Sanders Voters for Trump?

I am aware that polls show that a majority of Sanders supporters will not commit to supporting whoever ends up the with Democratic nomination.  I’m aware of the intense feelings and anger, then and continuing today, at the way Sanders was treated in 2016 by the Democratic establishment.  I am aware of the stupidity of Hilary Clinton’s recent statements criticizing Sanders on various points.

However, I was shocked to read the following today:

“Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whomever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump.”

I have never even heard rumors of this nature, let alone seen these numbers.  Although this data were from a column I respect, I checked and found that NPR and various news outlets have reported the same findings, based on the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.  Roughly 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

Obviously a Sanders supporter would not have voted for Trump because they believed he was the best choice.  He is against everything Sanders stands for, except his objection to NAFTA and similar free trade agreements.  But the data shows that was not a factor.  That only leaves one with one rationale:  These Sanders supporters voted for Trump out of spite to deny Hilary the presidency!

Forget about whatever Hilary or the Democratic establishment did during the 2016 primaries that was ill-advised or downright anti-Sanders.  I could see them sitting out the election; that would be harmful enough.  But that any significant number of Sanders supporters would be so spiteful that they would vote to put our country in the hands of someone like Trump truly boggles the mind.

From what I read, Sanders supporters are just as angry and vicious as ever.  Will a significant number do the same in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?  It is a scary thought but one which realistically one has to consider a possibility, especially with Hillary continuing to make ill-advised remarks.  

This does not mean I would vote for Sanders in the primary even if I thought he could beat Trump.  Because I don’t like his anger and I don’t like the absolutism of his ideology.  Anyone who is that sure of himself is dangerous.  

But if he were the nominee, I would certainly vote for him.  That wouldn’t even be a question.  If Sanders does not win the nomination, he needs to speak to his supporters loud and clear, and not only urge them but instruct them to vote for the nominee.  That their being responsible for another 4 years of Trump would be a sin that they could never atone for, a ticket to hell.

Why Trump Won in 2016 - Fake News!

In the irony of ironies, it appears that the most important reason why Trump won the election was fake news.  He not only manufactured it, but it was spread as real news by several broadcast organizations, most importantly Sinclair Broadcast Group, not Fox.  

Yes, Hilary did not run a good campaign.  Yes, she wasn’t a very appealing candidate for many.  Yes, the white middle class was disaffected.  But that wasn’t why she lost.  She lost because an unsuspecting American public, especially in swing states, was fed an unrelenting diet of fake news.  And it is that fake news that secured the wins in Michigan, Ohio, and other states that made the difference.

This became clear after reading a truly shocking article in the New Yorker (October 22) about the growth and impact of Sinclair Broadcast Group  (“Breaking the News” by Sheelah Kolhatkar).  Here are the salient facts from that article:

Sinclair is the largest owner of television stations in the US, with 192 stations in 89 markets.  It reaches 39% of American viewers.  It’s chairman is David Smith, a radical Republican conservative and Trump supporter.

According to the Pew Research Center, 50% of Americans get their news from television.  And despite the general lack of trust in the media, 76% of Americans say they still trust their local news stations.  Because 20 million US households do not have cable or streaming television, they not only trust but rely on their local broadcast stations.

But guess what?  What often appears to be your local independent NBC, CBS, ABC, or even Fox affiliate is in fact owned by SInclair who has pressured them to be a mouthpiece for its conservative viewpoint developed at the national corporate level.  Because Sinclair often owns two or more stations in the same broadcast market, this version of the news has an even greater impact on how people view things.

For example, the corporate news department produces scripts that anchors are forced to read.  This became so egregious that in April 2018 Dan Rather responded by writing “News anchors reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, words meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it.  It’s propaganda.  It’s Orwellian.”

The corporate center also produces news segments that the stations are required to run, as well as mandatory commentary segments in which Mark Hyman spouts radical Republican fake news.  For example, in 1984, “Terrorist leaders would dearly love to see President Bush replaced by Senator Kerry.”

How did Sinclair manage to assemble this network when there are regulations that prevent a company from owning 2 stations in the same market?  It created companies that it said were independent, but in fact were staffed by Sinclair loyalists and were controlled by Sinclair.  Even when it told the FCC that it had divested control, in fact they hadn’t.  

To quote the article, “None of this would have been possible without the willful blindness of the FCC.”  When Sinclair went too far, arousing public-interest groups and media organizations to complain to the FCC, an FCC investigation in 2001 found that indeed Sinclair exercised control over these stations.  The penalty?  Not divestiture but a paltry $40,000 fine against Sinclair and the company it controlled.

By 2016 Sinclair was in a position to really make a difference in the election.  It’s stations were concentrated in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan.  These stations broadcast the Sinclair party line which was the Trump line.  According to the New Yorker article, the Sinclair CEO told Trump that “We are here to deliver your message.  Period.”  And Sinclair certainly delivered.

The Shakespeare line, “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much,” certainly applies here, as well as the old warning, “Beware a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  Trump and his conservative minions routinely complain about fake news.  This effective technique is a good example of “the big lie” strategy used by the Nazis in their rise to power.  If you call the real news broadcast by real news organizations “fake,” that lie renders the news that you broadcast by implication real, truthful, even though it is in fact fake.  

Having control over the media and its message has been an essential weapon of authoritarian regimes, regardless whether Communist, Nazi, or other stripe.   That’s why in this country the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press has been so jealously guarded by both the press and our government institutions.  That’s why there are regulations preventing any one voice from having too much control over the news in any given market.  

That the FCC allowed Sinclair to assemble its network and when forced to investigate acknowledged the truth but only applied a fine of $40,000 is nothing short of scandalous; a total dereliction of the duty they have as regulators.  If the Democrats take control of the House after the midterm elections, one of their first orders of business should be an investigation into Sinclair Broadcast Group and the forced breakup of the network.

What Does the Democratic Party Stand For?

If I see another article saying that Democrats have got to find a message to win back Congress and the White House, rather than just being anti-Trump, I’m going to scream.  Today in The New York Times and in a recent New Yorker, the call was for Democratic candidates with “the ability to articulate what the Democratic Party stands for.” 

How sad, yet how true.  Last December I wrote a post, “The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission.”  I  reprint that post here again.  I have been making the same arguments since 2004 when I wrote my book, We Still Hold These Truths.  When will the power-brokers in the party get it?

The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission:

It’s sad to see Democrats once again thrashing around, after November’s defeat, trying to figure out where there message failed and what they need to do in the future.  (Everyone that is but the Clinton campaign, who apparently doesn’t think there was anything wrong with their message, but that’s another problem.)  Some advocate focusing on youth and minority voters … the “Obama coalition.”  Others argue that attention must be paid to the white middle class worker.  Others, rural America.  And from reports, these groups seem to be at odds with each other.

It’s not unreasonable to analyze this question, Republicans certainly do the same.  The problem is that Democrats seem incapable of seeing the light.  This is a familiar pattern.  After the 2004 loss, Walter Mondale said, “We really need to work on what we are for.  Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don’t think we’re going to truly connect with the American people.”  Similar thoughts were voiced by many party leaders at the time.

As I said in the forward to the 2005 edition of my book, We Still Hold These Truths, “How sad and beyond belief that after a long and intense campaign, the quadrennial defining moment for the Party, it did not know the essence of what it stands for, what its vision is. How then could the American public?”  The same holds true today.

The problem does not arise because there is a conflict between the interests of the white middle class workers on the one hand and the interests of minorities and youth or rural America on the other.  The problem arises because Democratic leaders seem to think there is a conflict … they are trapped in identity politics.  I know the saying, “You can’t be all things to all people,” but in this case I don’t think it applies.  Let me explain why.

It comes back to the question of just what the Democratic Party’s mission is.  Mostly it’s been absent, at best implied.  Instead, the party has had a grab-bag of policies, the platform. But that is not a mission.  It makes it seem the party is just pandering to a bunch of different interests.  

They have presented no cohesive vision, no umbrella for all its policies.  And I don’t call Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan - cooperation is better than conflict - a vision.  John Kerry kept on saying that the 2004 election was about voting for change … but from what to what?  Obama certainly made clear what the change was, but he also had no clearly enunciated vision for the Party.  In response to Clinton's weak effort, I suggested the slogan, "Economic Justice for All," (see my post of that title, 7/24/16).

I wrote We Still Hold These Truths because I felt, as did many others, that the 2004 election could not be won on the basis of a negative, anti-Bush vote. The same held true for 2016 and a negative, anti-Trump vote.  To regain the White House and Congress, the Democrats had and still have to come up with a cohesive vision – an ideology – and communicate it forcefully in a way which resonates with the American people. 

Such a vision has not been forthcoming. My hope continues to be that my book will provide a new/old perspective with which to define what the Party stands for, a perspective at once so simple and familiar yet profound that it would be immediately grasped by the American people … the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence.

I therefore propose the following Mission Statement for the Democratic Party which will appeal to Americans rural and urban, regardless of faith, race, social status, gender, or sexual orientation, in red states and blue; a vision that reclaims the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Party (attacked by Republicans):

"To bring to life the promises set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

* each and every American has the best chance to experience the promise 

‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable Rights … Life,  Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’;

 * government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration …  

 ‘to secure those rights’,  within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and

* all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts 

to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

These words from the Declaration of Independence are the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is America’s common faith.  This is America’s social contract.  To further that promise of equality and opportunity with fiscal responsibility should be the clear mission of the Democratic Party.

All the policies of the Party naturally flow from this mission statement.  All American men, women, and children are owed the support of government policies in education, health care, civil rights, security, the economy, the environment, and taxation that provide a foundation of equal opportunity for all.  That is the American social contract. 

It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “life-affirming” force. It affirms the profound value of the lives of all living beings.  It acknowledges the suffering of millions of citizens … their lack of work, their lack of health insurance, their lack of enough food to eat, their lack of equal opportunity to acquire a good education … sometimes caused by economic forces, often simply the result of being born on the wrong side of the tracks.  It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “pro-family” force. How can a family be strong, healthy, and viable without meeting these basic needs?

It is these policies, which respect the value of all human life and the environment, that make the Democratic Party a party of faith – not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim … but deep religious faith. And because we respect freedom of religion, as well as the right to have no religious belief, we strongly support the Constitutional policy of the separation of church and state created by the Founders to insure the freedom of all to live according to their creed and conscience. The Democratic Party respects the valued and important place that religion has had and will always have in the fabric of American life.

But we must remember that no right, not even those in the Bill of Rights, are absolute.  For no person in the exercise of his or her rights can infringe on another person’s rights.  That is indeed the basis of all laws that control the relations of citizens in a civilized society, whether it be the criminal law, civil law, or government regulation.

In approaching our fellow citizens, we do ourselves and the people of this great country a disservice if we do not recognize the purity of their hearts and beliefs, their natural desire to provide for themselves and their families, and their basic desire to do what is just in the eyes of God.   Democrats must make the case to all Americans, not assuming that any American is ill-disposed to its vision, that their best interests and the best interests of the country lie in policies of the Democratic Party, not the Republican.

This focus on respect and equality must inform all of our actions.  If Democrats do not show that we practice what we preach, how can we expect anyone to believe us?  Legislators must voluntarily reduce the undue influence of lobbyists, big business, and the wealthy from our policy deliberations.  They deserve a place at the table, but they cannot displace or overwhelm the voice of the majority of citizens who have no realistic way, other than the vote, of expressing their point of view.  

Legislators can and should hold more town meetings with their constituents; they can survey their opinion on matters before Congress.  It is important that constituents know they are being listened to.

But because of the practical logistical limitations, constituents cannot compete in presence or volume with the voice of industry and wealth.  And so each legislator must in the end, on each matter before Congress, ask him- or herself what is in the best interests of average Americans, his constituents, versus the interests of industry and privilege.  Sometimes those interests will converge; sometimes they will not.  If they do not, it is the interests of the public that must prevail.  That is who legislators are elected to represent.

The message of We Still Hold These Truths is that Democrats must hold true to the heart of American democracy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and further elaborated in our Constitution … to the American social contract. We Still Hold These Truths presents an overarching vision that will resonate with the broad American public in red states as well as blue and win their hearts and minds. It is a vision that will successfully counter the radical Republican Conservative movement and reclaim the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Democratic Party.

Where Is Trumpgate’s Howard Dean?

Here are the basic facts as we know them at this time.  

1.  The Russian government, either directly or through surrogates, made numerous efforts to degrade Hillary Clinton in the eyes of the public and so swing the election to Donald Trump.  These efforts included not just the hacking and release of DNC emails, but using social media to bombard Clinton fence sitters with negative fake news stories.   

2.  Several highly placed members of the Trump campaign team and people close to the campaign had numerous contacts with the Russian government, including intelligence figures.  One of them, Roger Stone, stated on Twitter prior to the Wikileaks’ dump of the DNC emails that "Wednesday @Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks.”  Without question he knew what was coming.

Given these facts, several conclusions seem warranted, indeed obvious.

1. The Russian attempt to influence the election was so nefarious that it far surpasses Watergate’s break-in of the DNC headquarters.  If members of the Trump campaign team knew of this activity and stayed silent, they are guilty of treason.  If Trump was aware, he is guilty of an impeachable offense.

2.  Given the extent of contacts between Trump surrogates and the Russians during the campaign … not during the transition … it is at a minimum highly suspicious and more than likely that they were aware.  Also, remember that Trump at a news conference back in July said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”  The official spin was that he was being sarcastic.

This last little nugget seems to have been forgotten as I have not heard it mentioned in connection with the questions raised about the campaign’s contacts with Russians.  It is relevant that two Federal courts in reviewing the Trump travel ban referred to his statements during the campaign about barring Muslims from the country as evidence of the intent of the ban.

The investigations currently being conducted into this matter are behind closed doors, both by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and by the FBI.  And it is more than likely that nothing will come of these investigations because it will be very difficult to prove that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Collusion requires having a secret understanding.  And that's what both the FBI and the committees are looking into.  But I think that bar is too high.  Even if there was not a secret, unspoken, understanding, if there was just knowledge by the campaign that the Russians were acting to subvert the election and they remained silent, that should be sufficient to prosecute them for treason.  Likewise, if Trump was aware, that would constitute an impeachable offense.

But let’s say that, despite Roger Stone’s Tweet, the campaign was not aware of Russian efforts to subvert the election and swing it to Trump.  If they were trying to cozy up to the Russians during the campaign, letting them know that they would end the sanctions and in other ways carry out Trump’s pledge to have better relations with Putin, the question becomes “why?”  The only thing to be gained by the Trump campaign by such conversations with the Russians would be if they acted to influence the election.  

There is no other possible reason that would explain such conversations during the campaign, as opposed to during the transition.  So, I would hold that merely having such conversations, making such assurances, while perhaps not grounds for criminal prosecution, would if known by Trump be grounds for impeachment.

This matter is of such a high importance that there needs to be a Watergate-style public hearing in Congress so that the American people learn first-hand the full extent of the Trump campaign’s treasonable activity, if in fact that is what occurred.  But barring the emergence of a Howard Dean, who gives the lie to all the denials by Trump and his campaign associates of contact with the Russians regarding sanctions and other matters, it is quite probable that nothing will ever be proven.

The Two Ultimate Lessons for Democrats from 2016

Democrats are trying to figure out what to do, what to change in their game plan, to regain Congress in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.   There are various scenarios that people are putting together on how they can turn things around.

I have written after past elections, and I wrote in a post after this one, “The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission,” that Democrats need to drop identity politics and instead come up with an all-inclusive, cohesive vision of America’s future that people will respond to.   They must be clear where they want to take America and how they’re going to get there.  And that path must include a better life for all Americans.

But there is an even larger lesson to be learned; a point that distinguished the Trump campaign from all the others, including most past campaigns as well.  Trump won because he made people believe that he listened to them, to their suffering and questions, and he took up their cause with great vigor, a vengeance, fighting the establishment to right the wrongs.  

His anti-establishment and anti-elite rant was so appealing because many white working class people felt, with good cause, that the establishment had failed them despite having mouthed platitudes to them for decades … rural Americans had hardly been addressed at all.  And the elite who run the establishment were not in touch with their (white Americans’) suffering as opposed to people of color or other minority groups who they perceive as getting lots of attention.

If Democrats want to once again become the majority party, the party of the people, the lesson is not, as some are saying, that they need to listen and respond to the suffering of the white working class.  Yes, they definitely need to do that.  But they need to do that in the context of listening to all the people.  

Democrats need to show that they are there for everyone and that they can deliver for everyone.  They have to show that it doesn’t have to be one group’s interests v another’s.  They need to come up with a cohesive vision that works for all Americans and which all Americans respond to.

That’s why I’ve proposed the following Mission for the Democratic Party:

"To bring to life the promises set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

* each and every American has the best chance to experience the promise 

‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable Rights … Life,  Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’;

* government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration …  

‘to secure those rights’,  within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and

* all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts 

 to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

Democrats have gotten too cozy with big money, big business, big banks.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t please those interests and the people at the same time because unfortunately the goal of big business is all about making money.  Sometimes their interests are not in conflict with the general good, but often they are.  There is no social conscience or social purpose involved in corporate decision making, unless it helps them make money.

And so, in other posts of mine such as, “What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality” and “Our Failed Economic/Social/Political System,” I urge Democrats to shake up the status quo of how the country is run.  To change it from money/big business-centric to people-centric.  Obama pledged to get rid of the overwhelming influence of lobbyists and big business/banks, but he ended up doing neither.  

Bernie Sanders had the right idea.  His movement should not be allowed to become a mere footnote to this period of Democratic Party policy development.  Instead, it should be the core of a well-thought-through soft revolution that truly puts the country back in the hands of the people rather than big business.  Big business will still have a place at the table as they are an important part of the well-being of our country; but they will not be a controlling force. We must reestablish “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” 

Trump campaigned on doing just that … putting the country back in the hands of the people.  But his cabinet appointments show clearly that he is doing just the opposite.  He has put the foxes in charge of the hen house.  And the Republican-controlled Senate supported those appointments against almost unanimous Democrat opposition.  Democrats need to label Republicans for the hypocrites they are and remind the American people of this betrayal and its implications on a regular basis.  This cannot be a forgotten moment in history.

Yes, Virginia, There Is Hope - The Invisible Majority

Of all the unfortunate results of the 2016 campaign and election, perhaps the worst is that 

the divisive identity politics pursued by both parties resulted in a loss of any feeling that we are one people, one country.  Instead, post-election there are two opposing camps at war; so many angry voices, so much vilification on both sides.  For many it destroyed any sense of hope for our country.

The Clinton campaign will refute this charge, but even with its “Stronger Together” slogan it played divisive politics by consistently demeaning those who were supporting Trump.  And Clinton supporters did not hold back in their vituperative remarks.  

The election thus seemed to show two large disparate vocal groups.  The majority (but not the winners) were vocal supporters for a fair America defined by a fistful of people’s rights, but who seemed to care little for the plight of the American factory worker and to have no use for a reading of the 2nd Amendment that included an individual right to bear arms.  

The very vocal minority (but the winners) were what has been described as anti-establishment, anti-elite.  They were for bringing back good middle-class worker jobs and against globalization.  They were against large government.  The noise of the campaign also made it seem that they were anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic, anti-immigration, and anti-choice (against Roe v Wade).  Some would even claim anti-women.

I say “seem” because while this describes the direction of the two campaigns … the only real game in town voters had to choose from … it does not describe the voters.  Get away from the politics of the moment, and there is in fact a large American majority that crosses party lines and looks quite different from the rhetoric of the two campaigns.  

How is this invisible majority defined?  I think that first and foremost this invisible majority wants three things:

1.  They each want for themselves, as well as for all Americans, the opportunity to partake of the American dream; it should not just be for a select few.  They want America to start building things again and create solid middle-class working jobs.  They do not want to see any group given preference over another.  All should have equal opportunity and advancement should be based on merit and no other factor.  (See discussion below and my post, “Economic Justice for All.”)

2.  They want a secure America … secure from terrorist attacks and secure from everyday violence as they go about their lives.

3.  They want a government that listens to them, that clearly hears them.

As for the other what-I-would-call side issues … abortion, a Muslim registry, undocumented Latinos, gun control … the majority of Americans don’t support Trump’s position.  My proof?

Re choice/abortion, for the last two decades, according to the Pew Research Center, roughly 56% of American adults have said abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 41% have said it should be illegal.  

All Americans are against Muslim terrorists and support vetting new Muslim immigrants or travelers.  But according to a June 2016 Gallup report, only a minority, albeit a sizable one, is in favor either of banning all new Muslim immigrants (38%) or requiring Muslims U.S. citizens to carry a special ID (32%).  That is to me a disturbingly large number but still clearly far from the majority view.

As for undocumented Latinos, polls in recent years have consistently shown majority support for some path to citizenship.  As recently as September 2016, a CNN poll showed that 88% (including 80% of Trump supporters) would be in favor of a path to citizenship for all those who have a clean record, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English.

Then there is the divisive issue of gun control.  Gun owners fear, as a result of NRA fear mongering, that their guns will be taken away, but taking guns out of the hands of hunters and home owners has never even been an item of discussion among gun control advocates.  Virtually all Americans support access to appropriate guns for hunting and self-defense.  So even on the 2nd Amendment, there is broad agreement.  

That agreement extends to limitations on that right, for as with all constitutional rights, this one too is not absolute.  As shown in a 2016 Pew Research Center report, the majority of Americans are in favor of tighter control of who acquires guns and the types of guns. The vast majority favor expanded background checks for gun shows and private sales (88% D; 79% R), laws preventing the mentally ill from buying guns (79%), and a federal database to track guns sales (70% - 85% D; 55% R).  A majority also favors a ban on assault-style weapons (57% - 70% D; 48% R).  

So how come Trump won the election?  Why did all these people who don’t agree with him on so many issues vote for him?

First, as various articles have made clear, they voted for him because they believed he was the best chance for restoring good-paying middle class working jobs.  He clearly heard them and took up their cause.  Democrats have been promising this for years but have achieved little, as Trump kept on accusing Clinton during the campaign.  The jobs created during the Obama administration were not jobs that helped the former middle class worker and the post-recession upswing has not benefitted them.  

Second, the recent uptick of radical Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. was understandably frightening to many and they liked Trump’s strict talk.  Clinton said almost nothing useful about this subject.  Third, many people, even white educated women, voiced a real dislike for Hillary, which is why even a majority in that cohort voted for Trump.

And finally, and perhaps most decisively, Trump was defiantly anti-establishment, both regarding the Republican Party and government.  Clinton on the other hand is usually seen as the very embodiment of the establishment/government.

So while the election results give Trump a “mandate” to move forward with his economic plans, parts of his national security plan, and his general anti-government perspective, it should not be seen as a mandate regarding human/civil rights-related matters.  Nevertheless it surely will be taken to be a mandate regarding all areas covered by the campaign.  That’s what all winning elections claim.

More importantly, though, the election should not be taken by anyone as evidence that the majority of Americans have lost their common sense, their morality, and have become a bigoted, racist mass.  Of course there are bigots and racists out there; there always have been.  But even among Trump supporters, they form only a small percentage.  I honestly don’t even believe Trump is bigoted or racist; he certainly played those cards to win, but then so have others before him, just not as blatantly.

“But.” the reader may ask, “isn’t your statement about what the invisible majority wants off the mark?  What about the fact that so many Blacks are adamant about maintaining affirmative action and so many whites, especially middle class workers, are adamantly against it?”

No.  Remember that my statement starts with what everyone wants for themselves; that’s the starting point, the reference point.  Blacks feel as they do because despite our laws on equal opportunity, there has never been anything close to equal opportunity for Blacks in this country, especially the poor.  It starts with  poorly funded and neglected inner city schools and continues with the existence of discrimination in much of the job market.  

Whites on the other hand feel as they do because affirmative action has resulted in Blacks with less qualification still getting job preference 50 years after the civil rights laws were passed.  They may be considered part of the “privileged class” because they are white, but they do not feel privileged.  Many are suffering economically and angry that they see attention being given only to others’ rights, not theirs. 

If, as I say in that statement, everyone had true equal opportunity, I think all would feel that the only consideration in education, hiring, and advancement should be merit, not color.

Recognizing that Trump supporters are not the bogeyman, everyone on the progressive/center side of politics should be not only open to, but arguing for a new Democratic politics that reaches out to and forms a bond with the average Trump voter (many of whom were formerly mainstay Democrats).  This means foregoing identity politics and recognizing that we are all in the same boat and we all either swim or sink together.  And it means recognizing the things in Trump’s agenda which we can and should support because they are good for America. 

We need to say to Trump voters, “We support Trump’s efforts to create good-paying middle-class working jobs.  We support his efforts to restore and improve the country’s infrastructure.  

We feel for workers whose lives have been shattered and who have not been listened to.  We understand that we must make government more responsive to the people.  We know you are not racists or bigots.   You are upstanding citizens and we apologize that anyone has characterized you otherwise.

But there are dark forces out there which must be countered, and so we ask you to stand up as Trump supporters and make clear that:

- You support an earned path to citizenship for undocumented Latinos who have clean records, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English, 

- You oppose a Muslim registry of U.S. citizens, 

- You support reasonable efforts to stop the sale of guns to those who have evidenced that they cannot be trusted with the power of guns, and 

-  You unequivocally disapprove of any violent acts and vandalism taken by individuals/vigilante groups against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, LGBT people, Jews, or any other group.”  

I have not included abortion rights or other women’s rights issues in this outreach request because Trump voters’ support of these issues is not as great and I don’t think anything should distract from the large agreement on these other very important issues.

Whether white middle class worker, or black inner city dweller, or rural farmer, regardless what color, gender, faith, walk of life, ethnicity or sexual orientation, the government and the economy should be there for each and every one.  Everyone is entitled to equality and respect.  Everyone should have access to equal opportunity (whether people take advantage of it is their responsibility).  There is no inherent conflict between group interests here.  

That is the mandate of our Declaration of Independence.  And that is what we should be fighting for.

The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission

It’s sad to see Democrats once again thrashing around, after November’s defeat, trying to figure out where there message failed and what they need to do in the future.  (Everyone that is but the Clinton campaign, who apparently doesn’t think there was anything wrong with their message, but that’s another problem.)  Some advocate focusing on youth and minority voters … the “Obama coalition.”  Others argue that attention must be paid to the white middle class worker.  Others, rural America.  And from reports, these groups seem to be at odds with each other.

It’s not unreasonable to analyze this question, Republicans certainly do the same.  The problem is that Democrats seem incapable of seeing the light.  This is a familiar pattern.  After the 2004 loss, Walter Mondale said, “We really need to work on what we are for.  Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don’t think we’re going to truly connect with the American people.”  Similar thoughts were voiced by many party leaders at the time.

As I said in the forward to the 2005 edition of my book, We Still Hold These Truths, “How sad and beyond belief that after a long and intense campaign, the quadrennial defining moment for the Party, it did not know the essence of what it stands for, what its vision is. How then could the American public?”  The same holds true today.

The problem does not arise because there is a conflict between the interests of the white middle class workers on the one hand and the interests of minorities and youth or rural America on the other.  The problem arises because Democratic leaders seem to think there is a conflict … they are trapped in identity politics.  I know the saying, “You can’t be all things to all people,” but in this case I don’t think it applies.  Let me explain why.

It comes back to the question of just what the Democratic Party’s mission is.  Mostly it’s been absent, at best implied.  Instead, the party has had a grab-bag of policies, the platform. But that is not a mission.  It makes it seem the party is just pandering to a bunch of different interests.  

They have presented no cohesive vision, no umbrella for all its policies.  And I don’t call Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan - cooperation is better than conflict - a vision.  John Kerry kept on saying that the 2004 election was about voting for change … but from what to what?  Obama certainly made clear what the change was, but he also had no clearly enunciated vision for the Party.  In response to Clinton's weak effort, I suggested the slogan, "Economic Justice for All," (see my post of that title, 7/24/16).

I wrote We Still Hold These Truths because I felt, as did many others, that the 2004 election could not be won on the basis of a negative, anti-Bush vote. The same held true for 2016 and a negative, anti-Trump vote.  To regain the White House and Congress, the Democrats had and still have to come up with a cohesive vision – an ideology – and communicate it forcefully in a way which resonates with the American people. 

Such a vision has not been forthcoming. My hope continues to be that my book will provide a new/old perspective with which to define what the Party stands for, a perspective at once so simple and familiar yet profound that it would be immediately grasped by the American people … the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence.

I therefore propose the following Mission Statement for the Democratic Party which will appeal to Americans rural and urban, regardless of faith, race, social status, gender, or sexual orientation, in red states and blue; a vision that reclaims the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Party (attacked by Republicans):

"To bring to life the promises set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

* each and every American has the best chance to experience the promise 

‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable Rights … Life,  Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’;

          * government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration …  

          ‘to secure those rights’,  within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and

        * all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts 

          to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

These words from the Declaration of Independence are the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is America’s common faith.  This is America’s social contract.  To further that promise of equality and opportunity with fiscal responsibility should be the clear mission of the Democratic Party.

All the policies of the Party naturally flow from this mission statement.  All American men, women, and children are owed the support of government policies in education, health care, civil rights, security, the economy, the environment, and taxation that provide a foundation of equal opportunity for all.  That is the American social contract. 

It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “life-affirming” force. It affirms the profound value of the lives of all living beings.  It acknowledges the suffering of millions of citizens … their lack of work, their lack of health insurance, their lack of enough food to eat, their lack of equal opportunity to acquire a good education … sometimes caused by economic forces, often simply the result of being born on the wrong side of the tracks.  It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “pro-family” force. How can a family be strong, healthy, and viable without meeting these basic needs?

It is these policies, which respect the value of all human life and the environment, that make the Democratic Party a party of faith – not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim … but deep religious faith. And because we respect freedom of religion, as well as the right to have no religious belief, we strongly support the Constitutional policy of the separation of church and state created by the Founders to insure the freedom of all to live according to their creed and conscience. The Democratic Party respects the valued and important place that religion has had and will always have in the fabric of American life.

But we must remember that no right, not even those in the Bill of Rights, are absolute.  For no person in the exercise of his or her rights can infringe on another person’s rights.  That is indeed the basis of all laws that control the relations of citizens in a civilized society, whether it be the criminal law, civil law, or government regulation.

In approaching our fellow citizens, we do ourselves and the people of this great country a disservice if we do not recognize the purity of their hearts and beliefs, their natural desire to provide for themselves and their families, and their basic desire to do what is just in the eyes of God.   Democrats must make the case to all Americans, not assuming that any American is ill-disposed to its vision, that their best interests and the best interests of the country lie in policies of the Democratic Party, not the Republican.

This focus on respect and equality must inform all of our actions.  If Democrats do not show that we practice what we preach, how can we expect anyone to believe us?  Legislators must voluntarily reduce the undue influence of lobbyists, big business, and the wealthy from our policy deliberations.  They deserve a place at the table, but they cannot displace or overwhelm the voice of the majority of citizens who have no realistic way, other than the vote, of expressing their point of view.  

Legislators can and should hold more town meetings with their constituents; they can survey their opinion on matters before Congress.  It is important that constituents know they are being listened to.

But because of the practical logistical limitations, constituents cannot compete in presence or volume with the voice of industry and wealth.  And so each legislator must in the end, on each matter before Congress, ask him- or herself what is in the best interests of average Americans, his constituents, versus the interests of industry and privilege.  Sometimes those interests will converge; sometimes they will not.  If they do not, it is the interests of the public that must prevail.  That is who legislators are elected to represent.

The message of We Still Hold These Truths is that Democrats must hold true to the heart of American democracy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and further elaborated in our Constitution … to the American social contract. We Still Hold These Truths presents an overarching vision that will resonate with the broad American public in red states as well as blue and win their hearts and minds. It is a vision that will successfully counter the radical Republican Conservative movement and reclaim the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Democratic Party.

The Case for Civil Disobedience

Millions of disheartened people across the country and many organizations are trying to figure out how to respond to the recent election.  The common denominator for most seems to be anger.  Some want to protest.  Some seek to prevent Democrats in Congress from working with Trump in any way, regardless the worth of the project.                                                  

I would urge a different tack in dealing with the very painful and serious situation we face.  I would make the case for civil disobedience on a massive scale in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The United States is a representative democracy.  Once the President and representatives are elected, the democratic tradition is for all to respect the vote and abide by majority rule.  Opposition both in the legislature and among the populace continues to play an important role in the formation of policy, but that opposition is expected to be civil and the laws obeyed.

But as Thomas Paine famously wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”  In the history of our country, we have had various times that have tried men’s (and women’s) souls.  To name just a few:  the debate over slavery, the Depression, the McCarthy witch-hunts, the Vietnam War,  the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert Kennedy, and now the simultaneous election of Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress.

The public has reacted differently to these various crises.  The debate over slavery ultimately resulted in the Civil War, but most of these times have been met by the public with a spirit of resignation, broken only by scattered violent outbursts.

The civil rights movement and Vietnam War were however major exceptions for two basically different reasons.   The civil rights movement was a cause against such moral injustice that it ultimately became impossible for many black and white citizens to continue to react with resignation to racism and segregation.  

Under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr, that upwelling of spirit demanding justice became a force of dignified civil disobedience, a la Gandhi, and not violent demonstrations or riots.  And as in the case of Gandhi, MLK’s tactics worked, not in bringing about peace and harmony, but in bringing about laws that protected civil rights and made equal opportunity a priority.

With Vietnam, I don’t believe it was so much the immorality of the war or its futileness that brought about the protests, it was the direct impact that the war had on almost the entire population because of the draft.  And because the country was clearly not under attack or direct threat, unlike WWII, people felt free to oppose and protest.

But the Vietnam protests were not dignified peaceful protests in the spirit of Gandhi.  These were typically angry, ranting, often violent, protests.  And they did not bring about an end to the war.  Instead, I believe they helped Richard Nixon in his 1968 Presidential campaign.

Now we once more face a crisis because President-Elect Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress appear hell bent on striking out at various groups in a decidedly un-American fashion.  Whether it’s Muslims, undocumented Latinos, LGBT people, or women, fundamental human rights (not always legal ones) are being threatened.  Certainly the spirit of the words of our Declaration of Independence are being violated.  

And although Trump and elected Republicans have clearly not spoken out against Jews, the white supremacy groups that have been empowered by Trump’s hate-filled campaign rhetoric are unleashing violence against Jews, as evidenced by an increase in hate crimes this year reported by the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Together with increased attacks against the groups that have been vilified by Trump, this poses a real threat to our civil order and any civilized concept of human conduct.

Given the scope of these threatened un-American and immoral acts, it is the civic responsibility of the populace to protest such actions through peaceful civil disobedience.  There is no need to wait till Trump moves forward with his plans; indeed, by then it would be too late.  The people must act now in order to show Trump and his Republican colleagues that their proposed actions and the actions of the more extremist of his supporters do not have the support of the American people … even those who voted for him out of desperation. 

A number of cities have already stated that they, and their police departments, will not cooperate with efforts by the Federal government to deport undocumented Latinos.  Many people have signed a pledge to register as Muslim, even though they are not, if Trump proceeds with a proposal to initiate a registry for all Muslims in the country.  These statements show the beginnings of a movement of civil disobedience. 

But to be effective, we need peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience that are massive, held across the country in every state, and visibly inclusive of Americans of every faith, color, ethnicity, walk of life, gender, sexual orientation, and political party, as well as those who don’t subscribe to any party or religious faith.  Ideally they will include people who voted for Trump.  Only in this way is there a chance of convincing those in government to back off from their more extreme plans. 

This does not, however, mean total non-cooperation.  If Trump and the Republicans propose, for example, infrastructure projects that would benefit the American people, it would be irresponsible for Democrats in Congress to not support such measures.  Such support would not be incompatible with the spirit of civil disobedience.

This is a time for all 64,000,000 of us who voted for Hillary Clinton as well as the millions who voted for Trump out of economic despair and other reasons, not hatred, to come together and say to Trump, “Yes, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, create jobs, but be, as you pledged, the president of all Americans.  Respect human dignity and the equality of all.”

For this to happen will require extraordinary leadership, cooperation among organizations, and discipline.  The leadership and cooperation necessary is obvious.  The discipline is needed to keep these demonstrations from degenerating into anti-Trump, anti-Republican rants and to keep them peaceful.  The object here is to persuade, not beat up.  If it is not done properly, it should not be undertaken at all because the result will only make the people look weak and ineffective.

The choice is the people’s.   We can either sit silently by while our fellow citizens are singled out for legal attack by the government and physical attack by vigilante mobs or we can stand together with those under attack, peacefully, massively, in a show of civil disobedience against this violation of the American spirit and in support of government’s duty to respect the human dignity of all people.

How to Respond to the Election?

After the dismaying election season and the heartbreaking election results, my first response was that I needed to start planning to leave the US.  The country is broken in so many ways.  The rage unleashed by Trump against Latinos and Muslims is scary.  As is his contempt of women and the “elite,” meaning educated liberals.  Given the darkness of his campaign, I saw things could easily move in an even more unpleasant direction.  

And incoming reports confirm my fears; just since the election, hate crimes are on the rise, committed by people often invoking his name.  And the FBI just reported that hate crimes were up 6% this past year.

During a morning meditation though I asked myself what a spiritual person should do.  What did spiritual, good people do in other situations where people were persecuted?  And I thought of the people who at great risk hid Jews or helped them escape from the Nazis.  I thought of the Danish citizens who marched with yellow stars on their coats.  I thought of churches here who offer sanctuary to undocumented aliens.  I thought of what Pastor Niemöller said in Nazi Germany, “First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing,  Then they came for the Jews, and I did nothing.  Now they have come for me, and it is too late.”  I knew I had to do something.

At the same time, I was aware that millions of Trump supporters have been suffering terribly for decades as a result of jobs lost overseas and wage stagnation, their middle class world shattered.  That they rightfully felt neglected by the political establishment, and their anger was a reflection of that suffering.  They need help as well.

Each of us, in ways small and large, can act to let those being attacked as well as those who have suffered know that they are not alone.  

As for myself, I realized that this disaster presents a once in a lifetime, perhaps once in history, opportunity for America to get past its internal problems of racism and all forms of bigotry and inequality.  And so I came up with the idea of starting a nonprofit, American Solidarity, which would, in concert with other national organizations, organize mass non-violent rallies across this country for people to stand in solidarity with Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, LGBT people, and women, as well as the white displaced worker.  To show that you can’t rebuild America physically while leaving its social fabric frayed.  Go to www.american-solidarity.weebly.com.  

I purposely am not calling these gatherings “protests” because that’s not the spirit I want to project.  Why?  One has to understand a basic fact regarding Trump: if you criticize him in any way, he will respond with vitriol and disdain.  And so all the ranting protests, regardless how large, will not move him an inch and actually be counter-productive.  He feels victimized by the establishment, by moderates and liberals, and so this type of protest will only feed that perception and strengthen his resolve to go his own way, supported by the alt right.   

Instead, I want these rallies to be dignified statements of solidarity with all those being attacked as well as the millions of blue collar workers who have been suffering terribly.  

What we need is a Gandhi/MLK moment.  This is a time for all 63,000,000 of us who voted for Hillary as well as millions who voted for Trump out of economic despair, not hatred, to come together and say to Trump, “yes, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, create jobs, but be, as you pledged, the president of all Americans.”