the era of #METOO; our society has determined that sexual harassment is unacceptable.  It should have been that way in 1990 as well, but it wasn’t. Anita Hill’s actions started to change the world.  Joe Biden was a man of that time.

Evaluating History

When we examine Joe Biden’s fitness for office, what standards do we apply to his actions in the Thomas hearings, or the 1994 Crime Bill, or all of the other votes he took in his forty plus year career?  Do we impose today’s #METOO standards and condemn Biden for not living up to them? Or, do we allow politicians to grow, and change, and learn, just as we have ourselves?

I’m not a committed supporter of Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination.  There are many other candidates, and some are more closely aligned to my beliefs.  As Democratic National Chairman Tom Perez is fond of saying, “…find a candidate who wins your heart, then follow the one who wins the nomination with your head.”   I will vote my heart in the primary here in Ohio, then support the nominee.

But I do think the Democratic Party needs to be fair.  It’s easy for some of those with little or no records to attack Vice President Biden for stands he made in different eras.  He’s had a lengthy career, and there’s plenty of “targets” for attack. And certainly Biden is responsible for his positions of the 70’s, 80’s 90’s and 00’s.  But those votes and stands can’t be ripped out of the context of their times and they shouldn’t be judged solely by today’s values. 

Outing the President

Do you remember Joe Biden’s stand on gay marriage?  In 2012 as Vice President, he told David Gregory on Meet the Press  that he was:

 “…absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

This was before President Obama came out for gay marriage rights and before the Supreme Court decision affirming the right of marriage to gay couples.  This seemed way ahead of the norm.  And it was only seven years ago.

Pitfalls of Purity

One of the “super powers” given to Donald Trump is his ability to use the speed with which our society changed.  Whether it’s LGBTQ equality, or #METOO, or the first black President; our world changed faster than many were ready for.  It’s not that the change was “wrong.”  It’s that many felt left behind, a feeling that Trump has managed to tap into with “Make America Great Again.”  

Democrats need to be wary of “purity.”  If we demand that our candidates be “pure” to the standards of today for their actions decades ago, we create an impossible standard.  We then are limited to picking candidates with little record to discuss, a mistake the Republican Party made in 2016.  This week in particular they must be regretting that decision.

Democrats will limit themselves to Styer and Yang, Buttigieg and Williamson.  And while of those, Buttigieg may have won my political “heart,” Democrats should not destroy those with a past in order to achieve a present purity.  It’s that kind of thinking that will lead to a second term for the worst President in American history.

What Neighbors Do

Last week was incredibly stressful. 

Our neighborhood shares in the care of an elderly widow across the street.  For the past six months she hasn’t left the house, except for an occasional venture to the front yard to pick up sticks.  And since May she’s gotten worse. She wouldn’t let us help pay her bills, or accept the groceries we brought.  She looked starved and ill, phone calls were answered with “I’m in bed, I don’t feel well” and a hang up.  The County Adult Services weren’t much help, saying “…if she wants to starve to death, we don’t like it but it’s her choice.”

We’ve been reaching out to her family for months.  They also said there’s nothing they were willing to do.  Monday the neighbors got together: a “team meeting” as we struggled to determine our next move.  We were afraid that the only course was utility shutoffs and back to the County authorities. 

But, at the last moment, a niece stepped up.  The family kept her in the dark about what was going on;  but we were able to find her and reach out.  On Thursday our widow friend let  the niece call the ambulance, and she went to the hospital.  She was very frail, but still proud and tough. She wouldn’t be carried to the squad, she walked out on her own.

They’re working on getting her better, and though she looks tiny in a hospital bed, she’s smiling.

Our America

Last week was another week of turmoil and hate in American politics.  We are very tuned into what’s going on, sometimes too much so.  A steady diet of our current American disaster creates a constant surge of adrenalin.  After a while, it’s hard to stay angry.  It’s exhausting.

And then came the shooting in El Paso; and then Dayton.

Out of Dodge 

In my family the phrase is “get out of Dodge.”  It comes from the old Western movies; when the shooting starts it’s “time to get out of Dodge City.”  It was time to go, get away from the stress, change the scene, and simplify life.  

So we packed up the camper, the truck and the dogs, and headed to Burr Oak State Park.  It’s located in southeastern Ohio, the foothills of the Appalachians.  As retired folks, we’ve discovered that even in the summer you can have park campgrounds pretty much to yourselves if you go during the week. 

It’s not all leisure, but it’s different.  It’s an early morning hike with the dogs, and a campfire to cook dinner. We tried frozen fish patties for the first time last night – and maybe the last!! Brats tonight; can’t go wrong with them.

Disconnecting

But we aren’t fully disconnected.  I’m writing this essay sitting at a picnic table as the sun comes over the trees, my young dog Atticus (yellow lab) trying to bite the flies that try to bite him.

We have all of the electronic devices and MSNBC streamed, and we can keep track of the neighborhood by text and email.  But it’s still different, it’s more fundamental.  It’s a walk down to the shower house; better to go early, or the walk back up the hill will make you need another shower. 

It’s Trump country here and certainly our experience in other campgrounds has been the same.  But people are courteous, and they are aware that while campers may be close to each other, everyone is here for a little peace, a little nature, and a little relaxation.  And there’s beer on ice in the cooler.

Yesterday it was tough to even try to disconnect.  The debates were raging on Facebook and Twitter about guns, mental health, racism, and whether our Nation can ever find the will to prevent these horrific events. Try as we might to concentrate on the cicadas and the blue sky, the battles raged back and forth, and the signal reached all the way into the foothills and the woods.  We had lots to say, and put in more than our “two cents.”  

Today we’ll try to disconnect a little more.  There are books to read, and a lake to visit, and the dogs will absolutely demand another long walk.   Our camper is “out of Dodge.”  Now we’re working on getting our minds to follow.

I have a post all lined up, talking about how Democrats are trying to determine their Presidential candidate.  It’s good, and I’ll use it later.  But after the events of the last two days, it feels too soon to move on.  The news cycle is fast, and I know that we won’t be talking about El Paso and Dayton by the end of the week.  But it isn’t appropriate to let them go, yet.

El Paso

With the little information we know, we have a contrast in killers between El Paso and Dayton.  The El Paso shooter was driven by white nationalism, wanting to stop the “brown invasion” by driving eight hours from his home and opening fire.  He is, frankly, all that many of us have been fearing:  a young white man out on the edge of sanity, pushed off by the damaging rhetoric of the President, Fox News, and others.  

Are they to blame for the dead and wounded in El Paso?  No, not directly.  But we all saw this coming, the inflaming language, from “send them back” to the “infestation” of migrants.  To partisan Americans who could process the emotions, it was either disgusting or appreciated.  To Republicans forced to rationalize what the President was saying, it was probably humbling. From the number of resignations in the House of Representatives, most notably Congressman Will Hurd from the Texas border, it was far too much for some to swallow.

But to the shooter in El Paso, already on the edge of madness, it was enough to load his assault rifle in the car, and head to Wal-Mart to stop the “invasion.”  It was a white nationalist terrorist attack on those folks, and on our nation.

Dayton

The even younger white man is Dayton fits the “normal” mass shooter profile.  He was a disaffected white kid from an affluent Dayton suburb.  He may have been bullied in school, and from his postings we can tell he was struggling. There were rumors of “hit lists” and “rape lists.” He wanted to do just enough to “get by.”  He was two years into community college when he stopped attending. 

He is a lot like a school shooter; like Parkland and Chardon and dozens more we read about.  The other kids knew who it was before the authorities released the name.  Just the fact  that the shooter was a young man from Bellbrook was enough.  

The Causes

So what do El Paso and Dayton shooters have in common?  They are both young white men, disaffected from the “norm,” looking for their moment in a literal hail of bullets.  One was subsumed into a white nationalist fantasy, one felt so powerless over his own life that he decided to take many others.  We have an issue in our society, past assault rifles and high capacity magazines.  We have an odd epidemic of these messed up young white boys.  

Here’s a macabre trivia question:  name a black, or female; mass shooter.  While I’m sure there must be some, right off hand I can’t think of any.  The “odd one” is the Las Vegas killer, an older white man with a lot of money.  But most are these young white boys.  Whatever is happening to them, we need to start figuring it out.  We know that shootings breed more shootings and that the Columbine killers of twenty years ago are still “admired legends” to a certain sub-class on the internet.

The Guns

But it seems that all of these young white men start measuring their manhood by the length of their rifles.  We know the El Paso shooter got his assault rifle over the internet, online, delivered, and perfectly legal.  While we don’t know how the Dayton shooter got his yet, it’s a common feature in many of these shootings.  So I don’t blame many Americans for blaming the guns.

And they are right. We are the ONLY modern country that allows unlimited access to weapons designed for war to the general populace. And we are by far the nation most plagued with these grotesque mass shootings.  Norway had one, United Kingdom had one, Australia had one, and New Zealand had one.  We here in the United States, home of the free and brave, had our 250^th for just this year.

Just like the political rhetoric, we know that most Americans can handle these weapons.  We know that most owners of assault rifles have them because they enjoy shooting them, or because they feel they need protection, or maybe as a last safeguard against a wayward government.  

The Constitution

Most of those folks aren’t on the edge of sanity. But we don’t have a reasonable way of defining who is, and who isn’t.  So, yes it’s about the mental health issues.  The sane don’t do what those white boys did.  But it also is about the guns, the access to weapons that are specifically designed to fire fast and create devastating wounds.  We can’t turn our backs on that part of the problem, or hide behind the Second Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson stated that, “…the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”  The Second Amendment isn’t either; we already accept many restrictions on what kind of weapons can be purchased.  A Federal license is required to have a fully automatic weapon, for example; it’s been that way since 1934.  So it isn’t that we can’t change, it’s finding the will to do it.

The Pain Becomes too Great

We will accept these mass shootings until the pain becomes too great.  We will allow our political gridlock to hand these broken individuals the weapon of their choice, until we decide not to.  Most of the solutions aren’t hard to do, and they aren’t hard to agree on.  Background checks, mental health evaluations, and “red flag” laws:  almost everyone agrees to those.  Most can even agree to ban high capacity magazines.  

So let’s get on that, knowing that there is a looming fight over how much pain we are willing to take for the “right” to assault rifles.  We can at least start to solve the problem.

President Trump

Donald Trump:  you are the President of a nation where white supremacists walk into Wal-Mart and community festivals and murder innocents.  If you think Elijah Cummings is somehow responsible for Baltimore’s poverty, than you are most certainly responsible for this.

Donald Trump:  What have you done to protect our nation from mass shooters?  You haven’t improved background checks, you haven’t banned assault weapons, you haven’t supported “red flag” laws, you haven’t done anything more than send your “thoughts and prayers” to El Paso.  Soon you will add Dayton to that list.

Donald Trump:  the Bible says “as you sow, so shall you reap.” You have sown hate in our country. While you may not be directly responsible for these killings, you have created an environment where those on the fringes feel enabled to act.  This is an outgrowth of the hate and fear you have engendered for migrants, and for those who are not white, or otherwise “different.”  

Donald Trump:  like it or not, and I don’t; you are the President of the United States.  You were chosen by a minority of voters to lead us.  None-the-less, it is your task. This is the real test of your Presidency.  You have so far failed.

The Republican Choice

Governor Abbott of Texas: you so forcefully pushed away all questions about controlling gun violence.  “Bodies haven’t even been recovered,” you said, “it’s not time for politics.”  Governor, you already have dozens killed in the past couple of years in  mass shootings.  You spoke of the courageous the actions of the heroes who saved lives under fire.  Where is your courage to make the changes required to protect your citizens?

Former Republican Congressman David Jolly said:

“For my Second Amendment Friends, “well regulated” were the first words written by the same guys who wrote the rest of the sentence. It all goes together.”

Jolly has the luxury of not running for office as a Republican anymore.  The Party has abandoned all pretense of protecting citizens from the threat of mass shootings.  They have fallen back to the National Rifle Association slogan:  “A bad man with a gun can only be stopped by a good man with a gun.”   

But the reality is that the “bad man” can really only be stopped by McConnell and Trump.  They have multiple options to try to change the equation of mass shootings.  It can start with background checks for every weapons purchased, even those at gun shows. It can continue with Red Flag laws and mental health checks.  And it can culminate with banning weapons designed for modern war from the United States. 

Good Men with Guns

We already depend on “good men” with guns.  Some are my friends, and I know they would lay down their lives to protect others. Those police officers will do what needs to be done if the time comes.  They are trained, they are armed, and they are prepared.

But they can only act when there is action.  In Dayton, nine died before the police could put the shooter “down.”  In California, three died before they stopped him.  They are doing all they can to keep people safe. But they need help.

Last week, friends of mine who coach high school went to a normal “start of the year” meeting.   The first hour was forms, procedures and goals. The second hour:  training from a former Afghanistan veteran turned athletic trainer on how to treat traumatic injuries caused by gunshots; how to pack wounds and place tourniquets.  For the coaches, it was a scary, but seemed like something they might have to use someday.

America’s Choice

In 2012 a gunman went into an elementary school and killed 20 little children and six adults at Sandy Hook.  Then President Obama proposed legislation, but Congress was unable to act.  It was said at the time, if we couldn’t begin to contain our national addiction to weapons of war after Sandy Hook, nothing would ever change.  Now, seven years later, that’s true:  nothing has changed.

We are at war.  Here are the statistics since Sandy Hook (Vox):

• 2189 mass shootings 
• 2475  killed
• 9137 wounded.

I have been writing “Trump World” essays for two and a half years, 540 so far.  I’ve written dozens about mass shootings, guns, and our choice to accept this violence.  There is little new to say, but it must be shouted loudly, over and over again. This is our America today and Americans are choosing to let this happen.  We could choose differently. We look to our leaders to make changes, to lead us to a safer place. Their answer has got to be better than just sending “thoughts and prayers.”  

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book”. It outlines the issues for the candidate, and his/her arguments and positions.  It puts everyone literally on “the same page” when it comes to any issue.  I’m not running for office, but I am presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

History

There is a great advantage in doing something for the first time, rather than a “do over.”  You can solve “the problem” before there are winners and losers.  Everyone has something to gain, no one is giving up something they already have.

Health insurance became an important job benefit during World War II.   As part of the War effort, the Federal Government froze wages.   Employers needed incentives to keep their limited labor supply, they found a new way to compensate employees:paid health insurance.  After the War its popularity grew and became a common part of rewarding employees.  Insurance costs were low for the companies and most employees were fully covered without paying additional fees.

As late as the 1980’s it was common for workers to be fully covered.  At that time, I remember an insurance conflict in my teacher’s union. Teachers with families at the same pay step were getting more compensation over single teachers.  Today it seems like a foolish argument, but back then; everyone was getting insurance for free and salaries in education were low; so being “fair” was a big deal.

Of course if you didn’t have a job, your insurance wasn’t covered.  If your income level was low enough, you were eligible for Medicaid.  If you were old enough, you were eligible for Medicare.  And if you were in between jobs, you could get expensive COBRA insurance.  Otherwise, if you were sick and ended up in the hospital, you were paying out of pocket,  or you were simply a “charity case.”

Costs Escalate

Health care costs increased. Part of this was because of the sophistication of modern medicine; an X-Ray, penicillin and an aspirin were no longer the medical answers for most problems.  With the amazing amount of tests, devices, medications, and treatments; someone had to pay for development, availability, and use.  And, of course, insurance companies were publicly owned, and wanted profits for their shareholders.

And as medicine got better, and people lived longer, they got more diseases.  End of life care became extremely expensive, and that cost was shared across the insurance buyers.

Employers found that the increasing costs of insurance were prohibitive.  They passed on the costs to employees, who had little choice but to pay. It was either that, or “go bare” and risk personal bankruptcy for even non-life threatening medical situations.

The Answers Today

Which brings us to the present.   Many Democrats look to some form of universal health care as the answer, paid through taxes to the government.  This has the advantage of having the biggest pool of insured members; everyone.  The young adult just beginning a career, the healthy thirty-something’s, the lucky fifty year olds who never get sick:  all would pay into the health care system and help cover the costs of the sick.  “Opt-out” is not an option, nor is “tailoring” a plan.  Just like those single teachers who got less than the married ones, everyone pays in, and people that need benefits, get them.

This is little different than public education, or fire departments, or the armed services.  To call government run health insurance “socialism” is to deny all of the other public services that our governments provide; local, state and national.

  Just a note: Fire Departments used to be privately run businesses too – either you paid the company or they didn’t put out the fire.  Different companies would fight over who got what fire.  It wasn’t a good system for our cities, the town could burn down while the firemen brawled.  What’s burning down now??

So the easy answer is to switch over to government run health care.  But there’s a problem.

Americans Who Got It, Like It

First is the practical issue:  many Americans are quite comfortable with their current, private insurance. Moreover, many of those same folks are suspicious of government run plans.  While the Affordable Care Act helped millions of Americans get coverage, the botched roll out with overwhelmed online servers affirmed what many already believed, that the government would “screw it up.” And President Obama made the promise: if you like your doctor you can keep him.  That was true for those who remained on private insurance, but if they switched to the Affordable Care Act policies, if wasn’t necessarily so.   

But, almost everyone liked having insurance covering pre-existing conditions, and letting children stay on their parents’ insurance until they were twenty-six.  Most liked the increased “wellness benefits” required under the ACA, and many of the other requirements all insurers were mandated to offer.

The thought of additional government insurance intervention worries workers who gave up salary for health benefits. It also concerns those who can afford to buy “luxury” health insurance; they are afraid they are going to lose out on a government run program.   And insurance companies who will lose their profits are spending millions to lobby politicians and the general public of the “dangers of socialized medicine.”   

The Costs Grow

But what those opposed to more government involvement in health care ignore is that the costs are growing out of control.  Health insurance cost is rising at ten percent a year for many small businesses. They can’t pay it, and they can’t afford to pay their employees enough to buy it somewhere else.  Middle-income workers aren’t prepared to pay $20,000 or more for insurance a year, but if they are thrust into an individual market now, that’s the lowest likely cost.  The problem will only get worse if nothing is done; as more of the young and healthy “go bare” it makes the “insured pool” sicker, and therefore more expensive.

Solutions

The Republican Party has not offered a solution to the growing problem of health care costs.  They have promised to figure one out, somewhere, somehow.   Their advantage: with nothing on the table there is nothing to criticize.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that it’s past time to get control of the cost of prescription drugs. The “poster child” is insulin, with the cost going up 4000% in the past few years. The US Government gave away the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid, but they could legislate that power back.

Democrats are offering all kinds of health coverages.  The “moderates” like Biden, Bennett, and Delaney are all offer a “public option” in addition to the existing Affordable Care Act.  “Public Option” is a government run plan that those in the insurance market could choose to buy.  It wouldn’t impact those with private insurance.

Of course that means that the public option insured pool is likely to be sicker, and therefore more expensive to insure, than the “private pool.”   The cost of that expense would be shared across the government, taxpayers, rather than fully thrust on those insured.

And the more “progressive” Democrats want a total overhaul of the health care system.  They say it will create a lot more winners than losers, and that the winners will more likely be Democrats than Republicans (well, they don’t say the second part, but it’s probably true.)  What the total overhaul would do is make a serious effort to control medical costs, by removing the insurance company profits, controlling drug prices, and reducing the enormous paperwork required by everyone in the industry.

Right or Likely

That’s probably the “right” answer, but not the likely answer.  We are an America of moderation and incrementalism.  It is more likely that the moderate plans with public options will be the next step in government involvement.  Ultimately the controlled costs of government programs will overwhelm the private market, and America will make a de facto decision to use a government run health system.  But it will take time, not the “Revolution” called for by the far left of the Democratic Party.

Before the Nightmare

In October of 2016 I went to hear President Obama at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.   We were all still confident that Hillary would win, even though the blows of the leaked emails and the Comey letter to Congress raised concerns.  But when President Obama walked into the room (I was in the “overflow” room, he came and spoke to us first) a world of hope lit up.  The theme of his speech was Donald Trump, and it should have been titled “Come On, Man.”  Obama laid out the case for not believing Trump to an accepting audience:  truer words were never spoken.

“Come on, man,”  you can’t fool us.  “Come on, man,” don’t buy his brand of BS.  

Second Debate, Part Two

I missed the second night of debates last night (I went to see the 80’s Rock group REO Speedwagon.)  It’s still sitting on the DVR,  waiting for three hours.  I’ll get to them soon enough.  

But I’ve now heard a couple of hours of analysis.  Vice President Biden is running for President, in large part standing on his eight years in the Obama Administration.  He is the frontrunner; for others to move up in the standings, they have to somehow raise their visibility.  A proven way to do so is to attack the leader; it worked for Kamala Harris in the first debate.

Biden has done an effective job in defending the Obama legacy.  He has wrapped himself in Obama, effectively locking in his leading status. Other candidates are finding that the only way to attack Biden is to do the unthinkable:  attack the Presidency of Barack Obama.

President Obama has a +90% approval rating in the Democratic Party.  He changed America as the first African-American President (an America that Trump is trying to change back.)   He was a President with compassion, brilliance, and class; quite a contrast to our current leader.  Can attacking his Presidency be a reasonable Democratic strategy?

Come on, man!

How the Sausage is Made

A key issue for all Democrats is health care.  Every Democratic candidate has a plan to improve health care in America, from Biden expanding the Affordable Care Act with a public option, to Sander’s Medicare for all.  Last night, the attacks came against the flaws and failures of the ACA, Obamacare, because that was how the candidates could get to Biden.

Come on, man!  

Senator Klobuchar said it best the night before.  It’s all-good to have great plans, or to claim you need a “revolution” to get your ideas put into law.  But, as she noted, it takes sixty votes to pass something in the Senate.  In our currently divided government, there seems little chance that a “Medicare for All” kind of program could get through Congress and it certainly wasn’t an option in 2010 when the ACA became law.  

The Obama Administration took the problem, millions of Americans without health insurance, and made the best deal they could to win over their own Democratic Congress, and those few Republicans in the Senate.  “How the sausage got made” was ugly, including Speaker Pelosi statement you’d find out what was in the law after you vote for it, but in the end the Affordable Care Act was a strong attempt to expand coverage to most Americans.  How strong was it?  It’s survived nine years of Republican attempts to destroy it.  

Who Should be the Target

It’s not good enough, it needs to be fixed, and it was a Republican plan in the first place.  But it was the best that President Obama could get, and attacking him to get to Biden is a mistake.  Democrats who attack their own to raise their electoral chances aren’t helping themselves become President.  They are giving away the championship win today’s game.

Come on, man.

It isn’t that Barack Obama should go without criticism.  His administration failed to resolve the problems of undocumented migrants in the United States, finally resorting to an Executive Order Band-Aid to protect the Dreamers.  But it wasn’t for lack of trying; it was from the absolute intransigence of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate.  Their goal was not the “good” of America, but to defeat a Democratic Presidency.  From their position, they were successful.  

And that’s what Democrats need to be talking about on the debate stage.  The motivating factor for the Democratic voters is Trump and McConnell and Tax Cuts.  It’s not attacks on the most popular President alive, nor is it on starting a “revolution.”  We’ve got a bigger challenge:  how to stop the “regression” into a racist, misogynist, and cruel new era.

Come on, man.  Get with it.

Under the Bed

Do you remember the “bogey man?”  When you were a kid, he was the one that would “get you” if you got out of bed at night. He was out there, waiting; going to do something terrible to you.  Your “bad” uncle would warn you about the “bogey man” under the bed, or behind the door, or up the stairs.  It scared you “straight.”

Last night I heard “the bogey man” invoked at the Democratic Presidential debates.  Jake Tapper, the CNN lead questioner, raised it by asking candidates whether they would increase taxes on middle class families to pay for health care.  It’s a “bogey man” question:  a candidate saying they will raise taxes creates a sound bite without context that’s tough to live down.  

Republican Question

I think Bernie Sanders called Tapper out correctly, saying he was asking the question in “Republican” terms.  The answer is actually relatively simple, sure taxes will increase, but payments for insurance will disappear.  The total costs for the middle class would go down.  Candidates talked about “net costs” but were forced to avoid the “bogey man” words of tax increase.  Remember Walter Mondale!  In 1984 he said he would raise taxes; it cost him the Presidency.

The healthcare question also had another “bogey man” to avoid:  the government.  Some candidates talked about “the government ripping away private health care and making health care decisions” as if that was a horrible, terrible, awful thing. “The big government bogey man” would decide what health care you could get!

What, a huge bureaucratic institution telling patients what healthcare they can have?  That’s a horrible “bogey man,” no one would want that. But wait, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care, Kaiser; aren’t they all large faceless bureaucracies that determine your health care.  And they’ve got in even bigger incentive than your health, their goal is to make a profit. There’s a real “bogey man” for you. 

Who Pays

Congressman Tim Ryan raised another “bogey man:” don’t piss off the unions.  Ryan defended union contracts, and the sacrifices that workers have made to get good health care plans.  Ryan is running from Youngstown, Ohio; a union town losing its union jobs. Democrats need to win workers back from Trump; that’s not a made-up monster under the bed.

By the way, I did hear the candidates last night constantly saying how they would pay for their programs.  Warren and Delaney got into an argument about whether a “wealth tax” or a “capital gains” tax is better. Everyone wanted to take the Trump Tax Cut back.  It’s odd though, I haven’t heard President Trump say how he will pay for much, in fact, he’s willing to spend unlimited funds without regard for income.  When did Democrats become “deficit hawks?”  

Impeachment

The “bogey man” I didn’t hear a word about last night was Robert Mueller.  I blame CNN for that, they didn’t bother to ask the candidates about the biggest news of last week.  The debate got “a pass” on impeachment, instead able to focus their answers on who would be the best replacement for Trump.  That probably made the candidates happy, but leaves Democrats without guidance on their stand.

The Psychic Force

And then there is the “bogey woman,” Marianne Williamson.  She looked like Morticia from the Addams Family, but she raised a serious concern that Democrats need to address.  The current “right way” to run a campaign, according to Sanders and Warren and some of the rest, is to deal with structure and plans.  Here’s my plan, here’s how I’ll get this done: that’s seems to be the trend.  And it’s not the “black box” kind of plan like Nixon had to end Vietnam in 1968.  These are detailed, in-depth explanations.

Williamson warned that “wonkiness” won’t tap into the emotions of America.  Plans on paper won’t motivate voters to come out and create change.  Williamson spoke of a dark psychic force in America where racism and economic oppression creates hopelessness and leaves voters at home instead of at the polls.

This may have been her last debate; the popular and financial qualifications go up for September. And her emphasis on the “psychic” state of America might sound far-fetched in someone running for President.  But the “bogey woman” made an important point.

Not Just Plans

Trump taps into a visceral part of the American psyche.  He unleashes emotions, hate and uncertainty, that the US hasn’t seen in decades. Trump reveals these traits, but he didn’t create them.  Williamson’s warning to Democrats is that they must be more than just “plans.”  There must be more than just “electric car plants” and “wind turbine” farms.

They must present a vision of America that offers a positive alternative to the man in the White House, an alternative to racism, hate, and hopelessness.  It won’t be Williamson, but one of these candidates needs to confront the real ‘bogey man” in America.

Clinton Emails

It was the spring of 2016. The FBI counter-intelligence division was embroiled in the politically explosive Clinton email investigation.  They were analyzing whether the former Secretary of State knowingly and intentionally put classified emails on her personal email account.  Secretary Clinton had thousands of “work” emails on her personal server, located in the basement of her home in New York. When she left office, her attorneys arranged for thousands of them to be destroyed.  

The illegal act was there, putting government emails on a private server. The Secretary “demonstrated” knowledge of guilt by trying to “cover it up” by having the emails destroyed.  Members of her staff were “taking the Fifth.”  The sole factor preventing an indictment: proof that she had “the requisite intent” to violate the law.

There was disagreement within the FBI.  Many, including perhaps the Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, believed that if Hillary Clinton didn’t have “intent,” she still acted in such a reckless manner that indictments were warranted.  Others in the investigation, ultimately including FBI Director James Comey, could not find in her actions overwhelming proof of that final step.

And, of course, she was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States.  Beyond that, she was the overwhelming favorite to win.  So there was that.

Russian Connections

In the middle of this mess, the FBI counter-intelligence team began to get disturbing information about Trump campaign contacts with Russian intelligence.  The campaign designated Carter Page as one a foreign policy advisor. Page was the subject of FBI investigation in 2014 because of his involvement in a Russian spy ring. No charges were brought against him at the time, but the FBI was still watching him.

And Mr. Trump hired Paul Manafort as chairman of his campaign.  The FBI knew that Manafort was indebted to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.  They also had concerns about Manafort’s actions in Ukraine, where he received millions of dollars for work supporting the Russian backed President.  Much of that money was not declared as US income.

A third advisor, retired General Mike Flynn, had travelled to Moscow. He went without the normal clearances from the military required of a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Flynn literally sat at the right hand of Vladimir Putin at a banquet there, and received a $40,000 payment for speaking (eventual Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein, sat at the same table.)  In addition Flynn was doing work for the Turkish Government while working for Trump.

Democrats Hacked

Also in the spring of 2016, the FBI discovered that the Democratic National Committee’s computers had been hacked. The hacking programs were of such sophistication that they could only be from a national military source (as opposed to a 400 pound man in a basement.)  The infection was so significant, that polling data, opposition research, financial data, and email archives were stolen.

But, while counter-intelligence alarm bells were going off, none of those actions were enough to become the “predicate,” or legal cause for an investigation of the Trump campaign.  It would take some evidence of them committing an illegal act.

Papadapoulos Brags

In May of 2016, another designated Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadapoulos, met Alexander Downer, the Australian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.  In the course of their conversation, Papadapoulos told Downer that the Russians had DNC information and emails, and planned to release them in order to damage the Clinton campaign (National Review.)  Australia, along with the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand; is a member of the “Five Eyes” counter-intelligence community that shares information.  Downer reported the conversation to the FBI.

For the record, this conversation took place a month before Christopher Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to work on opposition research against Donald Trump. It was at least three months before Steele compiled his first report.

Predicate for Investigation

By July of 2016 the FBI knew that  the DNC computers were hacked, and Downer’s information said Russia did it.  They knew that a Trump advisor, Papadapoulos, had contact with the Russians and been told the Russians planned to use it against Clinton.  Other Trump advisors, Page, Manafort and Flynn, had more than questionable contacts with Russia.  All of this not only provided the “predicate” for opening an investigation into the Trump campaign contacts, but it raised the specter of Russian corrupting a US Presidential campaign. To not open an investigation would be dereliction of duty. 

Republican Response 

Recently Republicans have raised concerns about “Democrats and the Deep State Intelligence Community” spying on a Republican Presidential campaign.  Attorney General Barr intentionally used the word “spying” to characterize the actions of the summer of 2016.

Republicans used two issues to try to declare the “predicate” as invalid.  The first was that the Steele Dossier was somehow used as underlying information.  While the Steele Dossier was not available when the investigation was started, it was mentioned later on in a FISA Warrant extending surveillance of Carter Page. Republicans seized on that mention, claiming that “Democrat Opposition Research” was used to investigate the Trump Campaign.  

The Steele Dossier is a report compiled by former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele. While it was intended for use as partisan opposition research, the information Steele discovered was so explosive that Democrats didn’t use it.  Steele himself was a trusted source for US intelligence; his work on the FIFA bribery scandal was used to help convict several of the organization’s officials.  To date, many of the statements in the Dossier have proven to be factual and none have been disproven (Lawfare.) 

Mifsud

But attacking the Steele Dossier wasn’t enough.  Republicans weaved a tale to discredit Papadapoulos, trying to remove the “predicate.” Papadapoulos eventually testified that he got the “tip” about Russia’s hacking from an obscure Maltese Professor, Joseph Mifsud.  Mifsud was a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy, a representative of the government of Malta, and has a close relationship to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.  Former FBI Director Comey has testified that the Bureau considered Mifsud a Russian agent. 

Republicans have created involved theories portraying Mifsud as a double agent, working for the United States.  They suggest that the FBI had Mifsud plant the hacking information by talking to Papadapoulos, to create the “predicate.”  While there is little evidence to back this claim, it’s easy to make. Mifsud was last in the United States on February 11, 2017.  He disappeared into Europe, and hasn’t been heard from since (NYT.)

Republicans claim as “proof” for their theory the fact that Mueller didn’t indict Mifsud. They reason that he must be protected by US intelligence, but  there is a much less complicated explanation.  Muller’s team was only able to question Mifsud once before he disappeared.   To make a conspiracy indictment, the Mueller team would require a lot more evidence than they had from that one interview.

The Message

Republicans are sending a clear message to the US Intelligence Community:  we won, don’t investigate.  The leaders of the Russia investigation are now all gone from government service, driven out or fired.  The list is long:  Comey, McCabe, Ohrs, Strzok, Baker, Page, and others.  This week, the President accepted the resignation of the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, perhaps the last man in the administration who would speak the truth.  Trump’s replacement:  Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe, one of the leaders of the “Deep State Conspiracy.” It is just one more step in burying Russia’s intervention in our election.  Trump is saying: “Russia, if you listening, I could use your help again in 2020.” 

A Racist President

The President of the United States is a racist.  His supporters can rationalize that anyway they want.  They can say that “the Squad” earned the “go back where you came from” comment, and that Trump was defending the Border Protection Service when he went after Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings.  But he used racist words and racist thoughts; however they try to justify it: he is a racist.

Mary Angelou said, “…when someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.”  Donald Trump has told us over and over again,  and it’s far past time to believe him.

This may or may not be from a “racist” heart; who knows what the President truly thinks?  But it is a racist strategy, a well thought out political plan to win the 2020 election.  Racism isn’t new in politics; in my lifetime George Wallace ran as a third party candidate on a racist ticket, and George HW Bush used the “Willie Horton” ad campaign to put fear of the “black murderer” in the hearts of “white” people.  But not since even before Wallace has the racism been so overt, and so focused.

Doubling Down on Race

The Trump campaign recognizes that whatever they do, 84% or more of black Americans are going to vote for his opponent.  Their thinking: so what if they anger the other 16%, there really aren’t enough votes to matter.  

And the Trump campaign surely realizes that they are going to alienate some portion of the Hispanic vote. They hope that their Venezuela policy and pro-life stand will hold some of them, but the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the Trump actions on the Southern Border have probably determined that vote already.  A little overt racism won’t change many more minds.

I had the opportunity to watch a movie this weekend called “The Great Hack.”  It was a documentary on how Cambridge Analytica (CA) used psycho-analytics to target the “persuadable” voters.  Once they knew who those voters were, they gathered as much electronic data on them as they could; preferences, jobs, joys, fears, favorites and deletions. CA then used that information to tailor specific messages to those “persuadables,” using their own personal data to try to push them to vote one way or another.

Persuadables

The Trump 2016 campaign “threaded the needle” of the electoral college, eking out narrow victories in three key states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  We don’t know what the  now documented impact of Russian attacks on the voting processes were, but we do know that the campaign and CA focused on changing the “persuadable” minds to Trump. They were successful, particularly with white working men, and white women.

That’s where the “racist” strategy is focused now.  The Trump campaign knows they will get their 40% base, even if Trump “…shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.”  What they are counting on, is that they can persuade more white men and women to vote, in fact, they hope to increase the white vote totals in those states through their racism generated fear.

The Trump campaign believes it can increase the size of the electorate, by bringing out white voters who have been sitting on the sidelines.  The “persuadables” are those who aren’t voting now, using the same “psycho-analytic” social media techniques to drive home the message. Increasing the turnout of white working men is the goal: 63% of them voted for Trump in 2016 (Guardian.)  It worked then, it might well work again.

The Backlash

Of course, using this radical strategy will have a backlash.  Not only is it likely to drive up the turnout in minority communities, but also among the more moderate “white suburban” groups, particularly women.  Post-election research for 2016 shows that 53% of white women voted for Trump, versus 43% for Clinton (Guardian.)  In 2018, 59% of white women voted Democratic (CNN.) While Trump wasn’t on the ticket, his impact on that election was significant.  Trump was driving the “caravan of migrants” argument all the way up to election day.  That argument drove white women voters away from the Republican candidates.

Where will these “white suburban” women go in 2020?  It’s difficult to see overt racism pushing them towards Trump.

Showing Up

There are other groups that Democrats could use to increase the turnout for them.  Younger votes traditionally don’t vote; a candidate that energizes that block could expand the voting pool, and change the election calculations.  But without depending on that, working with the “old” voting model, Democrats need to show up to vote.

The racist strategy will make the 2020 election about turnout.  Can the Democratic candidate do what Hillary Clinton failed to do: increase voter turnout enough to overcome the marginal advantage Trump has in the electoral college.  Two numbers to remember:  Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million; Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by a mere 77744 votes out of over thirteen million votes.   The Democratic candidate needs to get the vote out in those states like never before.

If that happens, then the racism “strategy” will fail.  

Friend:

Chuck Schumer and his liberal cronies are doing everything they can to take away the Republican Majority in the Senate, and they only need to flip 4 seats to do it. There’s too much at stake to give up now and let Democrats takeover, which is why we must reach our July fundraising goal!

If Democrats take charge of the Senate, President Trump’s judicial nominees wouldn’t get confirmed and tax cuts could be repealed to fund costly proposals like socialized medicine and the Green New Deal.
 
There’s an important fundraising deadline in just 5 days, and we’re in danger of falling short of our goal for this month. We’ve fought too hard to just roll over and let Democrats capture the Majority. 

Democrats aren’t wasting any time. This will be a highly competitive election, which is why it is critical that all grassroots conservatives do their part.

Thank You – Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Delete – Delete – Delete

I get about seventy-five emails a day. Sixty of those are Democratic fundraising emails. I receive emails from the Presidential candidates I’ve donated to:  Bennet, Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, and Harris. “Act Blue” the fundraising arm, must share lists because other Presidential hopefuls:  Yang, Warren, Sanders, and Moulton send their pleas; as well as several Senate candidates from Kentucky to Michigan to Oregon.  

It’s usually delete, delete, delete; but occasionally one Democrat catches my eye.  And then there’s the email lists that don’t represent me at all:  the GOP lists, the emails from Richard Viguerie, the chairman of “conservative.hq,” “The Turning Point” people and Hillsdale College. Those get deleted even faster. But sometimes I pause and wonder how I got this, like the “personal note” I received from Mitch McConnell yesterday.

What America Fears

Old Mitch highlighted the three issues we are going to be hearing a lot about in the 2020 election cycle.  The first is we need to be afraid:  Democrats will take back the Supreme Court!  All of the terrible things the Court used to do will be back:  women’s right to choose, gay marriage, religious and gender equality; all will be the law!  Donate your $10, to keep America from protecting personal freedom.

And the tax cuts – the Democrats will take back the tax cuts.  You’d better donate a whole lot more than $10 if the tax cuts helped you (because you have a whole lot more than $10 to give.)  But for the vast majority of Americans who gained little or even lost income on the tax cut, well, as Journey says, “…don’t stop believing!” The economy will be ‘soooo’ much better. Look at the stock market, in fact, please just look at the stock market.  All of the other economic indicators are pretty flat, so keep you eyes on the stock market.  Somebody’s making a whole lot of money there, and they won’t pay much tax on it.

SOCIALISM

And then there’s the magic word:  SOCIALISM!  See, it even looks like a word that we should hate, it’s got lots of “S’s” like FACISISM or NAZISM or CAPTIALISM (oops, not that one.)  Socialized medicine sounds awful, until you call it something else, like Medicare.  Then it’s something everyone seems to look forward to.  But we are going to hear a lot about Democrats and socialism in the next year.

But even worse is that mix of SOCIALISM and GREEN – THE GREEN NEW DEAL! What, take care of the environment?  But what will I do about my SUV getting fifteen miles a gallon? I like coal pollution, I like global warming, I like crazy weather –don’t I?  Or the battle cry of the Republican Party – we’re over sixty years old, all that global change stuff is someone else’s problem.  We’ll be gone!

The Democratic Face

And when you talk about the Green New Deal, you raise the “dreadful” face of “the enemy,” ¡Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez!  That’s what Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party want to run against, a twenty-nine year old New Yorker serving her first term in the House of Representatives.  She represents the “insurgent left” in the Democratic Party, a “squad” of four, but Mitch wants her to be the poster child for all Democrats. Finally, after years of running against Nancy Pelosi, he’s found another woman to pick on.  That shouldn’t be a surprise.  A woman in power, and a Latina at that; it should really appeal to the vast majority of older white male Republicans.

The River of Time

The great current of history is running against the Republican Party.  They are running against youth, against the future, against an America growing more diverse.  From Schumer being Jewish to Ocasio-Cortez being Hispanic, he is picking all of the “boogie persons” that might appeal to a group of Americans that are growing smaller. It’s a short-sighted plan, one that a party dominated by seventy-some “old white guys” would chose.  

But maybe “the Resistance” should take heart in Mitch’s letter.  Our current times seem so desperate, even the thought of four more years of Donald Trump makes me feel physically ill.  But over the long course of history, that is, by the end of the next decade, when even I will be an official “old white guy;” the Republican Party of Trump and McConnell will be gone.  They have “bet the ranch” on a short-term strategy that literally will not survive the next ten years.  Martin Luther King once said:

“…I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.” 

The “mountain-top” speech still applies today.  Us old white guys may not get there, but the currents of history will take America up to the mountain-top, and we will again be the promised land.  

In February of 2018 I published an essay We Are at War, about the vulnerability of our elections.  Little has been done in the year and a half since then to change the situation.

Rigged Elections

This is not my usual “political” essay.  It’s about elections, but not necessarily about who should win or who should lose. It’s about an attack on a core value of the United States democracy:  free and fair elections.  

American history is replete with “rigged” elections.  The $2 bill is unpopular still today because of election buying.  In the late 19^thcentury, American politicians used the $2 bill to “purchase” votes.  Voters who had that bill were assumed to have sold their vote. No one wanted that, so they stopped carrying them.  By the way, the $2 is still a legal and circulated currency, though the Treasury Department hasn’t printed new ones since 2003.

But today we are beyond politicians handing out money for votes.  America is faced with hostile foreign nations who are willing to use their advanced computer knowledge to attack the electoral process.  And it’s not just foreign nations, private companies have some of the same skills and abilities, and are putting themselves up for the highest bidder. 

Way Back in 2016

The 2016 Presidential election was fully attacked from multiple angles and sources.  Whatever you think about the Mueller Report or Mr. Mueller himself, his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday made one point very clear:  we were attacked, and we are being attacked, and we will be attacked again.  And we have done very little to be ready for it.

“Trumper” or “Resistor,” either way you surely must want the election system to be legitimate.  Protecting our electoral process is not a partisan issue. It is an American one.

Breaking In

The ultimate election “cheating” of my generation was the Watergate break-in in 1972.  Burglars working for the Nixon Presidential Re-Election Campaign broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office complex.  They bugged the phones of the Chairman of the DNC, Larry O’Brien, and other high-ranking Democratic officials.  They broke in the first time successfully, and planted listening devices. One of those devices failed, and the Nixon operatives went in a second time to replace it.  That’s when they were caught, and the Watergate crisis began.

What did they hope to get from the bugs?   Strategies, inside information, and maybe some scandalous gossip, all to be used against the Dems. They wanted inside information, and they were willing to commit felonies to get it.

Stealing by Remote

Today it’s unlikely that one campaign would commission burglars to break-in and get information. Why would they do that, when all the information anyone would ever want is on computer drives.  From polling data to strategic planning, from gossip on emails and “chats” to the most secret opposition research files:  they’re not on paper anymore.   

When the Russian military wanted to find out what the Democrats were doing, they used sophisticated “phishing” attacks to gain access to the DNC computers.  They didn’t have to hurry, they had months to explore the files, rummaging around in the electronic depths to find information.  The operatives did so from the safety of their Russian headquarters. Just like the Watergate burglars of old, they weren’t interested in disruption, they wanted the information to just keep coming.  And it did, for months:  strategies, numbers, and ultimately the personal e-mails of the highest officials.

The Russian’s hacked the Republican computers as well.  But they didn’t use the data; that wasn’t their mission.  They aimed their attacks at the Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, and they were undeniably successful.

Today we hope that the computers are better defended, both Democrat and Republican.  We hope that the leaders and strategists of both parties have returned to making phone calls about the critical stuff, rather than writing e-mails.   But we are all so used to using electronic media, from emails to tweets, from computers to cell phones.  It will take a lot of “habit breaking” to keep important information safe from attack.

Pizza and Sex

The second attack was more insidious because it was an attack on all of us, or at least all of us who use social media.  The Russians, and private companies like Cambridge Analytica, used the “new” way we communicate with each other:  Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all of the other “apps” to try to influence our thoughts.  

They pretended to be “Americans” (in fact they pretended to be the Tennessee Republican Party) and they created false stories.  Hillary was sick and dying, she sold children for sex from a pizza restaurant in Washington, and cheated Bernie Sanders in the primaries.  We were told over and over again about how bad, evil, awful she was. 

Did it change anyone’s mind, anyone’s vote?  Of course it did.  Millions of dollars are spent on social media advertising, aimed directly at us by using our data to target our likes and dislikes.  Of course it works and of course people are influenced.  If it didn’t work, no one would spend the money. Over 120 million American Facebook users saw Russian posts.  And that was just Facebook.

Facebook Friends

Did you support Bernie? Ads were aimed at you saying Hillary and the DNC cheated.  You saw posts from other “Bernie supporters” about how they weren’t going to vote for that cheater.  

Are you a factory worker? Hillary was sending your job to Guatemala and you’ll end up serving burgers at the local fast food place. That’s what happened, there was someone the same as you, on Facebook.  That the story came from a Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, there was no way you could know.

The Russians invaded our “discourse.” The private companies did the same.  And, despite Congressional hearings and public outcry, the social media giants really haven’t done much about any of that.  Their “community standards” haven’t changed and there are still bots and trolls all around.  Facebook, Twitter and the rest make their money on data and readership; nothing encourages more people to join in than controversy.  That business model supports the invasion still today.

Counting the Votes

Hack computers and emails, and use the information.  Invade social media, and influence millions.  But the third line of attack was a direct assault on the US voting system.  We know that Russia hacked into voting systems around the country.  At present we are still told that, “…no votes were changed.”  But keep in mind, up till a few months ago, we were told only nine states were hacked.  Then it was twenty-one.  Today we are told that all fifty states were targeted, so it’s hard to know what the real impact of the incursions were.

Surely political campaign and parties are taking steps to harden their computer operations.  That will reduce their vulnerability to attack. But while there has been a lot of “noise” from the social media companies about “improving” their product, it doesn’t seem like much has really happened.  Our own awareness of influence campaigns and willingness to fact check may be the only way to prevent the broad influence attacks.

But there’s still the “black box” of election security.  No one is talking about it, not the Federal government or the state and local entities. We don’t know if they are preparing, or simply waiting for the next shoe to drop.  And it won’t necessarily be Russia; China, Iran and North Korea all are capable of attacks.  We may not know who is changing our votes.

Elections are America

This is not about politics; it’s about America.  We shouldn’t be concerned about Trump, Clinton, or whoever runs in 2020.  We need to worry about the sanctity of the voting booth.  America needs to protect it.  It’ll take more than $2, and more than just lip service from the government.