Category: Uncategorized

Mirror, Mirror

It’s been more than three years since Donald Trump emerged as a Presidential candidate, won the nomination, and then shocked himself and the nation by winning.  These three years have upended American political culture. Telling the truth used to be the expected norm; now telling the truth somehow is optional, and the definition of “truth” has become a malleable thing, based as much on the focus of the listener as the veracity of the teller.

But one “truth” I have discovered, is that Donald Trump lives in a “mirror” world.  When he does something that folks criticize, he immediately claims his innocence, and accuses the critics of doing exactly what he did.

• Trump never mistreated women, they in fact were attacking him.
• Trump doesn’t tell falsehoods, in fact, the media is telling all sorts of falsehoods about him – Fake News!!
• Trump will build a wall on the Mexican border, and Mexico will pay for it.
• Trump would never consider “cheating” in an election, it’s the Democrats that are corrupting the process.
• Trump wants to protect pre-existing conditions, it’s the Democrats that want to remove the protections.
• Trump wanted a deal on immigration, the border and DACA; it was Schumer and Pelozi that turned him down.
• Trump isn’t trying to interfere with the Mueller investigation, it is the “seventeen Democrats” employed by Mueller who are trying to unjustly accuse him.

So here’s the scary thing about this theory.  If Trump is doing everything that he accuses others of doing, he’s doing a whole lot of stuff that’s bad.

He sees in the actions of others the flaws within himself.  He expects people to lie, cheat, steal, because in his life that’s what he’s done.  He takes pride in his ability to “play the system;” remember the quote “…I alone can fix the system, because I know it best.”  Part of Trump’s allure as a candidate is the image of the great “deal maker” who knew all the corners to cut to get the “job done.”

So he was elected President. And we discovered that when Donald Trump looks at America, he looks in the mirror.  What’s good for Donald Trump is good for America, “Making America Great Again” is really making Donald better again.  That’s what he does:  in the tax cut bill, in pouring gasoline on the fire of polarization, on undermining American institutions from the FBI, to the Courts, to the Free Press.

And the Republican leadership, overwhelmed by the power Trump tapped in the American electorate, accepted his leadership, and his image in the mirror.  They didn’t like the view; the fear and the prejudice, but they wanted the results.  They wanted a generational control of the Courts:  Mitch McConnell’s dream of a “Federalist Society” dominated judiciary. They wanted the tax cut; supported by all of their financial backers. And they wanted an end to “Obamacare” – well you can’t have everything!

They’ve had to accept the mirror image of Trump to get what they wanted.  They paid a price at the polls last week, losing the House, the majority of state Governorships, and, in a slow motion “blue wave” slowly eroding what they thought was an ironclad Senate.  It was an election about Trump, and while 46% of Americans chose to support his views, 53% voted against him.

Want to know what’s going to happen in the next two years?  We now know Donald Trump, and we know that he will attack anything that threatens him, using any means necessary.  Whether they go high or low, he goes to the bottom.  Don’t be surprised by anything:  firing Mueller, attacking the Justice Department, declaring “war” on the House of Representatives, refusing the courts.  Whatever the “goals”  to improve America of the Democrats in the House, or even the Republicans in the Senate,  we already know what’s going to happen.  It’s all in the mirror.

 

 

 

You Ain’t Got the Votes

Yes – another Hamilton reference – the theme of our time!!!

 

I’m sitting in my camper in beautiful Florida; home of palm trees, beaches, fire ants, and never-ending election turmoil.  This is a state so on the edge of Republican and Democrat that “purple” really doesn’t describe how narrow the margins are.  But just because Florida is teetering on balance doesn’t mean that the support for either party is throughout the state.  Florida has Democratic strongholds, and huge swaths of what we now call Trump Country.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that the highly contested election of 2018 didn’t finish on Election Day. The Senate race pitted an old fashioned Democratic candidate, three-termer Bill Nelson, against a healthcare billionaire turned Governor, Rick Scott.  The Governor’s race pitted Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, vying to be the first black man to earn the office, against Congressman Rick DeSantis, who literally modeled himself after President Donald Trump.

Over eight million votes were cast in the Florida election.  They have “all” been unofficially counted – it took until Saturday – leaving Scott with a less than 13,000 vote lead, 0.2%.  DeSantis has a 33,000 vote lead, 0.3%.  Election boards had to wait for late mail arrivals of absentee votes, and check the validity of provisional ballots.

 Florida is already in an automatic “mechanical” recount, where the ballots are run back through the counting machines for both races.  Should the outcome be within 0.25% in either or both races, the ballots that were “rejected” by the machines will be examined by hand, to determine if “the intent” of the voter can be discerned. If the examiners can reach a judgment, then that ballot will be added to the total.

Every vote counts.  That’s the “School House Rock” version of the American political process; Americans of all races, creeds, religions, gender orientations, and ethnicity; lining up together to “make their mark” on the ballot.  But we know that traditionally the American electoral process has been fraught with attempts to alter the outcome by illegally changing votes.  The rarely seen $2 bill (with Thomas Jefferson’s face) “earned” it’s unpopularity in the late 1800’s because it was “the price” of a vote; if you had one, you must have sold your vote.

And we had all sorts of obstructions to voting in our history, from the “Jim Crow” literacy tests of the past, to the current practices of voter suppression in Georgia, and Kansas, and North Dakota, and other places in the nation.  So it shouldn’t be so much of a surprise that there is “outrage” in Florida that votes are being recounted.  Scott and DeSantis are winning in the current count; counting more votes, particularly in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, both highly Democratic, isn’t going to improve their lead.

The Republicans are following the path blazed by Jim Baker, the chairman of the George W Bush 2000 Presidential campaign.  When Florida was declared for Bush by a marginal 500 plus votes; Baker sent teams of lawyers and protestors to do everything they could do disrupt efforts to recount and re-examine ballots.  His theory was simple:  we won on this count, who wants another one?  The Gore team was slow to recognize their opportunity, and so did not hit the ground as quickly, giving Republicans an edge.  When the United States Supreme Court voted along party lines five to four to stop vote counting in Florida, it gave Bush the Presidency.

Studies later showed that a full recount would have elected Gore.  But there certainly is a case to be made, both then and now, that hundreds of votes out of multiple millions may well be within the “margin of error” where the outcome would waver each count.  Put simply, it might be impossible to ascertain the actual outcome by counting.

So here we are, back in Democratic strongholds Palm Beach and Ft Lauderdale, where Republicans are claiming “fraud” and “ballot creation.”  Rick Scott has flat out stated that Nelson is trying to “fix” the election, and protestors and lawyers are crowding each other outside of the county election centers.  President Trump has weighed in by twitter, claiming fraud and corruption.

It echoes Trump’s claims that the election of 2016 was “rigged,” laying the groundwork for not accepting a Clinton win.  He made that very clear in their last debate.  To his and the country’s surprise, he won, so I guess it wasn’t rigged enough.

Florida, and Georgia, and Arizona will count and recount the votes.  They will reach a final “figure” that will determine who wins and loses.  There will be sore losers, and maybe even sore winners.  But, if we can keep the counting process going and not use legal and extra-legal means to stop it, we will eventually find who “…ain’t got the votes” and who does. It is the only way to reach an answer that allows the elected to govern with legitimacy.

And that’s the point – faith in the outcomes.  Scott, and Trump, and Kemp in Georgia, are doing everything they can to undermine the legitimacy of the process.  And while they may win by doing that, they are undermining their own ability to govern, shaking citizens faith in government.  They may end up being losers even if they win.

Above the Law

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, at the request of the President of the United States, resigned from his office on Wednesday.  The phrase, “…serve at the pleasure of the President,” applies to Cabinet positions (called principal officers in the Constitution) as well as other positions in the Executive Branch.  Like it or not, since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1869 over this issue, the President can hire and fire.

In Article II of the Constitution, the process of appointing and confirming the Cabinet level positions is established:

…he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…

Officers, and particularly the principal officers of the Cabinet, require confirmation by the US Senate, the “advice and consent” process.  We know this:  we just went through the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.

But if a cabinet member leaves, there is a void that needs to be filled.  Should the Senate be in recess, the President can make a “recess” appointment to the position, not subject to Senate confirmation, for as long as two years. This is how the current National Security Advisor, John Bolton, was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations during the George W Bush administration.  Bush avoided what would have likely been a failed Senate confirmation by putting Bolton in the UN during a Congressional recess.

Technically, the Congress is not in session this election week.  This might allow for a “recess” appointment.

But that’s not what the Trump Administration has done.  The President has appointed Matt Whitaker, the former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “Acting” Attorney General, not calling it a recess appointment.  Without getting into the qualifications of Mr. Whitaker, a key point to be made is that the Chief of Staff position at the Department of Justice (like the Chief of Staff at the White House) is not a Senate confirmed position.

To try to clarify this process, in 1998 the Congress passed a “succession” process law, called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.  This law established a process for replacing high-ranking executive department officials, and was clarified after the 9-11 attack, when it seemed possible that whole departments could lose their leadership.

In the Act the normal process established would be for the “first assistant” to take over if the “principal” leaves.  In the case of the Department of Justice today, that would be Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was confirmed for his position by the Senate.

But the Trump Administration wants to end or restrain the Mueller Investigation, and putting Rosenstein in charge of the Department wouldn’t change anything.  Rosenstein, due to Sessions’ recusal from the Mueller probe,  has already been in charge of the probe  and not to the President’s liking.  However, the President under the law, does have the legal right to pass over the “first assistant.”  The second section of the act allows for: 

notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations  

The standard legal interpretation of this section, is that the President could choose ANY candidate who is Senate confirmed to take the job. The most recent example of this was when Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, was placed in charge of the Consumer and Finance Protection Bureau after the resignation of Jim Cordrey. Mulvaney has proceeded to hamper the Bureau’s protective actions, but as he was a Senate confirmed (for OMB) officer, he got the job.

The appointment of Matt Whitaker as “Acting Attorney General” may be an act to slow or stop the Mueller investigation, but, hard to imagine, there is an even more important legal question.  By reading of the law, Mr. Whitaker, NOT Senate confirmed, is not eligible to lead the Department of Justice.

The White House has embraced a minority interpretation of the Vacancies Act in order to pursue their political agenda.  When it all goes to Court, it is likely that the Whitaker appointment is not allowed by law: it is in fact illegal.  The problem is, will  Whitaker’s current presence achieve the White House goal;  ending the Mueller Investigation before the Courts can reach a legal conclusion?  Among all the rest, that’s the grave  Constitutional issue the nation faces today.

 

Flip the Script

There are a lot of things that I don’t like about President Trump, so many that I won’t even start the list.  But, there is something that I do have to give him credit for:  he is able to find ways to grab the “story of the day.”  He can “flip the script” better than any politician I’ve ever seen.

Take yesterday:  on Tuesday night, President Trump and the Republican Party suffered a huge electoral defeat, losing the House of Representatives.  Even more, it comes at a time when the Mueller investigation of the President is coming to a climax and allows a Democratic House to help protect the investigators.  And yet, the President was able to do two things to regain control of the news cycle.

First he picked a fight with the national press in a press conference, staging an altercation between a staffer and “arch-nemesis” Jim Acosta of CNN.  The video of that encounter was then doctored (by InfoWars – a right wing website) and the fake video re-messaged by the White House.  The President failed to answer questions; insulting reporters instead of responding to their queries.  In that process, he directly lied to them and the American people, denying any changes in his cabinet.

He already had fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and replaced him with a man who literally went on television to “try out” for the Trump Administration.  Matt Whitaker is now the Acting Attorney General, taking charge of the Mueller Investigation.  His appointment is of questionable legality, since his previous job as Department of Justice Chief of Staff did not require Senate confirmation.  The law providing for temporary replacement seems to indicate that Senate confirmation is needed to fill a Cabinet position, so that will end up in Court.

And so, the “script is flipped.”  The “Reality TV President” did exactly what he does best:  he attacked the media, then fed them the “red meat” of a potential attack on the Mueller Investigation.  The story of the national Democratic vote, almost seven percent greater than the Republican turnout, and the story of a Democratic victory in the House of Representatives, was drowned out.

His actions have triggered the “Resistance” marches to protect Mueller, with over 900 demonstrations scheduled throughout the nation tonight at 5.  And it underlines the emasculation of the rest of the Republican Party; unwilling to stand up for their own statements of support for Mueller just a year ago.

Everyone who hoped to “take a break” after the election – guess it’s not happening.  It seems like President Trump’s strategy is to take advantage of the next two months before the new session of the Congress and Democratic House control.  What happens next, likely will be a continuing attack on Robert Mueller, as he tries to continue to do his job.  I anticipate that more indictments are coming; and I suspect that those charged will be a much closer to the President himself than those already indicted.

That’s likely to trigger an even greater response from the White House.  From Trump’s standpoint, the timing is perfect.  After an election, before the transition of power, during the holidays; the President is almost literally “by himself” in Washington, able to act with even less checks on his power.

Whew —  I guess we should have seen it coming.

Michael Steele, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, said yesterday that Democrats should “enjoy the moment.”  He was right, and Dems should be proud of the accomplishments of November 6^th.  But President Trump, who has already said that he will be on a “war footing” if the investigations get too close, has begun the fight.  So enjoy, but “gear up” as well.  It may be quite a ride to Christmas.

 

PS – what does it say about America, when 13 more are killed in a mass shooting in a California bar, and just barely breaks the surface of the news?  It’s common place, 13 today, 11 last week, and on, and on, and on.  We have made ourselves powerless to prevent it…

The Day After

When writing the Constitution of the United States, the founding fathers were concerned about the “people” exercising their will on the Government without the necessary judgment to carry out the task.  So, instead of developing a “democracy,” where every person would have an equal say in government, they built a Federal Republic.  They recognized that the United States was in fact sovereign states joining a sovereign Federal government.  And they developed that government to represent the views of the people, and of the states.

The power of the states was guaranteed in the United States Senate, where each one, small in population or large, would have two representatives.  They served for six years, a long time without a reckoning, so they could act more independently. Originally, those representatives were chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote, putting Senators a full step away from direct election. This was changed by the 17^th Amendment (1913) requiring a direct vote, but Senators are still not based on equal representation.  Senator Tester of Montana represents a little over a million people, Senator Feinstein of California thirty-nine million.

The voice of the people was to be heard in the House of Representatives.  They were directly elected, their districts apportioned equally throughout the country.  Today, each member represents about 800,000 people, whether they are from New York or Rhode Island or Alaska.   The House was designed to be “hot,” a place of argument and action; the Senate, the “saucer to cool the hot tea” of the House, a place for long debate and deliberation.

Review for that old American Government Exam is over.

Yesterday the nation made a choice.  We chose to put a check on the Presidency of Donald Trump, by using the “People’s House,” placing it in the hands of the opposition party, the Democrats.   Today President Trump actually offered to compromise with the incoming House of Representatives (though he did threaten to withhold cooperation if the House investigates his behavior.)  Even he recognizes the message.

But while he is trying to “make-up” to the Democrats, he has “doubled-down” on his attack on the Press.  If Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party aren’t to be his bête noire, his conference today made it clear that the Press will continue to serve the role as “whipping boy.”  Ask Jim Acosta of CNN.

Yesterday the nation also chose to back many of those Senators who were “blessed” by the President. No repudiation of Trumpism should be seen in the results of those elections, only a desire of Americans to give Democrats a chance to change the constant clamor of divisiveness and inability to achieve.  The nation wants something to get done, Democrats are now being given a chance to act.

So it’s up to Democrats. There probably is no one who wants investigations of the President more than me, and there should be thoughtful and deliberate hearings into the actions of the President and his campaign. But if that’s all that Democrats can get done, then they will not have answered the mandate given them last night.

After two years of Resistance, it’s hard not to “go for it all” right away.  We want to undo the “mistake” of 2016, and we want to limit further damage to our nation.  But that’s not going to convince a broader element of the country to turn away from the polarization of Trumpism, and it will fall into the trap of the President’s plan.  He needs the divide to succeed for his own success (God forbid) in 2020 and it’s up to the House not to get used and give it to him.

It should fall to the Mueller Investigation, with the support of the House, to ferret out what happened in the 2016 election.  And if the President decides to lash out at Mueller and Rosenstein, firing them or trying to short-circuit their investigation, then it will be up to the House to protect the process.

One final history lesson: in the election of 1858, the “compromisers” were given a last chance at government.  It was already too late, but Illinois choose Stephen Douglas, a moderate, over Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to limit slavery.  It didn’t work, and within two years Lincoln was President, and Douglas was defeated.   The Civil War soon began.

So we need to ask ourselves, are we at the point where only the extremes can prevail?  And if that’s true, then is the outcome some kind of alteration of our way of government, unable to withstand the pressure from either side, as was the case in 1860?  Or can we get back to a point where there can be dissension without polarization; that while the President and the House may clash about investigations and cooperation with foreign adversaries, they could still find areas to work together to improve America?

The choice of the people last night, was to take another chance on a functioning government. Democrats, and the President, the sole and acknowledged leader of ALL  Republicans, now have to decide what to do.

 

Good Morning

I spent forty years as a high school track coach.  I loved the competition, the intense effort my kids would make to support their team. Improvement was good, winning was even better, and the camaraderie of our team was everything.

One of my favorite times as a coach, was early in the morning at a meet before the competition began. The track was calm, the kids slowly waking up and warming up.  There wasn’t the intensity yet, just the ritual of getting ready.  We were relaxed, prepared, and confident in what we could do. It was the “calm” time, before the cheering and the clapping, when everything was possible.

Everything was possible. The highs and lows of seventeen events, from shot put to pole vault to two mile, to the final 4×400 relay; were yet to occur.  All of the work and planning; the “blood, sweat and tears” of Churchillian fame, was done.  It was the cusp of change:  everything would be different when it was over.

It was the same in my “previous life” as a political campaigner on the dawn of Election Day. Whatever the polling and the “talking heads” on television had said; it was the day of decision.  Everything was still possible.  Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign did a great commercial:  “It’s Morning Again in America.”  It captured the essential concept of morning, and Reagan, as a new beginning (it also was turned into a great Folger’s Coffee commercial theme.)

It’s Election Day morning in America again, and everything is possible.

Folks are lining up at their polling places:  they are making up their minds.  We don’t know what the collective mind of America will decide this day, but they definitely have three choices.  America can choose the minority view that gained control two years ago, where, that day, our entire world was “turned upside down.”  Or, America might show its confusion, and send mixed messages to itself and the world.  The split that exists in America might be further exposed, raw and bleeding, waiting for salve, but instead scoured even more.

Or Americans might do what they have been doing in almost every special election since 2016: reject the polarization and crassness of the Trump Presidency, and choose a different path.  It happened in Alabama, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and almost in Georgia and Ohio.  It may happen today, and we will wake up tomorrow to a different “Morning in America.”

So I sit in our camper in Florida, the hotbed of the “split” in American life.  Like the beginning of that track meet, everything is possible.  However it all turns out tonight (and onto tomorrow, as counting may take more than just a few hours) today is one of the times I am proudest to be American.  We will all decide today, with more and more Americans taking part in determining their future.  It is the essence of what our country, a Constitutional Republic, founded in the compromises of the eighteenth century and forged in the blood and labor of history, is about.

It’s Election Day in America.  Everything is possible.

Closing Argument

The cast of Hamilton sings for voters to show up on Tuesday

Political campaigning is a process of getting a candidate’s message across.  Events often control how that message is delivered, and campaigns often “go negative” to try to knock down their opponent.  Outside groups are particularly willing to do that, and may do it up to the day of the election.

But for the actual campaign in the last two weeks, there comes a time to make their closing argument; the last concept they want the voters to take into the polling booth with them.  Here in Florida, Rick Scott, Republican for Senate, has found his phrase – “let’s get to work,” to capsulize his candidacy.  It works. His Democratic opponent, Bill Nelson, has a “muddier” closer, something like “…I’ll work for Florida, not for Trump.”  We will see how that turns out.

So what should be the “closing argument” for the national Democratic Party in 2018?

President Franklin Roosevelt has the answer, from his inaugural address in 1933.  It was the depths of the Great Depression, unemployment was over 20%, and many Americans felt there were no answers in our Democracy.

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. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

“…Fear…unreasoning, unjustified terror…”has been used to pursue the Republican political agenda.  Fear: of brown people massing at the border, of the shooter in the school and the church, of gays and minorities and all those who are “different.”  A “Trumpian” friend described it as trying to stay “small,” not become a target.  Stay in your home, don’t go “downtown” where “things are different.” Keep your door locked, and your gun loaded.

The Republican closing argument, made by the President with OUR aircraft, Air Force One in the background, is Fear.  Democrats represent “mob rule” by “Antifa” anarchists, 6000 MS-13 gangsters are headed here in the caravan; we need to send the Army to the border, we need to load our AR-15’s.  And if the media calls him on “truth,” it’s “fake news.” “Don’t believe what you see or hear in the media, believe what I tell you.”

Barack Obama is trying to counter the argument with “hope.”  Hope is working together to find solutions to problems rather than quivering behind closed doors.  And while neither Trump nor Obama is on the ballot tomorrow, Democrats throughout the country are closing with by saying Democrats can solve problems.

Democrats don’t need to be afraid, they can “get the job done.” They can protect health care, protect the environment, protect social security and Medicare.  And they can do it without the “fear mongering” and hatred that the “Trump Circus” requires.

That’s the Democrats’ closer:  don’t fear, work together to get the job done.

In his inaugural, Roosevelt called on the historical belief that in crisis, Americans would give their leaders the “…understanding and support…which is essential to victory.”  Democrats don’t need fear to gain support:  they need sleeves rolled up, sweat on the brow, get to work Americans to turn from fear and solve problems.

In the election tomorrow the choice is stark:  fear or future.  Democrats cannot be “paralyzed be fear” and trepidation of what the results might show. Unlike 2016, they need to boldly go out and vote: and if they do – they will “get the job done.”

 

 

 

Health Care – Carrots and Sticks

Tuesday is election day in America.  This year’s midterms have become a referendum on the Republican control of government, and on President Trump in particular.  One of the great “failures” of Republicans in the last two years is their inability to “get rid of Obamacare.”  After fifty-four attempts to end the Affordable Care Act while Barack Obama was President, once Republicans gained Congressional majorities and the Presidency, they couldn’t get it done.  It came down to a single vote, the famous middle of the night “thumbs down” of Republican Senator John McCain.

The Affordable Care Act was a compromise of proposals among the Congressional Democrats in 2009.  Many wanted to create a “single payer” system – Medicare for all; but were unable to gain a majority.  So in the “sausage factory” of Congressional legislation, the ACA was created.

There were lots of “carrots:” items that made the ACA palatable to American citizens. Insurance companies were required to cover people with pre-existing conditions without charging them additional fees, and parents were allowed to maintain coverage of adult children until they were twenty-six.  The ACA also allowed for a major extension of government health coverage for low income folks; the Medicaid expansion provided health coverage for millions.  And the ACA provided for insurance independent of employment, so that folks could change jobs and maintain coverage, without the extreme fees of “Cobra.”

But with “carrots” there had to be “sticks.”  All of the above benefits certainly increased costs; in order to offset them, the ACA expanded the “pool” of folks required to have health insurance to – everyone. This meant that those who were healthy and had a high enough income to pay taxes and chose to go without insurance, now were required to either buy insurance or pay a tax: the “individual mandate.”  On an actuarial level they were less likely to need coverage, so that their payments went to offset the additional costs.

Insurance companies didn’t lose all their profitable perks. They were able to keep insurance coverage on a state-by-state basis, limiting the “size of the pool” for ACA insurance. They also maintained the 80% of coverage that was privately based through employment, though they had to follow the new ACA regulations.  And, of course, they could withdraw from offering ACA coverage in areas that weren’t profitable.

President Trump, through executive action, was able to end the individual mandate.  By doing so, he removed the “stick” of the ACA.  He used the time worn excuse for cutting government benefits:  he was “freeing” people from government regulation.  It allowed the healthy to go without insurance.  Costs for ACA insurance increased, as the “pool of insured” grew smaller and sicker.  Republicans then claimed that the ACA didn’t work, was too expensive, and had to be abolished.

It’s two days before election day.  I have had the opportunity to travel in the past couple of weeks:  Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and finally Florida.  In this tense election season, there has been commercial after commercial for hotly contested House and Senate campaigns.  Republican after Republican now claim to support insurance for pre-existing conditions without additional costs, as well as many of the other “carrots” of the ACA.  But they offer no plan to cover the costs, the “sticks” that made the ACA work. They simply say:  “I’m for pre-existing insurance coverage.”

President Lincoln said: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

The American people are pretty good at knowing the truth, even through all of the political hyperbole of campaign ads.   And most Americans know too, that politicians will often say what’s popular rather than what’s true.  But – if we look at what they “do” rather than what they “say,” Republicans have done nothing to protect those with pre-existing conditions, and the  proposals they have made allow insurance companies to raise prices, making insurance unaffordable.

So don’t be fooled by the new Republican line.  Look at what they done – everything to make health care what it was before 2009.  If healthcare is the issue – then Democrats are the answer in 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

Show Me Your Papers

Voter ID laws make so much sense, if:  if, you are from the suburbs, if, you have had no negative interactions with the police or government, and if you are secure that the American Democracy is meant for you.  To most Americans, having an ID to cash a check, or go to the store to buy beer or cigarettes, is so common place that it defies common sense that having ID to vote is a big deal.

Voter ID is supposed to protect us from voting fraud. But, there’s really no evidence of widespread voting fraud occurring, with or without Voter ID laws.  In North Carolina for example, where the Republican candidate for a Congressional seat is accusing his Democratic opponent of being in favor of voting fraud by not supporting a new Voter ID law, a voting study showed that from 2010-2014 there were 19 fraudulent votes cast out of 12 million.  Most of the 19 were longtime US residents, who mistakenly thought they could vote. That’s .00000015% illegal votes, not a “game changing” impact.  The North Carolina Voter ID law solves a problem that didn’t exist.

Voter ID isn’t a big deal I f you see the government as serving your interests, not questioning them. Say you’re a citizen of Hispanic ethnicity, and go to the polls to vote and are asked for you ID.  Perhaps, in some polling places, a “challenger”  (folks whose job is to “challenge” you’re registration, affiliation, address and documentation) will ask for additional information.  Language might be an issue, but intimidation might be even a more significant blockade.

It is absolutely true that if a voter stands their ground, ultimately they have the right to vote, at the least on a provisional ballot.  But the knowledge of the rules is fully weighted to the poll workers and the challengers; most regular voters don’t know enough to demand their rights when questioned.  And if you are a new citizen, or maybe one with a father or mother who is in the US illegally, or a “Dreamer” living with you, will you fight the “voting battle,” or will you avoid drawing attention to yourself and not vote at all?

In newly migrated communities in the United States today, fear of the government is growing.  The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency, “ICE,” has earned a reputation for arbitrary round-ups, and fast and loose play with individual rights.  Regardless of what President Trump says, no reasonable politician, Democrat or Republican, is in favor of  “open borders.”  Reasonable enforcement of immigration law makes sense.  But in our nation, with at least 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working here, it also would make sense to target enforcement towards those who are truly dangerous.

That’s not what ICE’s is doing right now with their factory “round-ups” and arranged fake meetings.   The US government is even questioning the legal citizenship of some American citizens crossing at the border, demanding documentation beyond Passport cards, and denying their issued birth certificates.  An atmosphere of fear has been created in Hispanic communities, among documented, undocumented, and even US citizens.

Folks are scared. They are scared to interact with the government, and they are scared to vote.  Demanding additional layers of identification just create additional barriers to participation.  That drives down Hispanic participation, and reduces their impact on elections.  Will that make a difference?  We will see in the Florida Governor’s race between Republican Ron DeSantis and Democrat Andrew Gillum, and in the Texas Ted Cruz versus Beto O’Rourke Senate election.  Suppress the normally Democratic leaning Hispanic turnout, and elections already on the knife-edge fall Republican.  It’s difficult to imagine that’s not intentional.

In the old World War II movies, there was always a scene on the train rolling through occupied Europe. The “good guys” were riding along, and into the railroad car walked the black uniformed Gestapo.  “Show me your papers,” was the demand, and the good guys would hope and pray that their forged documents would hold up.  “Show me your papers” became the trademark of authoritarian regimes, governments that don’t trust the governed.

If you’re white, suburban, middle-class; it doesn’t feel like it effects you.  “Sure, I’ll show you my papers, and sure, I know the government is acting in my interest.”  But in minority and newly migrant communities it’s different.  “Show me your papers” is a challenge of your right to be here, a challenge made with the full authority of the government.

Martin Niemoller, a German Lutheran, spoke of the Nazis:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

They asked for your papers.

 

What He Says

Since the first day of the Trump campaign there have been outrageous statements.  From Mexican “rapists and criminals at the border” to “bleeding from whatever” to “banning Muslims,” President Trump has found a way to encourage his base and inflame his opponents.  The energy, anxiety, and outrage these statements produced took a whole lot of time and resources from  Trump’s opposition, such that “wiser heads” (such as Rachel Maddow on MSNBC) began to say:  “Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does.”

It was the “doing” that was changing the country:  trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act; giving vast tax cuts to the wealthiest (and vastly enlarging the National Debt;) packing the Federal Courts with appointees, some of whom were rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association; tearing children from their parents at the border.  Those actions required energy enough, without the constant irritation of the Tweets and the Fox interviews.

But what we have seen in the past two weeks is that what “he” says has had more impact than we realized. The old adage, “words have consequences” is ultimately being applied to Donald Trump as well. What he has said, more perhaps than what he has done, has inflamed the political and cultural divides of America.  That inferno of rhetoric has pushed many Americans to the edges of their political views; and to those who are already deranged, pushed them into the abyss of violence and hate.

Harriet Beecher Stowe, the little Abolitionist lady of Cincinnati, was driven by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act to write a novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  It was the story of slaves in the South, beaten, killed, willing to do anything to escape their bondage.  Eliza, a mother of a five-year-old boy, carries him from ice chunk to ice chunk across the near-frozen Ohio River to reach freedom.  Uncle Tom, the kind elder slave of the story, is beaten to death by his master.

In the North the story inflamed passions, giving energy to the growing Abolitionist movement.  While only a small minority of people in the free states were Abolitionists, they had a strong voice in newspapers read throughout the nation, and with the publication of Stowe’s book, found even greater power.

In the South the book was read as well, as an outrageous “creation” of a Northerner’s mind.  It was used to convince slave owners that the Federal government would never allow slavery to continue, and was held up for ridicule by slave owners who didn’t treat their slaves with such brutality.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe.  “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war” he supposedly said.  He recognized the role that “what she said” had in pushing the nation to extremes, leaving no middle ground left for political compromise.  The compromisers, Stephen Douglas who offered to let states vote slave or free, and John Bell who hoped to focus US attention away from slavery, both were left in electoral defeat.  The extremes, Lincoln restricting slavery’s expansion, and Breckenridge calling for total slavery, were all that was left.

While I do not think America today is heading to a Civil War, the point to be made is that words in fact “do matter.”  What is said contributes to forcing each side farther apart.  Add that to the political forces that already encourage polarization: the huge amounts of money contributed by a few ideological billionaires, the division of our media into left and right, the divisive impact of the structural changes made in gerrymandering, and the increasing income inequality in America; and we have a divided country.

And in that division, the extremes go even farther to the edge.  Whether it’s bombs in the mail, shooters at the Synagogue, or a black child shot at for knocking on the front door; the deranged find it easier to act.

Thousands of people have left their homeland looking for safety and security.  They are carrying their children through a harrowing thousand-mile march in the hot Central American sun.  They sleep in the street at night; they take what generosity the local townspeople can give.  They are doing what many immigrants to America have done:  they have decided to risk the dangers of travel, to give their families an opportunity to grow in peace.  They have risked all to leave the gangs and the death and the poverty behind.

But the “words” of the President are those of hate:  invasion, infection, a “horde” coming to attack.  And those words are serving the purpose:  Americans who normally would have sympathy for the refugee’s plight, are now convinced we are facing a siege .  Troops are being sent to the border (even though they cannot, by law, actually police the border.)

Maybe it’s all just a campaign ploy, and on November 7^th the words will evaporate.  But the impact on our divisions will matter beyond the election regardless.  We will remain divided as along as division serves Trump’s political needs, and as long as we the people allow it to polarize our minds.  What he says does matter.

Robert E. Lee

Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal has a new book, called Leaders, Myth and Reality.  He also had some things to say about the President’s plan to send 5000 plus regular US Army troops to the Southern Border. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, the General spoke about what the troops could do, mainly support operations like erecting tents and building barricades, and what they couldn’t do; act as the “Border Patrol.”  He made a significant point:  while all of the things the Army could do at the border some other force, the National Guard or even civilian contractors could do as well; sending “TROOPS TO THE BORDER” was the point.  McChrystal did not come out against the President, but he made it clear that the President’s actions were much more symbolic than necessary.

It fits the “caravan invasion” scenario that Mr. Trump has been touting on the campaign trail, just as his threat to repeal birthright citizenship is a political ploy.  The 14^thAmendment to the Constitution in “black letter law” states:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

While it’s clear that a few of the President’s advisor would like to quibble about “subject to the jurisdiction,” claiming that illegal immigrants who have children here are in fact not subject to jurisdiction and therefore their offspring do not have the right to citizenship; the Courts immediately claim jurisdiction when those same immigrants cross the border, are found “guilty” and sent to jail.

And of course, if you really want to quibble with wording, than let’s look at the Second Amendment, with the hanging opening clause:  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.

If jurisdiction applies to citizenship, then well-regulated militia must apply to bearing arms.  The Court decisions for over one hundred years argue that neither is true.

It’s all about optics and politics.  It is unlikely that the President would try to change the Constitution through Executive order, nor is it likely that he will even bother to pick the fight after November 6^th(though with Trump it’s hard to tell.) Even Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have a tough time agreeing with him on that.

But it was something that McChrystal said later in the interview that caught my ear.  The General said that for decades he had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office, given to him by his wife.  He saw Lee as the kind of leader that America can produce, and the kind that McChrystal wanted to emulate.

Four Star General McChrystal had a storied career, completing Special Forces training and ultimately commanding US Special Operations, but was removed from his last command as Chief of Forces in Afghanistan.  He said “too much” to the press, ridiculing his civilian commanders including Vice President Joe Biden, and President Obama asked for his resignation.  It was a sad way for a great General to leave service, but just as necessary as General MacArthur being removed by President Truman during the Korean War.  The foundation of the American military is civilian control, both MacArthur and McChrystal were reminded of that the hard way.

So McChrystal, a General who made a serious mistake, was an admirer of Robert E. Lee, the storied leader of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. But McChrystal said that he re-evaluated him, after the Charlottesville incident last year, where right-wing Nationalists rioted over the removal of a statue of Lee.

At the beginning of the Civil War, Lee, a career officer in the United States Army and top of his generation, chose to turn down US command and offer his services to the Confederacy.   Our history books have always taught this as “honorable,” choosing to serve Virginia rather than the nation.  But evaluating this decision today, Lee’s actions prolonged the war (by his generalship) and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.  McChrystal saw Lee as committing a tragic mistake, and after Charlottesville took the picture down.

I am a Civil War “buff;” trooping battlefields to imagine the struggle and sacrifice.  And I too saw Lee’s actions in a “neutral” way; making a difficult life choice in a time when all were forced to chose.  But, after listening in General McChrystal, I see a different analysis. Lee, a tremendous strategist and tactician, got the great question of his time wrong.  He chose the past, the “Southern cause;” rather than the future that even his own father’s peers saw for America.  Lee was the next generation from the founding fathers, his father, “Light Horse Harry” Lee was a Revolutionary hero and friend of George Washington.

Those men saw the future of the United States, and while they did not (or could not) end slavery, they compromised to get a nation based on “all men created equal.”  Robert E. Lee, did not see this future; instead he saw a past that he tried to defend. He failed, both in his decision, and his effort to maintain the slave South.

While we can look with sadness and admiration at the great sacrifices the Confederates made in Lee’s honor, we must also see that the greater tragedy was the decision Lee made in the first place.   Like the career of General McChrystal, Lee earned the right to be respected, but must ultimately be judged on failure:  not his failure to win at Gettysburg or the rest, but his failure to see America’s future.  I don’t have any portraits of Lee hanging in my office, but I have taken one down in my mind.

This is the same standard we should hold our own leaders to today.  We should stop thinking of  “moral neutrality” in our choices, for the past or future.  Whatever you think of President Trump, “Make America Great Again” is a march to the past.  That is how he should be judged.

Pittsburgh

Jenn and I went to Pittsburgh for the first time this weekend.  Some friends of ours, die-hard Steelers fans, love Pittsburgh, and they wanted us to see it through their eyes.   We literally did the tour:  seeing the stadium, the old Fort Pitt (the original point of civilization in the American frontier,) ate at a Kelly O’s Diner (as seen on TV,) had awesome meatballs in a restaurant on Penn Street.

In Pittsburgh they have San Francisco-like hills leading from the rivers that surround the downtown. And like San Francisco, Pittsburgh built cable driven cars to go up the incredibly steep hills, called “Inclines.” Two are still working, and on Saturday morning we went to the top the top of the Duquesne Incline.  After seeing the awesome view, we rode back down to river level, waiting for our tour bus.

From all over town came the wail of sirens:  police heading through the maze of tunnels and bridges and “uptown.”  One of our friends, a police officer, thought it seemed like a mass shooting kind of response.  A new acquaintance we met in the Incline car from Northern California turned his phone into a police scanner, and we began to hear the awful news. It started with this broadcast to police, “…don’t go out on Wilkins Avenue, you’ll get shot!!”  We watched the armored SWAT vehicle race through town, then more police, and then ambulance after ambulance.

Our next stop was the Rivers Casino where we saw the tragedy revealed on television.  Pittsburghers were saddened, worried about the dead and wounded, and about the police officers that were injured trying to end the carnage.  But they also were resilient; it’s a big town with a lot to do, and a lot of people there for all sorts of different reasons.  So we went on, seeing the monument to Mr. Rogers (the attack was in Mr. Rogers’ actual neighborhood) and following the news on our phones.

That evening we went to an Irish pub on the “Strip Section” (not from strippers, but from strip mining that leveled the area in the late 1800’s.)  The owner was holding a benefit for Haiti, but he spent time talking about the members of his “pub family” who were affected by the attack as well.  We sang Amazing Grace in their honor, and Haiti relief did very well, especially from the visitors from Ohio who became part of the Malaney “pub family” for the night.

Sunday most of the guests in our hotel were headed to the Steelers/Browns game.  But while the inevitable talk was about the game (and how the Steelers would win:  they did) there was always a pause, and sad eyes, and “what is wrong with the world” conversation.  On TV was the Mayor of the city, exhausted, talking about gun control and AR-15’s.  The rest of the media world wondered:  how can we, in this week of attempted bombings and a completed mass shooting:  how can we get our nation to stop raising the rhetoric so high that those on the edges fall into madness?

And in our little hometown of Pataskala, there was outrage about the “Haunted Hoochie” (a series of barns where they scare the hell out of you for $25 – it’s Halloween) who decided that Saturday night was right for “swastika night.”  Wear a swastika as part of your costume (or painted or tattooed on your body) and you get in free.  They argued that swastikas represented real horror; but a lot of the community commented that it never was acceptable, it certainly wasn’t the night when eleven Jewish folks were murdered in their Synagogue by a racist with a rifle. There were a few who didn’t get it, and there probably were a few in Pittsburgh who didn’t either.  But most of the town was outraged.

It has to stop.  We need leadership who backs civility, not pays lip service to it then jokes about having a “…bad hair day.”  We need the President to stop calling the news the “…enemy of the people (Trump-10/29/18 am);” and dabbling in conspiracies like a “…Soros funded Caravan from Central America.”   It isn’t that the President and these others are causing violence, but they have contributed to the climate.

President Trump is not anti-Semitic.  His  daughter and son-in-law are  conservative Jews, he could have been at the service on Saturday. And Trump sees himself as a great supporter of Israel.  But he has allied himself with some who would use anti-Semitism to further their political goals:  the dark conspirators on the internet, who see George Soros and Tom Steyer and Chuck Schumer not as loyal Americans, but as a part of a Jewish cabal looking to take over the world.

Next week’s election may not change that.  Changing the President might not either:  Trump is a symptom, someone who caught onto this, not the creator. It will take a lot of communicating for all sides to get back to what America can be.  The Steelers and the Browns fans rose together for a moment of silence on Sunday, maybe there’s a way for all of us to find common ground for talk, even if we disagree.  That’s what our leaders need to do, from whatever party or view they represent.  Common ground to end the killing ground we are creating.

 

 

 

 

 

On a Happier Note

My wife and I are headed out; it’s time for retired folks to travel!!  I’ll keep on writing, (computers work everywhere, but probably not for the next few days or so) but before I leave I wanted to point out some “happier” news in our world.

We live in Licking County, Ohio, in the middle of “Trump Country.”  That’s also in the heart of Ohio’s 12^thCongressional District, the one that Democrats almost flipped in the August Special Election. Two years ago the Republican won with 66% of the vote, in August it was a mere .02%.  The polls show it’s just a close for the November 6^thelection. If Dems can win here, they can win everywhere.

Of course we voted, early, at the Licking County Board of Elections in Newark, Ohio.  And we did have to stand in line for fifteen minutes, I hope (and think) that’s a good sign.  As we stood in line, we got to witness an uplifting event.  An extended family, my guess would be of Indian or Pakistani descent, were casting their first votes as American citizens.  There were the great-grandparents, grandparents, parents and young kids (they came along for the ride) all casting their first votes.  Some were given help with translating the ballot language (Ohio has a State Issue that reduces drug possession penalties in favor of treatment) and they completed their civic duty.

After they voted, they all gathered in front of the building, under the “Licking County” sign, and took a family picture.  It reminded my of how important the vote is to those who may not have had that opportunity in their past lives. In our nation where less than 50% vote even in the most important elections, these new citizens made it a family outing to go and exercise their rights.  I don’t know who they voted for, and there was some “unrest” in the line as “L County” dealt with diversity, but I was proud of those new citizens, and proud of the nation they joined.

The other uplifting recent event in our lives started with sad news.  A young friend was diagnosed with breast cancer, faced with the struggles of chemotherapy and surgery.  She and her husband are also confronted with the reality of American healthcare:  no matter how well you are financially prepared, a major health crisis creates a major financial crisis as well.  My wife managed the effort to raise funds, not necessarily to cover the costs (estimated at over $400,000 in the next two years) but to help keep their lives going, as our friend missed work due to treatments and dealt with the day-to-day bills.

We asked our small town, Pataskala, to buy T-Shirts and raffle tickets (Ohio State football tickets on the line) and drop their change in cans in the local stores.  And, as this town does, the folks of Pataskala helped out, and we raised close to $3000 in a couple of weeks. No one asked whether you were a Trump supporter (though by the averages, most of Pataskala was) they just helped out.  The town mayor stopped by and bought a T Shirt and a ticket – $30 – for $100. By the way, when the internet explodes with small town crisis, he posts pictures of goats and sunsets to calm everyone down. He’s what you want in a small town leader.

Local stores asked what they could do, from gift certificates for raffles to donation jars on their counters.  Everyone we asked wanted to help, from bars to beauty salons.

Maybe our small town is best symbolized by this story.

We set up our camper in the Hardware store parking lot on Sunday morning in the rain. The goal was to sell T-Shirts, but it was cold and wet, and we weren’t sure anyone would stop. At ten, just as we got setup, a mini-van pulled in and a man jumped out. “I saw this on Facebook,” he said “and didn’t want to miss out.”  He dropped $10 in the can, and said “God bless you.”  We asked if he wanted any of the items we had to sell, but he said no, he just wanted to be a part of helping.

Eventually it warmed up a little, and the sun came out, and we made close to $1000.

In our world, dominated by the negativity of the President and the frustration of politics, it’s easy to get so “them against me” that we end up “sticking to our own side.”  It’s good to see, even in Pataskala, Licking County, Trump and God’s country, that people can still be people; willing to help and excited to be Americans.  Good things still happen.

As we grow more fragmented and polarized, that’s important to remember.

Respect

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, George Soros, John Brennan, CNN, Maxine Waters, Robert DeNiro, Joe Biden – List of those receiving mail bomb attacks as of 10/25/18 AM

A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST! – President Donald Trump Tweet, 10/25/18

 The mail bomb attacks on high profile Democratic opponents is not the President’s fault.   It is a product of the environment; of our time of polarization and divisiveness.  We all know it.  It takes two sides to have a fight, and while Democrats (including me) would place blame on the President himself, in reality both sides have engaged in an ugly fight.

Ask Brett Kavanaugh.

But there is also a time when we expect the President of the United States, our President; to step across the divide and, at least for the crisis, try to unify the nation.  We are in one of the crises; two former Presidents have been attacked as well as a long list of those who have voiced their opposition to Donald Trump.

But the President sees everything in “us and them” terms.  It is the Trump trademark:  when you get hit, hit back harder.  The President can’t “hit” back against the bomber, but he can strike against those who might blame him for the environment.  So, in this moment of national fear, the President has followed the failed path of his Charlottesville strategy.  He allowed cooler heads in the White House to prevail for a moment, for the scripted call for “national unity.”  Then he got on Air Force One, flew to Wisconsin, and went right back on the attack.  “Lock her up” and  “Fake News” were part of his rant last night and this morning’s tweet.    He even mocked “being nice.” But for the Grace of God, the Secret Service and the NYPD (and the rest) they could have all been dead.

Donald J Trump does not respect the Presidency.  He doesn’t understand the role of leader of the United States.  And it’s not just in this moment of domestic terrorism:  last night the New York Times reported that the President continues to use unsecured mobile phones, disregarding the advice of his National Security advisors.  The Times reports that Chinese and Russian intelligence are listening to his conversations, gathering information, and developing operations to influence the President using his own words.

This is a President whose main campaign slogan was “lock her up.”  He claimed that Hillary Clinton, in using a private email server, violated US security laws and should be imprisoned.  So a President who uses unsecured communications that he KNOWS is being tapped by foreign intelligence agencies is better?

One line in the article, quoting Administration officials, is chilling.

They said they had further confidence he was not spilling secrets because he rarely digs into the details of the intelligence he is shown and is not well versed in the operational specifics of military or covert activities.

The President can’t reveal secrets because he doesn’t know them. Another sign of disrespect for the Office; he won’t even do the work required to protect the nation.  And the unnamed Administration officials who “leaked” this story, said they did so not to damage the President, but to get him to listen to their concerns.  He won’t hear them in person, but he will “read it in the Times.”

There are more bombs out there.  As I write, they found a second mailed to Joe Biden.  Lets hope they are all found, without loss of life.  It’s a tough day to be a Postal Worker.  And every day is a tough day to be President of the United States.  It is a complex role, one that Americans look to during times of ultimate crisis.  In American history “lore,” there is the belief that those who become President “unprepared” grow into the job.  Harry Truman is the most recent example that historians cite.

We are waiting Mr. President.  Waiting for you to show that you understand the Presidency.  The first thing you can do is to show respect for the awesome gift the country has granted you.  You haven’t yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a Nationalist

I am a Patriot.  I believe in the United States as an exceptional nation.  I believe that America, despite all of its flaws and failings, has been the “shining city on the hill” of Ronald Reagan’s voice, serving as an example to the world. I believe in the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal, and the structure of the Constitution.  They represent a hope of freedom and prosperity unprecedented in world history.

I am not a Nationalist. While I believe in American exceptionalism I do NOT believe that it was founded on some warped and racist view of white supremacy.  I, in fact, believe in the opposite:  that the strength of the United States is in its admixture of cultures, ethnicities, and races.  America is best represented by its Main Streets:  Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Southern, Soul, McDonalds and Starbucks all lined up beside each other.  That is the America I believe in, one that draws strength from all of its diverse cultures.

I share in the dream of the “caravan” forming thousands of miles away in Central America.  They have lived in danger, in poverty, in fear for their children’s lives.  They are looking for a better life and a better place; of course they are coming to America.  While that represents a problem, they  represent the BEST of what America offers the world. How we respond, either with compassion, love and respect for the risks they took; or with guns, prisons and families ripped apart:  that will say what America is today.

The President of the United States has tapped into a dark side of America.  The fear and inadequacy that some feel; the loss of unearned power based on skin color and wrongful tradition, have left a sad few looking for answers in hate and repression.  The President has found a way to tap into the power of that fear, and use it to leverage the ballot box and subvert the principles of his political party.  That fear is strong enough to silence or ostracize those within his party that dare to speak differently.

We used to speak of “dog whistles;” quiet signals of nationalism and racism that only few could hear.  Mr. Trump has carried us into a different age, where there is no need to whisper. He has shouted the dog whistles into clarion calls.  Not only does he speak of “nationalism” as positive, empowering the hate, but he has given license to all those petty acts of racism that go on day to day.  Whether the police are called for “blacks barbecuing in the park” or “restaurant staff speaking in Spanish,” or folks are publicly shamed through the anonymity of Facebook; we are in a new age of hate.

This is nothing new to America.  In my college dorm room in the early 1970’s I put quotes on my wall.  One was Robert Kennedy’s:

 There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?  I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

He represented the best of what America could be, ripped away at the moment we needed him most.  But contemporaneous with him, was an American “nationalist,” George Wallace, who stood on the capital steps in Montgomery, Alabama and stated: 

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

There were of the same era and the same political party.  Wallace’s “greatest people” were white.  The “tyranny” he fought was the Federal government enforcing integration and equal opportunity.  I had both quotes on my wall to remind me what we were fighting for, and against.

We thought, and hoped, that the sentiments of George Wallace had faded away.  They certainly were suppressed and made unacceptable in public discourse.  But clearly they were not gone, and Mr. Trump has become a new voice for their sad views.  He can’t even claim to have invented this old fear, he simply has made it “acceptable”  again and given it power.

He is stoking those suppressed views to bring out his vote, to stand against the America of the future.  It is disheartening to see our nation revert to the arguments we thought we left on the wall in some dim dorm room forty years ago,  but here we are.  We need to fight the fight and win once again.  So pick up your protest sign, cast your ballot, and stand for what is great in America.  We changed the world before, we can do it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anticipation

Carly Simon playing in “Anticipation” in the background

There seems to be a growing malaise among Democrats about the coming mid-term elections.  We are told that the “Trump Base” is being energized by the lies the President is spouting:  from the “invasion of the caravan” to the “Democratic Mob (it’s funny how those two seem to get conflated – is he really saying Democrats are bringing in 6000 immigrants to add to a “mob” against him?)   And now there are the phantom riots in California (of course California) not to be confused with the “Bowling Green Massacre” of yore.

The common theme seems to be if the “Trump Base” shows up at the polls, they win, just like 2016.  We can see it in the polling; what looked like a Democratic sure-thing two months ago now seems a lot shakier.

To quote the kids from Parkland – I call B.S.  Here’s why.

First of all, let’s look at history.  Since Franklin Roosevelt became President in 1932, in the twenty-one midterms held, only three times has the President’s Party House NOT lost votes in the House; 1934, 1998 and 2004.  In fifteen of those elections the Party in power lost votes in the Senate as well. It is traditional, historic, and it makes sense.  After two years of a President, Americans have always had a tendency to “hedge their bet,” giving more power to the Party out of the White House.  We have a tradition of wanting more “checks and balances” on the now not-so-new President.

Yes we are in the “post-apocalyptic” Trump Era; where all rules seem to be “off;” but the weight of history still weighs on the Democratic side – for this election.

Second, polling is not just the “random” phone calls placed to thousands of people that we think of from the “old days.”  Fifty years ago, the biggest concern was that somehow a polling sample would be biased like the famous 1948 polling that showed Republican Tom Dewey defeating Democrat Harry Truman.   Its biggest problem was that it depended on telephone responses in an America where many didn’t have phones yet.

Today polling is done with much smaller numbers of respondents, and their responses are weighed to match their proportion in the voting population.  This “voting turnout model” tries to match the profile of the respondent with a predicted voter model, that they then use to anticipate how that group will show up to vote.  It all sounds technical, and it is, but the key point is this:  Democrats traditionally don’t show up for mid-term elections, so polling models will reflect that tradition.  If Democrats overwhelm the model, with a significantly larger voter turnout, then the outcomes will be different.

If Democrats didn’t vote in mid-terms, they surely didn’t show up for special elections.  But in the “Trump Era” they have, over and over again. They showed up overwhelmingly in the Alabama special Senate election where Democrat Doug Jones won.  It happened in the Pennsylvania special House election where Democrat Conor Lamb won.  It happened in the Ohio House special election where Democrat Danny O’Connor nearly won, almost flipping a District that voted two-thirds for the Republican in 2016.  Recent history trends to a large Democratic turnout.

And Republicans – they always show up.  That’s been the history over the same seventy-two year period.  So if Republicans always show up, and Democrats usually don’t; but Dems are showing up now – that should mean a big change.

And why wouldn’t Democrats show up.  There is a huge list of issues that should drive Democrats to the polls, led by healthcare.  Yesterday the Trump Administration issued rules allowing states to exempt themselves from parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the pre-existing conditions clauses (Huffington Post.)  This week the President is examining ways of removing civil rights from the transgendered.  The United States is threatening to withdraw from nuclear weapons treaties, and the Republican leaders of Congress, having given away trillions in tax cuts, are now discussing how to reduce Medicare and Social Security costs.

If that doesn’t get Dems to the polls, DACA, child separation, Kavanaugh, all should motivate them.  And if those issues motivate Republicans too, so be it.  History shows that when Dems show up, they win.  They would have in 2016 too, had the total negativity of the election not persuaded many to stay home.

Don’t let today’s negativity stop you.  History is on the Democrat’s side.

Vote.

Winner Take All

• A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours. In the same way, by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.
• Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.

      Niccolo Machiavelli

President Trump was interviewed by Leslie Stahl of CBS’s Sixty Minutes the other night.  One of the questions she asked, was how the President justified mimicking the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford testified that as a teenager, she was sexually attacked by Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.

Stahl:  And you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford.  You mimicked her. 

President Donald Trump: Had I not made that speech, we would not have won.  I was just saying she didn’t seem to know anything. 

The telling point:  had  “I” (Trump) not done that, we would not have won.  To the President, it’s all about “winning and losing.”  Trump believes that his actions opened the way for Republicans in the Senate, and in general, to attack Ford’s testimony.  It allowed them to deny her “truth” as a victim, and opened the way for others to arrive at the contorted logic of Senator Susan Collins; that while she believed Ford was a victim, she didn’t believe Kavanaugh was the attacker.  Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court: the outcome is “everything.” What happens along the way is simply “collateral damage.”

He applies this same logic to the fate of Jamal Khashsoggi at the hands of the Saudi government.  Regardless of who’s at fault for the torture, death and dismemberment of Khashsoggi, “winning and losing” is about defense sales to the Kingdom.

Trump:   I tell you what I don’t wanna do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com– I don’t wanna hurt jobs. I don’t wanna lose an order like that. There are other ways of– punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.

Winning:  it’s about the deal Trump made with the Saudis.  It’s about money.  It really doesn’t  have much to do with morality, the focus is on tangible cash.  Winning is the central image of the “Trump Brand,” and the central goal of the Trump Administration.

Of course this has been the trajectory of the Trump Administration since it first began: burning all bridges as he came down the golden escalator in Trump Tower, calling Mexicans drug dealers and rapists. Trump found a sympathetic rhythm with some of the electorate; worn thin by changing mores and political correctness. The common morality:  respecting others, not calling people names, not intentionally lying; these were no longer important, at least to those who found common cause with him.

It is the basis for the opposition outrage, beyond what many felt for even Ronald Reagan when he was first elected.  Trump, daily, challenges the rules of behavior we hold in common, and “gets away with it.”  Put that in contrast with President Barack Obama, known for his calm, cool, and empathetic actions, and the extremes exacerbate the situation.  The “Resistance” not only disagrees with his policies, but they see the man himself as a profanation of what the President of the United States should be.

From a political perspective, does Trump’s behavior represent a “sea-change” in American politics, or is it just an aberration restricted to only him?  Democrat Michael Avenatti demands that the Party fights “fire with fire,” willing to use the same concepts of morality to combat him.  He claims that Democrats are “too nice” and “too bound by rules.”  Other Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, have said similar things.

The problem with that, is it requires Democrats to accept the “ends” as well as the “means.”  For many Democrats, steeped in the liberal tradition of empathy and civil liberties; using those “means” to achieve anything, is in itself an unacceptable “end.”

To Trump, it’s all about winning, at whatever the cost.  President Trump proposed another tax cut last night, and called on Congress to pass them before the mid-terms.  He knows Congress is in recess until after the mid-terms, but it doesn’t matter.  He threatens to send the military to the border to stop a “caravan” of migrants coming north from Central America, even though that would violate the law.  He says he will protect Medicare and Social Security, even as his Party’s majority leader plots to cut them.

It energizes his base, and undermines another pillar of the foundation of truth.  But if he can “win” on November 6^th, then it doesn’t matter.  The modern father of politics, Machiavelli said it best:  A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours.

But Democrats can take some heart in the second part Machiavelli’s phrase:  by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.

We can only vote – and hope.

Eyes on the Prize

Fox News Headlines (Thursday, October 18^th)

• DEM OPERATIVE ARRESTED IN ASSUALT STAYED EMPLOYED DESPITE REPUTATION FOR “HOSTILE” TACTICS
• ELIZABETH WARREN’S DNA EXPOSES PARTY’S BIGGEST FLAW
• STATE DEPARTMENT DILEBERATIVELY MISLED IN HLLLARY EMAIL LAWSUITS

Note:  first mention of Khashgogi torture/death – eighteen items down on webpage, behind cloud pattern that looks like eyes and man who fell into mine shaft and kills three rattlesnakes.

Trending on Facebook: why care about Khashoggi when four Americans killed at Benghazi?

Democrat and Independent Friends who want to begin to change the Trump Administration:  to use the hallowed expression of the Civil Rights movement, we need to keep “Eyes on the Prize.” The prize:  the mid-term election in less than three weeks, control of the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate, and a majority of the state governors. There are lots of issues that distract us away from this goal – some by our own party members.

The issues that should energize Democrats and Independents to go to the polls:

• Healthcare – including affordability and covering pre-existing conditions
• Stagnant income; most workers have not seen a rise in real income in years
• Maintaining the rights of women, and LGBTQ
• Safe and compassionate border control
• Improving Educational opportunities and reducing the burden of student debt
• Protecting folks from gun violence
• Protecting the environment
• Working to end opioid epidemic
• Making sure everyone eligible to vote, can vote
• Changing the “tone” of America.

Those Democrats and Independents that are motivated by what is going on in the Mueller Investigation are going to show up and vote.  The don’t need to be encouraged, and they don’t need to hear talk of “impeachment.” Americans will be ready for that process if, and when, convincing evidence is presented to them.  Until that time, it is premature and self-defeating to talk about it. Keep your “Eyes on the Prize.”

There will be a robust competition for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2020, and that competition will certainly begin shortly.  But for the next three weeks it’s not about 2020, it’s about Right NOW.  Elizabeth Warren trying to resolve her Native American ancestry; Hillary Clinton trying to justify her husband’s actions in light of the #MeToo era; Joe Biden trying to stay relevant, the “Sanders Wing versus the Clinton Wing:” none of this is making it more likely that Democrats will gain control of the House and Senate.  They need to stop and get their “Eyes on the Prize.”

There will be distraction after distraction.  Democrats will be called “radicals” and “mobs”; we will be threatened with “Argentina” and “antifa” as the results of Democratic control.  And (can you believe it) now:  THE CARAVAN is coming.  The George Soros/Nancy Pelozi Party is (supposedly) paying people to come from Central America to “storm” our borders; the ARMY may be needed to protect us.

Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear: that’s what President Trump is selling his followers.  Fear that Democrats might get some power, fear that they might shine a light on what the Trump Administration is doing on multiple fronts.  Be scared:  so get out and vote for Trump.

Democrats are faced with a different problem.  It’s not about fear (though fear of what Trump might do next does motivate some.) It’s not complacency, it’s more about “giving up.”  Democrats need to get their voters to believe that things can be different, they need to get their voters to vote for change, they need to get “Eyes on the Prize.”

Nineteen days until the mid-term elections.  The choices are actually pretty stark:  fear or change, the last two years or a different future, a nation focused on helping the top 1% or one that works for everyone.  Nineteen days until we can begin to change.  Don’t get distracted, don’t get sucked into old arguments or old “memes” created in a building in Russia.

“Eyes on the Prize.”

 

 

Voter Suppression

America is changing. The demographics of our country are becoming “browner;” and within twenty years “white people” will no longer be a majority.  This is not because the “white” population is shrinking, but other groups, particularly Hispanics, are growing faster.  The America of 2040 will look different than the America of 2000, and for some that’s terrifying.

After Mitt Romney’s failed Presidential election of 2012,  the Republican Party did an “autopsy” report.  The bottom line:  the Republican Party needed to broaden its appeal beyond the white rural and suburban populations because those groups aren’t big enough to secure victories anymore. The Party needed to expand, particularly into the growing Hispanic populations in swing states like Florida.

But, with his very first speech announcing his run for President, Donald Trump threw the report out the window.  He “doubled-down” on border control and racism, speaking of  “…murderers and rapists coming from Mexico” and crossing the border.  He automatically limited Republican outreach, but helped generate a backlash of white voters enough to gain the Presidency.

So the Republican Party is faced with finding different means of maintaining electoral power.  Their 2010  “Redmap” plan to win state governments and gerrymander districts put them in charge of a majority of state legislatures.   Gaining control of the state houses allowed them not only able to draw the maps, but also set the standards for voting.

Through leaders like Kris Kobach of Kansas, the Party “created” a problem:  illegal voting in elections.  While every objective analysis of US voting shows there is almost no illegal voting occurring, the Republicans generated a “crisis” of “thousands and thousands” of illegal voters, changing the outcome of elections.  They then passed a series of laws to restrict access to voting.

To white suburban voters some of these regulations seemed reasonable.  Photo identification of voters, the need to have a current residential address, purging the voting rolls of those who failed to vote for several elections:  all seemed like a good way to “secure” elections from those phantom illegal voters.

But for those who live in urban areas and don’t drive, for those who are young and changing their residence often, for those who only get interested in Presidential elections: all of these changes take away their vote.  Disenfranchisement has its greatest impact on the poor, minorities, and the young.  It is little surprise that those groups tend to vote Democratic; the Republican plan is to maintain power by reducing the power of the electorate.

MSNBC, in a series of recent reports, has highlighted specific areas of voter suppression directly effecting the 2018 election.  The first is in North Dakota, where Native American voting may well determine the Senate election between Democratic incumbent Heidi Heitkamp and her Republican challenger Congressman Kevin Cramer.  Voters in Native American reservations traditionally don’t have “street addresses,” instead receiving their US mail at a Reservation Post Office box. That PO Box serves as their “official” address for the purposes of the tribal identification documents.

The North Dakota state legislature, under Republican control, changed the identification requirements for voting.  Starting with this election, all voters must have government (or tribal) identification with a “street address” listed.  As the reservations don’t have “street addresses” the law effectively attempted to disenfranchise thousands of Native Americans.  In 2012 the total of votes in North Dakota Senate race was 319,738; the difference between the two candidates:  1,936. The reservations voted overwhelming for Heitkamp, the Democrat.

While tribal officials are fighting a desperate battle to get their votes counted, voters on the reservations are likely to face challengers at the polls, questioning their right to vote.  Even if the votes ultimately do count, it is likely that the voter turnout will be reduced by the crisis.

In Georgia, over 53,000 new voter registrations have been “flagged.”  A new Georgia voting law, passed by the Republican legislature, requires that all names and addresses on registration documents must be an exact match to government identifications.  This includes differences in commas and hyphens.  These new registrations have not been processed, and those voters are NOT notified that they can vote. The 53,000 will be allowed to cast “provisional” ballots, but those will be challenged and the voters forced to produce documents verifying their information.  Over seventy percent of the registrations are minorities.

And North Carolina, a state that has a long record of blatant black voter suppression, continues to “tweak” the process.  This year they have, like neighboring Georgia, reduced the number of early polling locations; making it harder to get to them, and creating longer lines at the polls. Also the new North Carolina law makes it difficult for counties to open for Sunday early voting, requiring them to open all of their polling places if they open one.  Sunday voting is favored by many black churches, who go after services.

This is all intentional: keeping Democratic voters from voting. Lower voter turnout favors Republican candidates.  But, as Martin Luther King and Barack Obama both quoted:  “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  Ultimately the changes in the American population will change our government.  But for this election:  Democrats must fight through the tactics of suppression, overcome the obstacles; and vote.

 

 

 

 

Our Friend Saudi Arabia     (thanks West Wing)

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome Priest?” – Henry II of England, speaking of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Four of his knights then murdered him. 

“Here we go again – guilty until proven innocent” – President Trump about Saudi involvement in the Jamal Khashoggi murder

So the Saudi “re-write” of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is coming out.  Now his torture, death, and dismemberment is being blamed on “over-achieving” subordinates of Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, MBS.  MBS plotted to have Khashoggi drawn back to Saudi Arabia earlier in the summer, probably to be held in custody.  Since Khashoggi wouldn’t fall for those inducements to return to Saudi Arabia, the unofficial word now is that the Prince’s subordinates took it to the next level, without his knowledge.

Turkish authorities have released the names of the fifteen Saudis who arrived on two separate private jets the morning Khashoggi disappeared.  Eleven are listed as members of Saudi security forces or the Saudi Royal Guard.  One, Khalid Aedh Alotaibi, has travelled with MBS and other top members of the Saudi Royal family on past US trips.  Another, Muhammed Saad Alzahrani, is a direct bodyguard of the Prince.

We are now to believe that the elite guards of Prince Monhammad bin Salman, took it upon themselves to commit international murder of a US resident and Washington Post columnist without the knowledge of their boss.  And we are also to believe that the “poor” Prince has been in a deep depression since the killing.

It’s Saudi Arabia, and if necessary, heads will roll, literally, to keep the reputation of the Prince intact.  The cover story is coming together, and like the famous opening lines of the Mission Impossible franchise, “…should any of your force be caught or killed, the Prince will disavow any knowledge of your actions.”  Only the victim was killed so far, but the international outrage that resulted may require a “full disavowal.”

The next question is what will the United States do?  Secretary of State Pompeo was sent by the President to “go talk to Prince bin Salman,” but the images that came back from that conversation looked more like a pleasant conversation with a photo op.  And the President himself has been a driving force in the cover story; the first to release the idea of the “rogue agents” acting alone, and already is building excuses for the Prince.

The rest of the Republican leaders are trying to provide the “moral cover” for the Party.  Lindsey Graham said about MBS:

 “This guy is a wrecking ball, he had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey, and to expect me to ignore it, I feel used and abused.” 

But don’t expect Graham and others to act on their statements; as soon as the cover story is fully in place, they will condemn MBS for not controlling his subordinates, then let relations with Saudi continue on their “merry way.”

That’s about jobs and money, American jobs and money.  While the President has vastly overstated Saudi commitments to buy US weapons, saying the deals have been made for $116 billion (the actual number is closer to $30 billion,) as he says, Boeing, and Lockheed (or Lock-heeyeed,) and Raytheon are depending on Saudi contracts. What’s the murder of one Saudi citizen, who happened to live in Virginia and write for the Post, compared to that?

It’s also about the Trump/Kushner “grand plan” for Middle East security.  Jared Kushner, who has developed an extremely close relationship with Prince bin Salman, sees Saudi as the Islamic pillar of his peace plan, cooperating with Israel to counter-balance the force of Iran.  The US arms sales are to build Saudi up to compete with Iran, ultimately pushing the Iranians back out of Syria and Iraq, and reducing their influence with extremists in Lebanon and Palestine.

All of this sounds persuasive:  a master plan to rebuild the Middle East, based on the power of US and Israeli arms and the strength of Saudi Arabia.  The problem with the strategy:  Saudi Arabia historically has been a “transactional partner” with every nation.  They make the best deal they can at the time, but that deal does not mean any kind of long-term commitment.  If the next deal from someone else is better, they go with that.  To sink billions of dollars of weapons into Saudi may be a good short term US economic move, but does not guarantee Saudi loyalty to a future Middle East vision.

What it does do is show that the United States is no longer a nation dedicated to principle.  We are willing to allow “our friends” to violate international law, and even murder those who are under an umbrella of US protection, as long as the “price is right.”  Our international standing, long based on the “City on a Hill” image of the US, is now based on cash; a transactional one, like the Saudis.

No wonder they get along with the Trumps.