The Present Holding Pattern

I haven't written a post in a month.   The reason is that there is really nothing new to post about.   

1.   Republicans are being true to their conversion to Trumpism, whether at the national or state level (although it is more rabid at the state  level).   In Congress, they are either just interested in blocking Biden's agenda, regardless of the interests of their constituents, whose interests they are supposed to represent.   Or they continue to further the falsehood that Biden won the election fraudulently and the January 6 storming of the capitol had nothing to do with Trump and the people in the riot were just patriots. 

I would love to see a video that juxtaposed Speaker McCarthy's statements on January 6 and immediately thereafter, and his statements now.   You can't even call it a shift.   It's a total reversal from truth to lies.  The man and his party have no shame, no ethics.

2.   The virus is doing its thing, and the millions of unvaccinated people in the US are enabling it to have another surge with the Delta variant which is causing, in areas with low vaccination rates, numbers of cases to rival the worst part of the pandemic.   And when these unvaccinated people get infected and travel to areas with high vaccination rates and partake in crowded indoor activities (restaurants, bars, dance clubs), even those vaccinated (who aren't wearing masks anymore) get infected. 

There is no indication that anything much will change on this front.   Many people who choose not to be vaccinated are adamant.   Some are undecided still, and so perhaps they will get the shots, but the majority are in the first group. 

Bottom line, while we were never going to be free of the virus, it looks like our return to normal in most areas of the country is a thing of the past.   Even the vaccinated will have to wear a mask indoors, certainly in a reasonably crowded venue.   

Some places, like Broadway theaters, are requiring people to be fully vaccinated and wear masks in order to attend.  Some employers are requiring works to be vaccinated,  All indoor venues, except those that are essential, should have this requirement.   This includes airlines.   And if they aren't essential, all visitors must be required to wear a mask. 

3.   No news on the climate change front.   We continue to experience increased numbers of and severity of natural disasters, whether it's heat, rain, flooding, drought, wildfires, etc.   As with the virus, too many people take no responsibility for their actions and efforts by the government will have minimal impact, and too late.   We are it seems past the tipping point and the only question is how bad will it get.   That's the only thing we/government can impact now. 

So we as a country and as a government are in a stalemated, holding, pattern.   It is in all regards a sad state of affairs.   Whatever euphoria and hope there was after Trump lost the election are long since gone.   For the foreseeable future,  posts will come when matters warrant or there is some important observation to make.

Republican Representatives and Senators Must Be Held Accountable

When Congressmen take the oath of office, they swear that they will "support and defend"  the Constitution.   A central part of the Constitution concerns our electoral process.   It is a core element of our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.

If there were indeed evidence of fraud, and the courts for some reason refused to acknowledge that evidence, and so they objected to the votes of electors on solid ground, they would be doing their job because a fraudulent election is not in furtherance of our democracy. 

However, that is not the case here.   In no court case, in no appeal to their supporters, has anyone connected with Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election brought forth one shred of evidence of widespread fraud.  Wild conspiracy theories, yes, but no evidence.  

Despite the lack of evidence, three contested states obliged the President and conducted recounts or audits.   The results were unchanged; no fraud, no missing ballots, were found.   And in two of those states, the Secretary of State that was responsible for overseeing this examination was a Republican.   Every court that heard Trump's complaint of fraud smacked the complaint down, often quite forcefully, and many of the judges who so spoke were Trump appointees. 

Yet in the face of this universal proof and judgment by the responsible officials that Trump's allegations were baseless, more that 138/121 Republican Representatives, roughly 60% of  the Republican caucus, and 8 Senators voted to object, to not accept, the votes from Pennsylvania and Arizona, respectively. 

They must  be held accountable.   They must be censured, at a minimum.   Really they should be impeached, but that won't happen if for no other reason than the number of people to be charged is huge and the result would be extremely disruptive to the work of Congress. 

And what about those Congressmen who actively engaged in urging the crowd last Wednesday to commit violence against the government?  As reported in The New York Times, Rep. Mel Brooks told the crowd before going to the capitol that they should "kick ass" and urged them to "fight for America. "  Representatives Taylor Greene and Boebert, speaking before the surging crowd, both referred to the day as "Republicans' 1776 moment."  All three were inciting the crowd to commit violence against the government, in violation of their oath of office. 

They and any other Republican congressmen who engaged in such statements should be impeached.   What they did amounted to treason. 

Now it is also reported that some Republican Congressmen may have led insurgent groups on tours of the capitol the day before the riot.   This allegation is now under investigation.   If found to be true, they should also be impeached for aiding and abetting the insurrection.   At a minimum they must be censured. 

It is a sad day for our democracy when elected members of Congress actively engage in the destruction of our democracy.   It is all too scarily close to the action of the Nazis as they rose to power legitimately through the democratic electoral process and simultaneously engaged in violence and sabotage to destabilize the government. 

Trump Wants Americans to Be Like North Koreans

One of the more amazing, and revealing, statements made by Donald Trump after the Singapore Summit was the following, referring to the relationship between Kim Jong Un and his people, “He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

So now we have proof of what we’ve feared: at heart, Donald Trump is a dictator.  He wants everyone to agree with him.  He brooks no disagreement.  He wants the American people to take his word as gospel and follow it accordingly.

Donald Trump does not have the understanding that when he was elected President, he was not given sweeping powers to do as he will.  He did not receive a mandate to remake the Presidency and government in his image.  His core supporters may well have given him such a mandate, and that amounts to perhaps 1/3 of voters.  Certainly that’s significant, but that does not give him the power and latitude he seeks..

Normally, our system of government … the famous checks and balances … would stop a President like Trump doing what he will.  Unfortunately, at this point in time, there is no check or balance because all three branches of government … executive, legislative, and judicial (the Supreme Court) … are in the same hands.  Not even the civil service can act as an internal check on the executive because he has placed at the heads of each agency people who are antagonistic to the very mission of those agencies to protect the public.

OMG!  It wasn’t until I wrote these words that I realized that Donald Trump has created the core of a dictatorial government … one where all think the same and do the master’s bidding.  The people gave him a like-minded legislative majority.  He gave the Supreme Court a radical conservative majority through his appointment of Justice Gorsuch to the court.  And as I just stated, he has placed at the head of each federal agency people who are determined to change the mission of the agency from one dedicated to protecting the public, to one dedicated to supporting big business.

We as a country are in graver danger than I ever realized, even in the short-term.  Viewed in this light, the significance of the upcoming mid-term elections are even more critical.  The control of Congress, or at least one of its houses, must pass to the Democrats in order to place a brake on this dictatorial presidency.  

As Democrats talk to the people, this needs to be one of the talking points.

Senator Murkowski as Role Model

Last week, after being harangued and bashed by President Trump, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) said what all Republican Senators should say and what should govern their actions. “With all due respect, Mr. President,” she reportedly told him, “I didn’t come here to represent the Republican Party. I am representing my constituents and the state of Alaska.”

This is the duty that all Congressmen and Senators have … to represent the best interests of their constituents and state.  That is their responsibility as elected officials.  If those interests go against the desires of Party leadership, so be it. 

We would not be in the partisan predicament we’ve been witnessing in Congress if all members acted on that responsibility of office.  Sure, some are truly far-right conservatives and know that’s why they were elected.  But many who have toed the line of Senate majority-leader McConnell on numerous issues are not hard-line conservatives.  Their fealty to the Party is misplaced and goes against the best interests of their constituents.

Some Republicans might try to argue that their sworn oath “to support the constitution” overrides the interests of constituents.  That may be true when a matter truly contravenes the constitution in letter or principle, but the types of things that Congress has been debating, and regarding which Senator McConnell has repeatedly enforced party discipline, do not rise to that level of import. 

Which raises the question.  Who are the “constituents” when that phrase is used?  Is it the people who voted for President Trump or a particular Representative or Senator?  Or is it all the people in their respective jurisdictions?

Presidents often say in their inaugural speech that they promise to be the President for all Americans.  Even Trump made such a statement.  He said he would restore the promise of America "for all our people. " And that is indeed as it should be.  The President is not elected just to promote the interests of those who voted for him.  He is the President of the entire country.  Yes, he campaigned on certain themes and made certain promises, and he should live up to those, in general.  But once elected, those campaign themes need to be tempered by the best interests of the country as a whole.

Such tempering is not an example of a President selling out, any more than is the change in tone and position from the primaries, when the combat is between members of the same party and the audience are members of that party, to that of the general election when the audience is the entire country.  The same change can be often be seen in those who are appointed to the Supreme Court.  Many a President has been dismayed that the person they appointed because of his politics, legal and otherwise, has turned out once on the bench to change his respective because of the role he has assumed.  Perhaps the most famous example of this was Justice Earl Warren.

Each and every Representative and Senator should keep Senator Murkowski’s words before them when they debate a matter and feel pressure from Party leadership to vote in a way which is contrary to the interests of their constituents.  Often that pressure is nothing short of blackmail, as it was when Senator Murkowski was threatened with Alaska’s losing a variety of significant benefits from the Federal government.  She still stood her ground, as was her duty.

Why I’m Quiet on the Trump Front

I have not written anything regarding the President since June 8.  Obviously, things occur almost daily that deserve comment.  

While it is important that his daily transgressions be put before the public, he must be held accountable, I would say that at this point my comments, and indeed most comments, are mostly wasted breath in the sense that they are unlikely to change anything, to improve the situation.  They will not change the President’s mind or anyone in his circle.  They will not change the mind of his supporters.  They will not change the mind of Republican politicians who are not ardent Trump supporters but want him to sign their legislation, should they ever manage to pass any.  

They also unfortunately are unlikely to encourage the masses of politically unengaged people in the country, who would tend to vote Democratic, to become engaged and thus greatly alter the dynamic of the 2018 election.  That will only happen through a combination of good Democratic policy development and the grass roots involvement of organizations who can reach these people.

The only real reason to continue to comment on things like his latest snap decision to ban transgender people from the military is to continue the protest against both the substance of his policy decisions and the manner in which they are made.  But there are ample commentators and organizations doing that.  My voice doesn’t add anything.

The same is true for his and the Congressional Republicans’ actions on health care.  The process and substance are beyond belief.  They show a total disdain both for the historic processes and procedures of Congress as well as the American public.  

Unfortunately, what else is new!  What’s more, this administration has shown a disdain for the very institutions that form the framework of our democracy.  His Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a poorly disguised attack on the voting rights of the poor and immigrants, is just one example.

Commentators have to write because that is their job.  I on the other hand only write when there is something that warrants a new post, when I feel that my voice adds something to the public discourse.

Rest assured, I will be heard from again on this topic.

The Real Issue in 2016 - Electing a Democratic Congress

In the recent Democratic presidential primary debate, the candidates trotted out programs that they would sponsor to address a variety of problems our nation is facing.  But an article in the New York Times  astutely noted that no one said anything, nor were they asked, about how they would get these programs through Congress given the current control of the House by Right Wing Republicans.  

An excellent point.  Whether it’s Bernie Sanders with his more liberal ideas or Hilary with her more centrist policies, none of them could get through a Congress where the Right Wing has a virtual veto power over any proposed program through their de facto control of the House despite their small numbers.  

If the public elects the Democratic candidate President because they want his or her programs to be enacted, then they have to elect a Congress where Democrats have majorities in both houses.  And if the Democratic candidate does not want to have a presidential term like Obama’s, then that candidate needs to make changing the makeup of the House and Senate a high priority.

At a minimum, no person who votes for the Democratic candidate should vote for a Republican for Congress.  This should be obvious, but the voting public needs to be reminded that this isn’t like the old days when a split in the control of government was often considered good by many because it resulted in more tempered, centrist policies.  Given the current nature of the Republican Party, we have seen that split control means total deadlock.  A government in total dysfunction.  A government by crisis.

But these votes won’t be enough to bring about the desired change because many House districts have been redrawn in such a way as to make them “safe” Republican seats, and so not in play for the Democrats.  Short of changing those district lines, the only tool the Democrats have is to convince droves of traditional non-voters to register and vote.

Even in Presidential election years, voter turnout ranges from bad to worse.  In a good year, like 2008, the turnout rate was 58.2%.  That means that 41% of eligible voters didn’t bother to vote.  In a bad year, like 2000, the turn out rate was only 51.2%.  So 48.8% of eligible voters … almost half … didn’t vote.

But here’s the kicker … studies consistently show that non-voters are disproportionately poor or less well-off, younger, and tend to favor higher taxes and more government spending.  For example, 46% of nonvoters have household incomes below $30,000, while the percentage among voters is 19%.  43% of nonvoters are people of color, while only 22% of voters are.  And 34% of nonvoters are under 30, while only 10% of voters are.

For it to work, this has to be more than your traditional get-out-the-vote campaign.  Not even resurrecting the Obama coalition will suffice, although that’s going in the right direction.  These traditional non-voters need to be touched by the campaign and galvanized to vote.

The Democratic Party has to find a way to convince these voters that their vote would make a very real difference to their lives and to get them to the polls, even with reduced hours, voter IDs, and all the other barriers Republicans are setting up.  Given the experience of the past 6 years, it is not too much of a stretch to say that the fate of our country’s welfare hangs in the balance.

To accomplish this, the reference point for the campaign should be the equality and value of all citizens as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and the policies that logically flow from that premise as stated in my book, We Still Hold These Truths.  See also my post, “Growing a Stronger America - More Self-Sufficient, A Stronger Citizenry, a World-Class Infrastructure,” September 15, 2015.

This need not and should not be made to sound like a class struggle.  This proposed strategy is not anti-rich nor anti-big business.  This country needs a strong business community to provide good jobs for our citizens, and so government policies need to continue to support business growth.  

All this policy is saying is that the influence of big corporations and wealthy individuals on government policy has increased too far to the point that they for all intents and purposes control it.  And so the balance between private rights, government, and the public good is currently out of whack.  The influence of big money in elections and the influence of lobbyists in Congress has rendered meaningless the concept of one man, one vote.  A proper balance needs to be restored.

Every citizen should be valued and have a voice.  But almost one million children are born into poverty each year.  22% of all children, around 18,000,000, live in poverty.  Because of this accident of birth and the poor education and other negative life factors that typically come with it, these children do not have a meaningful equal opportunity for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  

Many people who had been solidly middle class and had enjoyed the fruits of their labor now find themselves as a result of globalization and the recent recession to be struggling to keep their heads above water financially.  They are no longer middle class but teetering on the edge of poverty.  

As part of the responsibility of being a citizen, those who have made it big because they have been able to take advantage of our system, and yes their hard work, need to give back more.  Both to help the government provide those less well-equipped for the economic struggle with the foundation needed to have a meaningful equal opportunity, and to enable the government to replace our archaic and crumbling infrastructure with one that will support a strong economy into the future. 

This proposed policy is ultimately about fairness.  It does not “gouge the rich;” they will remain very wealthy even after paying their fair share.  It is about treating our fellow citizens with humanity rather than cruelty.  It is about being true to the maxim found in the core morality of all the great religions and any civilized society … do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  It’s about being true to the principle first trumpeted in our Declaration of Independence … that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Our Political System Has Failed Us

The health of our democracy depends on three components, among others.  The first is an informed electorate which has the responsibility of electing those who will both represent  it and help lead the country.  The second is leaders who both represent their constituencies and act for the greater good of the country.  The third is an electorate and leaders that respect that all are working in the best interest of the country and accept the inevitable loss, whether of a legislative bill or an election, that is part of the democratic process.

On the first point, we have always been weak.  From the very beginning of our country, the electorate base was not well-informed about the issues, in the sense of being able to think rationally about the choices.  Not that they weren’t or aren’t capable of it.  But politicians (even the august Thomas Jefferson, through surrogates of course) have often played more to the electorate’s emotions than its mind and have often used inflammatory words, making reckless, deceitful charges, in order to rouse the populace in their favor and against others.

As to the second point, while American politics, especially elections, have always involved a good amount of mud-slinging, historically politicians on the national level once elected have generally speaking comported themselves appropriately and have, while representing their constituents, acted in what they saw as the national interest.  Except on the issue of racism (or in the pre-Civil War years, slavery), ideology was not a controlling factor in actions of Congress.  

And although there has always been a strong element of conflict between the powerful central government forces v the small/weak central government forces (the parties names have changed over the years), those arguments were, once the Constitution was in place, more on peripheral issues.  Even a staunch small central government advocate such as Jefferson, presided over a huge increase in the responsibility of the federal government.  Similarly George W. Bush presided over a huge increase in the federal deficit as a result of his policies.

But the art of compromise in Congress had been weakening and the nastiness of interchange increasing since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.  Since the election of Barack Obama and the 2010 midterms, the functioning of Congress has basically come to a halt.  

The Republican Right has taken control of the party and the Republican Congressional agenda.  With their extreme ideological rigidity, the Republican majority in the House and the Republican minority in the Senate (which can stop any legislation or appointment through the filibuster, even when a majority of the Senate is in favor) have been able to halt any legislation that addresses the national interest from other than their narrow perspective. 

The most egregious example of this was in the recent debate on expanding background checks for gun purchases.  90% of Americans surveyed, and 85% of NRA members, supported expanded background checks.  A bi-partisan compromise measure was introduced lead by arch gun rights advocates, one Republican, one Democrat.  And still the measure was defeated through the filibuster process by Republicans joined by a few Democrats.  

That this measure, which would not have kept a single gun of any type out of the hands of anyone who was legally entitled to own one and thus, as the Republican co-sponsor said, was really not a gun control measure, was defeated despite overwhelming popular support and desperate need shows the total failure of our system.  It also shows clearly another aspect of the system’s failure ... the preponderant influence of corporate America.  The only powerful interests against the Senate measure were firearm manufacturers and their de facto voice, the NRA.

Corporations have for more than a century had a strong voice in Congress through their lobbyists and political donations.  And this has impacted both parties.  Both are in thrall to and support the power of the big corporations, although the Republicans more so than the Democrats because they have been the greater beneficiary of corporate dollars.  

The old saying, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," was discredited years ago, and yet that still is often the marching tune for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  What happened to the concept that, while being supportive of a strong and healthy business sector, an important role of government, and therefore Congress, is to protect the general public from the excesses of corporate activity and power? 

This can especially be seen in the federal response to the recent financial crisis ... nothing has really changed; the same financial practices that led to the collapse are ongoing; regulation has not really improved; no one in the big investment firms has been brought to justice for their shady practices; it's business as usual on Wall Street.  It can also sadly be seen in the team that President Obama put together after his inauguration to advise him on such matters ... all seasoned Wall Street types who were prime actors in the period leading up to the collapse.  

But since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that corporations can spend unlimited sums supporting someone’s candidacy through PACs, the power of corporations not just over the actions of Congressmen, but on who gets elected, has been increased manyfold.  Through huge purchases of advertising air time to support candidates favorable to them, they have been able or tried to influence the electorate and change the outcome of close elections.  If ever there was an argument for Federally-financed elections, this is it.

The third point, which has always been the most solid aspect of our democracy, is under threat.  The basic premise, that each side respects the other’s bone fides in working for the national interest, has been gravely weakened if not destroyed.  Neither side trusts the other nor will it give the other credit for acting in the national interest.  Instead, each side accuses the other of special interest politics and being a threat to the nation’s well-being.  

There have even been some who have voiced the possibility of violence if their position does not win the day.  And there has been a substantial rise in the number of right-wing militias around the country since the election of Barack Obama.  While there is no danger of the constitutional transfer of power being interrupted, there is certainly a danger that the peacefulness of that transfer or the peacefulness of legislative losses may become a thing of the past.

This situation cannot continue unabated without seriously damaging our democratic system.  Several actions are necessary.  At a minimum, all federal elections should be publicly financed.  That would have the benefit of putting all candidates on an equal footing ... winning an election should not depend on how much money you can raise ... and would greatly decrease the prevalence of advertising, which is almost never informative.  Second, all broadcasters, who use federally-licensed air waves, should be required to provide a certain amount of free advertising and speaking time to all candidates.  This should help increase the exchange of ideas rather than sound bites.  Third, no other organizations should be allowed to take out advertising to influence elections or pressure their employees to vote a certain way; contrary to the recent Supreme Court opinion, corporations are not people ... they don’t have a vote and likewise they shouldn’t have a voice.  Fourth, religious organizations who are granted tax-exempt non-profit status should be held to the regulations regarding that status, which prohibit supporting candidates for political office.  Finally, there should be a truth in campaigning measure passed which disciplines candidates who not just stretch the truth but lie and sets up a nonpartisan group to monitor all campaign statements and literature,

The factor of money must be removed from elections and politics.  And the electorate must be communicated with in a way that engages their mind on competing ideas rather than on competing emotions.