One Man, One Vote Is Now an Illusion

The New York Times and many other news outlets have just reported that Elon Musk spent over $250 million supporting Donald Trump's campaign for president.  The combined campaigns raised nearly $4.7 billion dollars.  The amount of money is obscene.

This is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of the 2010 Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court, which found that corporations and other organizations were citizens and so entitled under the free speech amendment to support political candidates, and that the amount of money they spent in support of a candidate, as long as such spending was not coordinated with the campaign, could not be limited.

This decision has been criticized on various levels, mostly as a blow to democracy because of the increased influence on campaigns by corporations and wealthy donors.  And that is true.  But from a legal standpoint, what's wrong with that? This question has not, to my knowledge, been addressed.

What wrong is that it makes the Supreme Court rule of "one man, one vote" meaningless, an illusion.  What is this rule?  It holds that in drawing congressional districts, all citizens in a state should have roughly equal representation.  

Why is that of crucial importance?  Because ours is a representative democracy and in the House of Representatives, as opposed to the Senate, each person's vote should have an equal value.  Each person should have an equal voice as to the direction of our country.

But what if each person's voice is not in an important sense his own?  What if huge amounts of money are spent to influence his vote, if he is bombarded with advertising to make him vote for one candidate or the other?  The outcome of the election is still based on those votes, but how people vote is greatly influenced by the advertising and emotions that are put in play.

And this is not the marketplace of ideas envisioned by the 1st Amendment.  This is biased marketing that appeals to the emotions, not the mind. Even if "alternative facts" were not part of that advertising, it still would be an appeal to emotion rather than rational thought.

A democracy based on emotion rather than rational thought is a democracy in form only.  A democracy depends on reasoned debate, both by the elected representatives and by the public.  Because reasoned debate is a search for the truth.  Whereas emotional debate doesn't get past the emotions; it is not about the search for truth.  And a democracy based on emotion is likely to attract a demagogue as leader and be in danger of slipping into an autocratic state.  Witness the ascendence of Donald Trump.

There is only one way to reverse the impact of Citizen's United.  Adopting Federal financing of elections wouldn't work because the Court's holding would prohibit legislation that sought to limit donations that were not coordinated with a campaign.  The only possibility left would be a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court's decision.  And that is a process that is unlikely to succeed, certainly in our current polarized state. 

So until the Court once again has a liberal majority, or at least a neutral conservative majority, which could be persuaded to overrule Citizen's United, we are stuck with elections that are a contest of mega-donors and often appeal to the darkest forces within us.

Lessons To Be Learned from the Election

There is a lot of finger pointing going on in the Democratic Party.  But the lesson to be learned from this election is rather simple:  when you know something is a problem, you must deal with it in an effective manner.

Problem #1:  Trump and most people connected the Vice President with the actions/record of the unpopular Biden administration.  It's hard to disassociate yourself with the actions of an administration you are part of, even if the Vice President has little power.

But, when Kamala Harris was asked during a televised interview what she would have done differently from Biden, she answered that she couldn't think of one thing that she would have done differently!  This was a gift question, and she totally blew it.  And of course the Trump campaign immediately used the footage of her own words to nail her as being no different from Biden.  

She knew that this was a major issue for many voters, and yet she made no effort to distance herself from Biden, beyond saying that she was her own person and would have a different administration.  This was taking loyalty to Biden beyond any reasonable expectation

Problem #2:  People felt they would be better off financially under Trump; that he would be better on the economy.  Harris tried with some success to counter this feeling by stressing her various plans to make life easier financially for middle-class workers.

But the main reason people felt the way they did was not because of an appreciation of policies.  They knew prices were lower and things easier when Trump was president, and they knew prices and interest rates were higher when Biden was president.  The old incumbency affect.

What the Vice President needed to do was say, yes, prices and interests rates were lower when Trump was president, but it had nothing to do with his policies; it's just the way the world was at that time, pre-pandemic.  And yes, things are higher now, but again it has nothing to do with Biden's policies; it's a function of the post-pandemic world.  

So past experience here has no relevance.  She should have said that the only way to think about which candidate would be better for you financially is to look at each candidate's plans.  She had definite plans to help.  Trump had none, and the plans he did have for raising tariffs will definitely increase prices.

Problem #3: A large segment of White workers felt neglected by the Democratic Party for years and were angry.  What Harris needed to do was a sincere mea culpa to these workers, preferably during a speech to the nation on Fox, buying the time.  She certainly emphasized her understanding of the plight of workers and her plans to improve things, but she never apologized for the Party not focusing on their problems for decades.

There's no way of knowing whether these statements would have won Harris the election, but they sure would have helped draw more voters to her.  For the record, I emailed the Vice President with these thoughts during the campaign.

Mankind - A Greek Tragedy

The political events of this past year and the results of the election this week gave me pause to reflect on man.

How do I reflect on man? I am a man of faith, faith in the universe, god, Buddha.  What does that mean?  I have faith that things are the way they are because it’s just the way it is.  There is a cosmic force/reason for everything – whether the law of nature, the "laws" of man as he has developed, or some unknown cosmic force – although to ask “why” is usually a fruitless endeavor.  

But that does not mean that the universe/god controls how man acts or what he experiences; there is no master puppeteer that controls people's lives.  Man is a free agent operating within a world context controlled by cosmic forces.  It is man – meaning mankind – who brings about through its actions the things that mankind experiences (other than pure forces of nature).  

Armed with my faith, I see myself and the world around me through the eyes of my heart – we are all born with the god/Buddha-essence inside us – full of positive energy and joy, the neutrality of my senses, free of worries and concerns, full of faith and strength.  And so I am able to see things as they are.

My reflection is that the results of the election are the result of man’s flawed development.  Interestingly, similar things are happening in many parts of the world. Dictators/autocrats are being voted into power.  Man seems to  be devolving, not evolving.  Gone are the days when philosophies, such as the Enlightenment, guided nations and statesmen.

At the same time, man’s hubris has led to his taking little notice of increasing climate disorder. Or better put, he has taken note of the disasters, but either he doesn’t connect it with man’s impact on climate or he does but isn’t willing to do what is necessary to change the impact of man.

When I look at all of these things together, it seems like man is on a path of self-destruction.  That is why I titled this post, "Mankind - A Greek Tragedy."  His hubris will lead to his destruction.  I have written before that man is an experiment gone awry.  And I must add, as I’ve also noted before, that the Earth would be much better off if man were eliminated.  Then nature would be able to restore itself and nature would once more be resplendent, free of any impact of man.

This is beyond sad because man had the potential, as the most evolved mammal on Earth, to use his brain for the betterment of all mankind in all spheres - material as well as spiritual – as well as the animals and plants we share this Earth with.  But while man has made many advances in the sciences and technology, he has made a mess rather consistently over the millennia in his personal life and in the exercise of power.

All one can do in the face of this dynamic is build a world for oneself, a bubble, within which you act towards yourself and those around you with caring, kindness, and respect.  The world may be heading toward perdition, but while you must interact with that world, you can do so on your own terms and thus retain your peace and happiness.

Peace.

The Real Reagan Legacy - Disrespect of Government

Republicans love to talk about the Reagan legacy in glowing terms, and there is indeed a Reagan legacy.  Some of that legacy has been good for the country, but some of it not.  

One of the worst aspects of his legacy is the "Me" generation, which has become the "Me" attitude of much of the populace. This focus on what is in my interests to the exclusion of the interests of others, let alone the common good, and to see one's own interests as disconnected from the common good, has created a self-centered citizenry.  

This attitude is not in line with the American social contract that developed in the early 1900s.  That social contract conferred not just rights with citizenship but also an obligation to respect the rights of others and support the government (through taxes) in its efforts to improve the common good.  Actually, as early as 1858, Abraham Lincoln said that, "each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases ... so far as he in no wise interferes with any other man's rights;"

But worst of all, it is Reagan who legitimized and spread disrespect of our institutions of government.  And it is this disrespect that ultimately has resulted in Trumpism and the far-right agenda of dismantling much of what our government does to protect the common good, which is its proper role – to ensure that the rights of citizens are secured.  

During his first inaugural speech, Reagan said that "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."  There you have in a nutshell what has become the mantra of the far-right and of the base of people (at least a third of the population) who are devoted followers of Trump.  It should be remembered that Reagan was a prominent speaker against Medicare as "socialized medicine" in the early 60s before Medicare was enacted by Congress; he also spoke against Social Security. 

Reagan followed up that statement by saying that government is run by a group of elites rather than by the people.  Meaning that government is the problem because it is not being run or directed by Congress, the elected representatives of the people, but is instead being run by federal employees – the agencies – who by implication were a liberal elite.

But as noted above, contrary to the Republican mantra, government is there to protect the public, to act in its interests.  Why then do Republicans say otherwise?  Why don't they say that to serve the people, government must be improved?  Because it provides them with an appeal to disgruntled and disappointed voters, and because it is in furtherance of the interests of big business, which during the 20th century became the guiding force for Republicans.

There are so many inaccuracies involved in this view of how our government works that it's hard to know where to start.  But here is my rejoinder to Reagan and the far-right.

First, while I agree with Reagan that government is the problem, it's not for the reasons that he suggests.  And it is "run" by an elite, but not the elite he suggests.

Our government is, in fact, run in large part by major corporations.  Because they have a huge impact financially on election campaigns, they have major influence in Congress.  That impact is increased by their lobbying Congress regarding the passage and even writing of legislation.  In this way, corporations often have far more power than the people in determining the laws by which we are all governed.  That is the problem of government today.

This is a problem because corporations are solely concerned with maximizing their profit and freedom to act; corporate interests are thus often opposed to the interests of the average person, the common good.  There used to be a widely held opinion that, "What was good for General Motors was good for the country."  That line of thought was long ago discredited, debunked. Corporate-influenced legislation is rarely "for the people."  Indeed, it is often against their interests.  Even if the final legislation is still in the public interest, it will have been watered down by corporate lobbying to reduce the negative impact on corporations and thus the benefit to the people.

Not only do corporations often control the passage of legislation, but they are also largely to blame for the stubbornness of our recent high inflation.  The reason why prices were not responsive to the Federal Reserve's raising interest rates substantially is that corporations found during the pandemic that they could raise their prices without much impact on sales, and so increase their profits.    And so they continued to raise prices to increase their profit, even as the Fed increased interest rates.  

The second Reagan inaccuracy is that government is controlled by elites - the inference is that the people who staff government agencies are liberal elites.  First of all, there are plenty of conservatives in the civil service; they aren't all liberals.

But most importantly, most federal employees – civil servants – are regular people.  They are not elites.  They struggle with the same things that most people struggle with, albeit their jobs are more stable and they have better health insurance.  And while more of them have college degrees – 32% bachelor's degree and 21% advanced – that's not that much higher than the general population – 40%.

And as for higher-level appointed personnel, they represent the party that won the last election – so they are typically liberal under one administration and conservative in another.  They thus represent the people's will in that presidential election.  They may all be elites in some sense, but I don't think that Trump and his allies are complaining about the conservative elite, it's just the liberals they don't like.

Unfortunately, such is the power of demagoguery and hearing something repeatedly – what the Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels called "the big lie" – that Trump supporters believe anything he says.  Regardless how outrageous, his words are the truth.  So the fact that this charge against government is wrong, that this argument is against the people's best interest, and that while there is an argument to be made against government, it's a very different one – none of this will make any difference to the committed Trump voter.

While Democrats countered Reagan's statement that government is the problem, they have never, to my knowledge, countered Reagan's reasoning, explaining why it was faulty. This truth about government must be broadcast by Democrats, even if it upsets the corporate support that they too depend on.  

Democrats must give the people a chance to judge the falseness of what Trump and his allies have been telling them.

A Vote for Kamila Harris is a Vote for You and America

Why should you vote for Kamila Harris?  Let me count the ways.

If you're a man, vote for Kamila Harris because she possesses true human strength.  She is not a weak person and stands up for what she believes in ... and she does believe in things.  

Trump on the other hand is a weak person.  He sounds strong when he rages. but that is just a façade.  It is a mask for his insecurity, his need to be flattered, his need to be worshiped.  And he believes in nothing other than himself.

If you're a woman, vote for Kamila Harris because she stands up for the right of women to control their bodies rather than have the government tell you what you can or cannot do when it comes to the most important decision in your life – whether to bring a child into this world.  

Trump on the other hand wants to control your body, both through government rules - he was directly responsible for taking away your constitutional right - and through his own lecherous acts.  When he says that he will protect women, "whether you like it or not," it shows that he has no concern for women or what they think.

If you're a white middle-class worker, vote for Kamila Harris because central to her plan as President is strengthening the middle class by reversing the downward trend you have suffered the past few decades at the hand of big business.  She knows that the strength of America depends on the strength of the American worker.  And she will support workers through appointments, regulations, and laws to that end.

Trump on the other hand has no interest in helping the worker; he want's your vote, but after he gets that, you're nothing to him.  He talks a good game when he rages about the injustice you have faced, but he does not walk the walk.  Trump and the Republicans have never done anything to benefit the worker.  Their interest instead is giving corporations the maximum freedom to do what they want to do.  They are hypocrites when the say they are the party of the people.  They are in truth the party of the rich and big business.

If you're a Black, vote for Kamila Harris, not because she is Black, but because she has worked and will work to strengthen the educational, housing, and economic opportunities for Blacks and all Americans, and she will work to end the discrimination that you still encounter almost every day.  

Trump on the other hand has no interest in improving your lot in life.  He has not fulfilled any of his promises to you.  Trump and the Republicans have never done anything on your behalf.

If you're a Latino/a/x, vote for Kamila Harris because she respects you and other immigrants.  Even illegal immigrants are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.  She will be strong on the border but open up the heart of government to illegals who have been working hard, supporting the American economy, and paying taxes, and provide them with a path to citizenship.  And the opportunity economy she will build will enable you to improve your economic well-being.  

Trump on the other hand clearly despises immigrants, whether illegal or not.  He has done and will do nothing to improve your lot in life.  He is using you to get elected; afterwards you will be nothing to him.

If you're a Muslim, vote for Kamila Harris because she respects your place at the American table.  And she will work to end the war in Gaza and provide Palestinians with the right to govern their own lives.  

Trump on the other hand has shown that he despises and fears Muslims.  And he is an even stronger supporter of Israel than the Democrats.  He gives Netanyahu a blank check to do what he wants to do.  Palestinians will clearly suffer even more under a Trump administration.

If you love America, vote for Kamila Harris because she stands for what is best in America and will make it even stronger than it has been.  

Trump on the other hand is against all the values that have made America great and a guiding light to the rest of the world –  the values stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  He will diminish America, both in its internal strength and its standing in the world.

Vote for Kamila Harris and Tim Walz

Workers - Trump Has Deceived You

There are two things going on in the Republican Party that workers need to be wary about. 

The first is that Republicans in the Trump era call themselves the party of the people, the party of the workers.  They, or at least Trump, make impassioned speeches about how workers have been wronged and vow to help them. 

But when they are elected, Trump has not followed through with his promises and has done nothing to help the worker.  That is because he and  his fellow Republicans are hypocrites.  The Republican Party has always been the party of big business and the rich, and that still is where their hearts are. 

Their electoral base now may be to a significant extent white working men, but that is not reflected in their actions.  They are using you to increase their chances of getting elected because without the support of working men, they would lose many more elections. YOU HAVE BEEN USED AND DECEIVED!!

The negative influence of Republicans on workers’ well-being is especially clear in the National Labor Relations Board’s decisions on complaints brought by unions against corporations and in their rule-making.  Whenever there is a Republican majority on the 5-member Board (members are appointed by the President for fixed terms), the Board tends to vote in support of corporations and against unions.

The second is that there may well be individual Republicans who honestly want to support workers at least on occasion.  The problem is that when the Republican leadership in Congress presses for a unified front against Democrats, those individual Republicans typically fall in line rather than risk a breach with the leadership and its support.

Some workers and union leaders feel that Democrats have come to take them for granted and have not fought for them.  It may be that for some time, the focus of Democrats has not been on workers or the middle class, but Democrats have nevertheless continued to push legislation that is friendly to unions - like the PRO act - and that supports workers.  

What Democrats in Congress have little ability to impact are the wages that workers are paid (apart from raising the minimum wage) and the price of goods, including food.  These are the result of dynamics that Congress has no control over.  We do not live in a Communist system where both prices and wages are controlled by the government.

Bottom line, workers shouldn’t trust Republicans and should continue to vote Democratic.  

Is Character No Longer a Practical Requirement for Public Office?

Elections in the United States have always been fraught with much emotion. And in the early days of the country there were plenty of shenanigans on the part of politicians running for office.  

But when it came to higher office, especially the president, people expected candidates to be men of character.  Regardless of the policies that the candidate favored, they were expected to promote themselves and their policies with honesty and to have a morality that was above reproach.

In today’s US, for many of Trump supporters, his breaches of good character are of no concern.  Many are blind to his shortcomings.  He is their leader, their almost-savior, and they feel he can do no wrong.  

There are, however, about as many who are well aware of all of Trump’s moral and character failings, but for them it makes no difference to their support and vote.  They like his policies and that’s all that’s important to them.  They don’t seem to understand what a person of his nature could do to this country, the damage he could inflict on our institutions and our democracy.

A large part of the problem I think stems from the attitude of the “Me” generation that has spread to most of the younger populace, their children.  That would be everybody 60 or under.  If all you care about is how something impacts you, what is in your best interest, and you have no concern about how the rest of society, or the common good, is impacted, then you would indeed have no concern about a president’s character or moral, so long as you see his policies as benefiting you.

If this nation does not have leadership that encourages people to think about the common good and not just their own immediate interests, if children are not taught in civics class in school (many states no longer have a civics requirement) the importance of being aware of the common good, not just your own interest, then we will have a further deterioration of the fabric of America, of the American social contract.  And that will mean a deterioration of the quality of life in the US and of our influence in the world.

Trump or Harris for Lower Prices?

Recently, I have seen lawn signs go up saying, “Trump - low prices, Harris - high prices.”  Is that a reasonable prediction for the next 4 years?

Many people think that Trump will handle the economy better and have lower prices because prices were lower during his term as President than they are now.  Whereas prices have risen dramatically during the Biden administration and so they think electing Harris will result in higher prices.  This is what Trump has told them.

This thinking is faulty.  Trump was president in the years before COVID.  That was a different world, economically as well as in other ways.  Prices were lower, but it had nothing to do with Trump and his policies.  As a matter of fact, his tariff war with China created a price spike for many products that came from China.

The Biden Administration, on the other hand, was impacted by the effects of COVID, which included dramatically increased prices for a number of reasons all stemming from the effects of COVID on the economy.  It had nothing to do with action taken by Biden and there was no way for Biden to control prices since we do not live in a Communist country where the government controls prices and wages.

So you can’t base your prediction on the economy and prices for the next 4 years based on the experiences of these two persons in office because they were dealing with different contexts.  Admittedly, there is no question that BIden’s infrastructure plan probably added some pressure on prices, but it also had a major impact on creating jobs which decreased unemployment.  So on balance, it was a good thing.

The question each voter must ask is what are the candidates’ economic program for the future.  Trump has no plan, only slogans, which sound good, but if there is no plan, they are only words.  Like when he wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, but he and the Republicans never came up with a plan to replace Obamacare.  Harris, by comparison, has offered a somewhat detailed plan on what she plans to do to bring prices down for housing and food, among other things.

Beware political slogans.  Look for plans, facts.