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.

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.  

Democrats Must Vote in Person November 3, or earlier

There is substantial concern about what might happen on election night, assuming that a huge number of voters cast their ballots by mail and that they won’t be counted for days after the election.

The fears cited are that Trump voters are more likely to vote in person since they as a group seem to have little fear of the virus, don’t wear masks, don’t bother with social distancing, etc.  Thus the results available from election day voting could very likely favor Trump and show him leading.

If that is the case, the assumption many journalists are making is that Trump will declare victory that night.  And that as mail ballots are counted over the next few days and his lead shrinks or disappears, he will declare fraud and will refuse to abide by the election results.

This scenario does not seem far-fetched given the President’s personality.  Also, note that these articles are not written by left-wing activists.  Even David Brooks wrote an op-ed fearing this result.

There is only one practical way to avoid this nightmare scenario.  People should be urged to vote in person, being assured that if they wear a mask and social distance, they can vote in person, in safety.  This advice is in keeping with testimony recently presented by CDC Director Dr. Redmond.  As many people as possible must vote on election day to avoid the imagined catastrophe.

Weeks ago, I wrote this same basic post, sent it to the DNC, and sent an op-ed submission to the New York Times.  But no one gave my thought any notice.

There is still time.  While many people have already mailed in their ballots, many haven't.  The Democratic party needs to flood the airwaves and print media immediately with the positive message that if you wear a mask and social distance you will be safe voting in person, even if you are older.  And making the point that if you do not vote in person, there’s a good chance that the nightmare scenario will occur.

Democrats have only a week or two to make this appeal.  They need to start now. 

Make Use of Conservative and Evangelical Voices Against Trump

To the extent that they can, it is absolutely critical in light of the total subservience to Trump of Congressional Republicans that the Democrats make good use of the conservative and evangelical voices that have spoken in support of Trump’s impeachment.  This is their only opportunity to show that this not a partisan effort but rather a principled one.  

The recent op-ed pieces in “The American Conservative” and “Christianity Today” are a strong indictment of Trump.  Their readership may not be huge, but these are legitimate, well-respected publications.  There was also an op-ed piece in The New York Times written by a group of Republicans that have formed an organization, the Lincoln Project, dedicated to defeating Trump in 2020.  These expressions of conscience are all the more powerful because they know the disdain that they will be treated by most of their colleagues.

The Democratic leadership should hold a press conference together with these groups to press the point that this is not a partisan endeavor.  It may certainly be true that most Democrats have had it in for Trump from the beginning.  But that is not because he is a Republican, it is because he is in so many ways unfit to be President and has shown a lack of respect for his office and for the institutions of our democracy on an almost daily basis.  That is not partisanship, that is principle.

The Ongoing Toxic Effect of Slavery

There are many reasons why our country is dysfunctional today on so many levels.  Most have to do with the nature of our culture, the “me” perspective, and the insecurity that becomes part of our psyche during our formative years and growing up.

But there is another factor which I think has a major impact on our political life … the ongoing toxic effect of slavery.  And I’m not just talking about the continuing racism that is prevalent in the United States, although it is related to that.

When our country was founded, a deal was brokered, despite the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence, known as the “3/5 compromise.”  Under that agreement, slaves were accepted in the slaves states as a fact of life and were counted in the census as 3/5 of a person.  And so although they were slaves, not citizens, and had no rights, they increased significantly the South’s representation in the House of Representatives.

Ultimately, of course, the compromise led to the Civil War.  After the Civil War, there was never a discussion or reconciliation regarding slavery.  Reconstruction, which was to give slaves land and status, was promoted by a Republican-controlled Congress but poorly conceived.  Regardless, the effort ended quickly under President Andrew Johnson (D) and the white southern power structure maintained their old ways through the establishment of Jim Crow laws.

For the next 100 years, southern Democrats, while supporting the Democratic Party agenda in many ways, demanded a price, which was the continued debasement of African-Americans.  This unholy alliance fell apart when Johnson pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws through in the mid-1960s.  One should note that both of these measures were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans; the votes against were primarily from the South; the votes in the Senate were 73-27 and 78-18 respectively. 

The former Democrats later switched to Republican under Nixon’s Southern strategy and the South became Red.  Since that time, the Republican party, which had become traditionally conservative over the years, added a new twist in that they now, dependent on southern support, opposed measures to help the poor, who were thought of as being overwhelmingly black.  Bush II sought to change that with his compassionate conservatism, but he didn’t get very far.

The Tea Party within the Republican Party was founded in February 2009, just one month after Barack Obama took office as President.  Although the rallying cry was fiscal conservatism, the real bone was clear.  It was the perceived threat of African-Americans to the white middle-class, not just in the south, but now in the north too as the country suffered from a major recession.

These people had a fanatical energy.  And so John Boehner, then Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, decided to use them rather than fight them.  That empowering of the Tea Party ultimately led to Trump winning the Republican nomination for President in 2016 and winning the election.

And the fanaticism and loyalty of that base is what has given Trump his power to change the Republican party from a conservative party to an authoritarian, nativistic party, full of hate and anger.  Which has brought forth the same kind of energy in the Democratic Party base.  The combination of which has resulted in an almost total erosion of civility in political discourse and a weakening of American democracy.

Can the country be brought back to a place of reason and civility, an agreement to disagree?  Only time will tell, but the present does not bode well for the future.  In April 2019, I wrote a post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism.”  For our country to heal these deep divisions that we see, this must happen.  But I fear it will not, I fear it is too late.

What are American Values?

Politicians of all stripes are talking about American values these days.  That they should be voted for rather than their opponent because they will preserve and protect American values.  But what are American values?

I have never written a post defining American values because they have always been so clear to me that the thought didn't occur to me.  Talk about begging the question.  Obviously this is a topic on which there are deep divisions.  You have fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives in their perspective on our founding documents.  And certainly what individuals define as American values is not only changing, it probably never had the clarity that I find in our founding history.  Perhaps that's because I have always focused on the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and our founding documents, not all the compromises that were necessary.  And the values of individuals are greatly affected by the values of the society they keep.

First, “American values” must be distinguished from the values of the American people.  To me, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent, of lasting meaning.  The values of people instead change as the times change, as the culture changes, as the political temperament changes.  And so there have been numerous articles reporting how American values have changed, citing polling data.  This is important information, but not the definition of American values.

This is the description of a ship adrift at sea, not a grounded fortress.  I would therefore argue that “American values” instead refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Those values are our grounding; the source of America’s stability and greatness.

That, however, does not answer the question, for depending on how you approach those documents, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

For example, the Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spaulding wrote a book in 2009 titled We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, which sees our founding documents as decidedly conservative.  He finds that the Progressive (Republican) movement of the late 19th century, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the new progressives have eroded the principles of our founding documents.  He finds that what many consider to be the maturation of the principles contained in those documents, the concept of a Living Constitution, our becoming truer to the ideals of the Founders, to be instead examples of the perversion of our founding principles. 

There is no question that there is plenty of language in our founding documents to support a conservative interpretation.  In my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I stated that while the words of the Declaration of Independence were and remain revolutionary, and are profoundly liberal, “in their interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies  that have run through American political life and the tension between them.”

Perhaps never has the tension been greater than now.  The main problem stems from the conservative emphasis on the rights of each individual, especially as granted by the Bill of Rights, whereas liberals stress the concept of equality and the implications of each person having equal rights.

There can be no question that in our legal system no rights are absolute.  No one, by exercising his right to pursue life, liberty, or happiness can infringe on someone else’s right to do the same.  All of our laws and regulations, both civil and criminal, are examples of proscribing action that would harm an individual or the general good.  That is the impact of our system of equal rights.  

For example, everyone has the right to drive, but you must pass a test to prove that you can drive a car safely so as not to injure other people or yourself.  The automobile is a potentially deadly machine.  The same reasoning should apply to gun ownership.

Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute.  For example, not only can you not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, but you cannot slander another person.  False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

But conservatives keep acting as though rights, at least those conferred in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, whether it’s freedom of religion, or free speech, or the right to bear arms, which only recently was held by the Supreme Court to apply as an individual right rather than the right of states of have militias.  But that perspective is totally opposed to our history and our system of laws.

So, given that “American values” means the values that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are the core American values?

Note: These values, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been true at the time of our founding or be true on the ground now, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there, and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key American values/elements of American democracy.

     Equality of Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years, America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central, though attempts by some States to restrict voting rights is still very much with us.  

     We are also equal citizens in that we have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  No right is absolute.

     Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to become President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

     E Pluribus Unum - Unity with Diversity:  Although the latin phrase refers to the 13 colonies, the sentiment applies more broadly.  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as one would expect, there have been disagreements from the start between different factions or groups of citizens/immigrants.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

     Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

     This shared sense of shared citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government, whether through the paying of taxes or by answering a military draft.  Under this social contract, we are not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

     In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and Blacks, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  The movement always being towards more equality, more unity.  Yes, bigotry and discrimination still exist; we are still a work in progress.

     In the halls of Congress, this diversity with unity, this regard for equality, was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.   Clearly this is no longer the case.

These are the American values that politicians should refer to.  All the other values that are often cited … for example, individuality, free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms … are only able to be properly understood within the context of these core values.  Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy not democracy.

The American Social Contract in Trouble

In my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I noted that the Republican right wing had rejected the American social contract that has developed over time and was accepted by both political parties.  Actually, it resulted from the policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations.  

The basic idea is that as citizens, we are all equal participants in the great American experiment.   In exchange for receiving the benefits of citizenship, all Americans are responsible for contributing to the government’s work, which includes helping less fortunate citizens, each according to his ability.  It was indeed Republican President Theodore Roosevelt that initiated the progressive income tax, which is the main tool by which the financial responsibility of citizenship is implemented.

One can find no better expression of the concept than John Donne’s famous words:  “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”  A predecessor of the Enlightenment movement that so influenced our Founding Fathers, these words are the essence of the American social contract.

As I’ve stated often before, the soaring aspirations of our founding documents and our Founding Fathers were indeed “just” aspirations.  But they have provided the light that has guided America and Americans forward through difficult domestic times and have enabled it constantly, although often by fits and starts, to grow, to reinvent itself, and become more reflective of its founding aspirations.

But the social contract has been under attack over the last few decades by the increasingly right-wing Republican Party.  Among right-wing Republicans, there is now a disdain for the poor in general, not just people of color.  They are against the “undeserving poor,” which includes whites.  

Mike Mulvaney, Trump’s Budget Director, said in an opinion piece, "For the first time in a long time, we’re putting taxpayers first. Taking money from someone without an intention to pay it back is not debt. It is theft. This budget makes it clear that we will reverse this larceny.”  The poor receiving assistance are viewed as thieves.  Remember when Mitt Romney was exposed referring to those benefitting from government programs as “takers,” which included those on Social Security?

But the threat facing our social contract does not just involve attitudes towards the poor.  In our increasingly polarized society under Trump, any feeling that we are all part of the American community or are responsible in any way for each other's welfare is gone.  Replaced instead with warring camps.

America must return to an embrace of our social contract.  Without that attitude, we will drift further apart.  FDR’s refrain, “My fellow Americans,” will become not just hollow in the contemporary context but a deceit.

My Takeaway from the Mueller Testimony

The New York Times and other major media depicted Mueller’s testimony as being a loss for the Democrats.  Nothing new was revealed, no existing facts were heightened or sensationalized.  It was nothing more than a regurgitation of the Report.  Certainly nothing happened that caused any Republicans in Congress to give second thoughts about whether to stand behind Trump.

However, when Mueller was asked in his morning appearance whether he didn’t indict Trump because of the standing Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he responded, “That is correct.”  When a Republican representative followed up to clarify, he confirmed what he had just said.

But in his opening statement for his afternoon appearance, he backtracked and said that opinion kept them from even considering whether Trump had committed a crime.  That revised statement was a disappointment for the Democrats.

But wait, something doesn’t make sense.  Mueller did find that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to sustain a charge regarding collusion with the Russians.  So while he couldn’t indict, he could exonerate.  The fact that he didn’t do the same on the obstruction charge leads to the inescapable conclusion that he felt Trump committed obstruction, as he indicated in his morning testimony.  But no one asked that question.

Since it now is clear that the Special Counsel felt he could not determine whether Trump had engaged in an obstruction of justice, but just laid out the facts, it is up to the House to determine whether he engaged in obstruction and thus engaged in an impeachable offense.

The Mueller Report and the AG’s Decision

The long-awaited report has arrived and, at least as it’s been summarized by the Attorney General, Democrats are very disappointed.  

Regarding Russia’s interference in the election, Mueller found no collusion or coordination.  Given the information that has been made public over the course of the investigation, this is not a surprise, or should not be.  Knowledge of  Russia’s dirty tricks, and hoping to benefit from the dirt, is not the same as colluding or coordinating.

Regarding obstruction of justice, the Special Council declined to make a “prosecutorial” decision.  He has just presented evidence for and against.  Why he chose to not make a decision is beyond me.  

Without question, Trump acted to obstruct, he had the intent to obstruct, and it pertained to an ongoing proceeding, namely the investigation.  So it would seem that the Attorney General’s three requirements for prosecution were met.  One of course needs evidence to prove all three points, but just from Trump’s own Tweets, one would seem to have sufficient evidence on all three points.  

The fact that the report exonerated Trump and the campaign from collusion with Russia should not in any way impact the obstruction charge.  Perhaps most people would not try to obstruct a proceeding if they knew they were innocent.  But Trump is not most people.  He obviously was obsessed by this investigation.  The mere fact of it roiled him.  So not only should the exoneration on collusion not be determinative regarding the obstruction charge, as the Attorney General said in his letter, it should really have no impact.

As for the Attorney General’s decision to make the decision his and say there wasn’t sufficient evidence, it is unseemly and reeks of politics.  Mueller, after months of deliberation, was very careful to say that while he wasn’t recommending a charge, the report did not exonerate the President regarding obstruction.  

Yet the Attorney General did just that, although actually what he said was that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge the President.  Now, insufficient evidence does not mean not guilty.  But for the public, and certainly for Trump’s supporters, that is a distinction without a difference.

Congress and the American people clearly need to see the entire report.

Unfortunate Democratic Hubris

The new crop of Democratic progressives in the House scares me.  I am a liberal and a progressive.  But these new Reps have a huge chip on their shoulder.  Not surprising given the past two years of dealing with Donald Trump, but that’s no excuse, certainly not for someone who seeks to be a leader.  

They are arrogant and self-righteous.  They are in fact the mirror image of those on the Right they hold in contempt.  They throw out excoriating labels without thought for they see the opposition as cartoons, cardboard figures, all guilty of the worst of conspiracies to destroy our democracy.  As I said in my previous post, it smacks of McCarthyism on both sides.

They call things immoral which are not immoral, other than perhaps in the religious sense.  Immoral means something that does not conform to the pattern of ethical and social conduct accepted by a society.  Thus, for example, being filthy rich is certainly not immoral in our society.  Jesus may have said it was immoral to be rich, but modern-day Evangelical preachers certainly don’t say that, nor does our society.  In fact to be rich beyond one’s wildest dreams is an accepted goal or fantasy.

It is, however, unjust for someone to be a billionaire many times over or for a baseball player to get $330 million over 13 years, when many people in this country are dirt poor, when they do not have adequate medical care, where 1 in every 8 Americans cannot depend on having enough food on the table, where a large proportion of people live in substandard housing, where the middle class is no longer middle class but sinking into lower class, when young people either can’t get an advanced education because of the expense or they become saddled with huge debt, and the list goes on.

Thus progressives quite rightly propose various ways to tax the wealth of the extreme rich.  But “unjust” doesn’t have the self-righteous ring of “immoral.”  It doesn’t have the God-like condemnation of “immoral.”  

Likewise the other day when a Republican used as an example a black appointee of Trump’s to prove that he wasn’t a racist … that was not a racist tactic.  It was a political tactic to evade the issue.  Whether the Representative is in fact a racist cannot be gleaned from this incident.  He was just supporting his President.  

Just like Representative Omar cannot be called an anti-semite because of her comments that AIPAC encourages people to pledge their allegiance to Israel or uses money to influence people.  She may in fact be anti-Semitic, but that can’t be gleaned from her statements.  

AIPAC, like all PACs, does gain influence by spreading money around; that’s the American way.  And there is a certain “Israel right or wrong” aspect to their posture which I don’t like and think is not in America’s best interest, but that does not equate with pledging your allegiance to Israel.  

Basically, she’s an American muslim who supports the Palestinian cause.  That’s not being an anti-semite or racist, that’s a political position.  She is, however, immature and does not choose her words carefully, nor when called on them does she back down.  She seems intoxicated by the publicity she is reaping.  

In fact, Omar is also guilty of the same thing she accuses Israel’s supporters of … blind support.  She has never criticized, as far as I can tell, the Palestinian elected leadership, not Arafat who for decades was a disaster for the Palestinian people, nor the current PLO or Hamas.  I on the other hand am an American Jew who in general supports the Palestinian cause but I also have lots of criticism for the Palestinian leaders as well as Israel.

We are living in a time when the number of people who are willing to give opponents the benefit of the doubt regarding their humanity, their good faith, seem to be in the minority.  People who try to be objective.  Whether on the left or the right, there is such a loathing for people on the other side (often even in their own Party), a feeling that they are beyond contempt, worthless, that it is hard to see how we as a nation are going to heal and get back to the point where, as the legal phrase goes, people agree to disagree.

It is a sad state of affairs for the country that for most of its history, regardless its flaws, has been the guiding light of democracy for the rest of the world.  The country of the Bill of Rights, of freedom of expression.  Of agreeing to disagree.

Political Correctness to the Extreme

The question is, should Governor Northam of Virginia resign because he possibly either put on blackface or a KKK robe for a picture that found its way into his medical school yearbook (which he first admitted and then denied), or because he now admits that he blacked his face as part of a Michael Jackson costume in a dance contest when he was in the Army?  Both of which he has appropriately apologized for.

All leadership elements of the Democratic party nationally and in Virginia are calling on him to resign.  This is part of the Party’s zero tolerance towards aberrant behavior, whether it involves sexual harassment or other offensive behavior.

But as applied in this case, is their action the correct one?  We are talking about actions that Mr. Northam took as a young man 35 years ago.  To do what he did in the early 80s showed at a minimum an extreme lack of good judgment and sensitivity.  But given the state and the peer group he grew up in, the victimless nature of the offense, and his impeccable actions on social and racial matters as an adult in the years since, should he be hounded out of office for this offensive and juvenile behavior?  I would say, no.  People do grow up; they do adopt a larger worldview.

That the Democratic party has reacted as they have is in large part I think because they have aggressively accused the Republicans for not disciplining its members for inappropriate behavior.  And so they feel they have to have this zero tolerance policy or else the Republicans will lambast them for hypocrisy.  

Given the way the voting public reacts to sound bites these days, rather than reasoned argument, there is reason to fear the impact of such a charge.  But that does not relieve Democrats of the responsibility to act conscionably.  Is this just?

Or are they worried about a charge of hypocrisy relating to their stand against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for actions he was accused of as a college student?  Certainly such a charge would be made by the Republicans if Democrats accepted the governor’s apology for his young adult behavior, but I don’t think that the actions that are in question here are in any way comparable to the seriousness of those that Kavanaugh stood accused of.

Date rape, whether a single instance or repeated behavior as some of his accusers claimed, is criminal behavior.  It is forcibly violating a woman’s person.  This cannot be compared to the “innocent” albeit offensive and inappropriate behavior of Mr. Northam.  The comparable behavior would be if Mr. Northam had abused a person of color in some way, or if he gave a racism-tinged speech, but those are not the facts.

The Democratic Party should stand firmly for what they believe.  They should not treat their own differently than Republicans.  But they should not treat their own more strictly because they fear being called hypocrites by the Republicans.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Unfortunately, at this point there is no way out.  For the Democratic leadership to back down now without some new evidence would indeed appear to be hypocritical.  And for Governor Northam to continue to refuse to resign hurts his own reputation. For the good of all concerned, he must resign.

An Open Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: It’s Time to Stop Protesting the Wall

Ok.  You’ve made your point that the wall, as opposed to other types of increased border security, is not a good idea for various reasons.  And you’ve made clear that you are not going to let Trump roll over you and the new Democratic majority in the House.  As a liberal/progressive I have supported your position.

However, in week 3 of the shutdown the issue is a different one.  The issue is the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees who are not being paid, even some who are working, as well as the impact of the shutdown on the welfare of the country.

In this context what do you as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress do?  You say you’ve passed funding bills to open the government while border security is negotiated, but Trump won’t sign them and Senator McConnell will not even schedule them.  Both sides are intransigent over funding for the wall.

We all agree, I think, that immigration should happen in an orderly manner, in accordance with the procedures and numbers set forth by Congress.  No one, not even the most fervent progressive, is in favor of illegal immigration.  This is completely separate from the issue of what we should do with the illegal immigrants who are already here and have become part of the fabric of their communities.

What is it then with the wall?  It has become a symbol of resistance to Trump and to his stand on immigration policy.  He not only wants the wall, but he has vilified illegal immigrants throughout his Presidential campaign and his time in office.  The wall has been made repulsive because it has been tainted with his offensive language.  

But even given all that, is this something over which you draw the line in the sand?  The answer should clearly be, no.  The issue of the wall does not rise to the level of importance that would lead to a lengthy shutdown.

Now of course once could ask, why should the Democrats blink?  Why doesn’t Trump back down.  And that’s a fair question.  But this is not a game of chicken.  It’s not even a question of right or wrong.  We are talking about the welfare of our country and the livelihood of millions of Federal employees.

Some Republican Senators have suggested combining the $5 billion for the wall with legislated protection for the Dreamers and other immigration reforms.  But these are not easy matters to legislate and you quite rightly don’t trust Trump to follow through with any commitment he makes.

You should therefore hold a press conference to announce your decision to give Trump his $5 billion for the wall, stating strongly that while a wall, as opposed to other increased security measures, is not in the country’s best interest, you are at this point more concerned about the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees going without pay and the overall welfare of the country which the continued shutdown is impacting in many ways.  Make clear that you have tried passing legislation to open up the government while negotiating this issue, but Trump and McConnell won’t budge.  This is the only way left for you to act responsibly as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress and protect the interests of the country.

You will come out of this smelling like roses.  And if your fervent resist base has a fit, which undoubtedly they will, it’s time for them to act like grown-ups and not be blinded by their hatred and disgust of Trump.  You have fought the good fight; now it’s time to do what is best for the country, even if means having to listen to Trump gloat about his “win.”

What’s With the Wall?

As a liberal/progressive, I think the wall is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.  It’s also a terrible image that the United States should not be associated with.

But is funding for the wall something that Democrats should shut down the government over?

We all agree, I think, that immigration should happen in an orderly manner, in accordance with the procedures and numbers set forth by Congress.  No one, not even the most fervent progressive, is in favor of illegal immigration.  This is completely separate from the issue of what we should do with the illegal immigrants who are already here and have become part of the fabric of their communities.

As a result, Democrats are in favor of increased security, improving fencing, etc.  But Democrats and the leadership in Congress draw the line at money for the wall.

Why?  I don’t think it’s primarily because of the negative image or it’s being a bad idea.  But it has become a symbol of resistance to Trump’s stand on immigration policy.  He not only wants the wall, but he has vilified illegal immigrants throughout his campaign and time in office.  The wall has been made repulsive because it has been tainted with his offensive language.  

But even given all that, is this something you shut down the government over?  I think that if it wasn’t for the revulsion that most Democrats/liberals/progressives feel towards Trump on a daily basis, the answer would clearly be, no.  The issue of the wall itself does not rise to the level of importance that would lead to a shutdown.

Now of course once could ask, why should the Democrats blink?  Why doesn’t Trump back down?  And that’s a fair question.  But this is not a game of chicken, or at least it shouldn't be.  It’s not even a question of right or wrong.  We are talking about the welfare of our country and the livelihood of millions of Federal employees.

The Democratic leadership should hold their noses and give Trump the initial funding for the wall, making a very strong point as they do so about their commitment to the welfare of the country and a reformed immigration law.

A Call to the American People

My fellow Americans.  Our democracy is under attack from within.  The well-being of the American people, the environment, and our historic values are at risk.  

But we must do more than resist.  The American people must rally, touch their basic goodness, and be freed of feeling they have to fight for their lives alone.  This cancer impacts all Americans … rich and poor, white and people of color, young and old.  The stakes have never been higher.  We are all in this boat of life together and we either all rise or we all sink.  We are in truth all “fellow Americans.”

The role of Democrats in this upcoming election must be to guide the American people back to the safety of dry solid land, back to the clear light of the mountaintop.  This is not about winning an election; this is not about one interest winning over another.  This is about the survival of American democracy, the light that has guided the world for more than two centuries.

Democrats often are not good at telling their story, their vision.  The Democrats' vision is to be found in the words of the Declaration of Independence.  It is past time for Democrats to regain the rhetorical upper hand and reclaim their position as the party of the people, the party of America’s historic values. And it is past time for Democrats to expose the radical Republican Right for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. It is the Democrats who are the party "of the people, by the people, and for the people."  For the sake of our country, we must proclaim our vision for all Americans clearly and effectively.  We must regain their hearts and minds. 

Here is my proposed Democratic Party Mission:

“To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … ‘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.”

For more go to www.westillholdthesetruths.info, and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNlt8hc7GM4