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.

Criticizing Israel - Questioning One’s Loyalty

We have a real problem in this country when it comes to commenting negatively about Israel. Recently, Representative Ilhan Omar has come under intense criticism for her statements.

Her main target and the statement that got the most criticism dealt with the power of AIPAC.  While the way she phrased her comment, talking about promoting allegiance to a foreign country, was not accurate and unfortunate, her basic point about AIPAC and its power is well-taken.  

There is a difference between being anti-semitic and being against a particular government of Israel.  The latter has nothing inherently anti-Jewish about it. 

I say this as a Jew who while very supportive of the existence of Israel has been very critical of Israeli governments and policies regarding Palestinians for decades.  The current Israeli government has at times even called American Jews like myself anti-semitic because it’s an easy way to counter criticism.

It is unfortunate that some American supporters of Israel also invoke the anti-semitism label whenever someone criticizes the Israeli government, especially if someone is a Muslim.  Would they call someone anti-American if they criticize the policies of President Trump?

That said, once Rep. Omar was called on the fact that support, even strong support, for Israel by an American does not mean allegiance to Israel, she has refused to back down from her characterization of such support.  That is a mistake and shows a lack of maturity, not anti-semitism.

She may feel that such support is not in the best interests of the United States, and I would agree.  But reasonable people can disagree on what is in the best interests of our country.  I have no question that those who support Israel feel that is in the best interests of our country.  And that is the proper question.  The issue of allegiance is a red herring.  

Likewise, Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support for Israel is nonsense.  Actually both her accusing supporters of Israel as having allegiance to Israel, and Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support smacks of McCarthyism.  Questioning people’s loyalty to country is going down a very dark road.

Representative Omar may well be an anti-semite.  But that cannot be gleaned from the statements she has made.

What is the Role of Corporations in Our Society?

As I have often written, corporations are a creature of the law.  The law developed to allow corporations and gave them various benefits because corporations served a public purpose. 

Let me backtrack … before the law created corporations, all business concerns were partnerships or sole proprietorships.  Under this system, the individuals who owned the business were personally liable for the actions of the business.  The law of corporations, however, generally shields the owners (whether private or public/shareholders) from liability for the acts of the corporation.  Over the years there came to be many more benefits that accrued to corporations.

Why did the law allow individuals to incorporate and thereby shield themselves from liability?  Why were other benefits bestowed on corporations?  Because corporations were seen to serve a public purpose.  They were seen to be key to economic expansion and advancement, to increasing the power of the United States internationally, and to providing jobs for an ever-increasing work force thereby increasing the standard of living of Americans.

Once the age of the robber barons ended with the progressive policies of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, while corporations still were always about making money for the owners/shareholders, corporate management became more conscious of their responsibility to the communities in which they were located and to the workers they employed, up to a point.  

Part of that was good public relations; part of it was necessitated by the National Labor Relations Act and other laws that gave real power to labor unions.  But where the law did not constrain them, where the public’s guard had not been raised, they acted with no concern as before, befouling the local environment and endangering lives.  Corporations literally got away with murder.

During this period, there was no felt need to cater to shareholders as they had little power over management. Then in the 1980s, after a decade of lagging corporate profits due to increased competition and the beginning of globalization, corporations found themselves under attack by corporate raiders and others.  The mere threat of a possible takeover moved corporate executives to focus more on shareholder value to insure shareholder happiness.  

In the years since, the concept of maximizing shareholder value has become the mantra of all corporations.  This perspective of corporate management is supported by the business schools who train future executives.  It is this perspective that has encouraged the short-term profit outlook which has caused many of the problems we face today … the loss of jobs (first to cheaper parts of the country and ultimately overseas), the stagnation of wages, increased income inequality, and even the increased volatility of the stock market.

At a minimum, we must return to a more worker/community/consumer focused corporate management perspective.  But can’t we do more; can’t we elevate that perspective as never before?  Since we’re talking about culture and behavior here,  this will not be easy.  Especially given the nature of the corporate beast.  The dynamic is not going to change on its own.  It will require leadership from the top.  

It will require a change in the curriculum of business schools that train our future executives.  It will require changes in the law:  one which makes the public good part of every corporation’s mission; one that includes workers and a public ombudsman on the management team, as has been done in Germany; and one that limits the amount of profit a corporation can make, which will help encourage corporate management to better reward workers, not reduce the workforce through automation, protect consumers, and be better citizens … all of which are in the corporation’s best long-term interest.

As I noted in my post, “The American Dream?” changing our corporate culture is critically important to the future our country, if young people are to have hope again and have the drive to push the envelope of what is possible. 

The American Dream?

We all know what the “American dream” has been.  As the phrase is generally used, it has meant the material benefits of freedom … upward mobility, financial success, home ownership.  That hard work will pay off and that each successive generation will be better off.  

African-Americans have never as a group had that dream for obvious reasons … their history of slavery, Jim crow in the South, segregation and discrimination in the North.  These facts … ongoing discrimination, segregation, and poor education, with the resulting lower income and for many poverty … form the context of their dreams or better put, lack thereof, for most blacks.

But this dream is what drove the tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country after the Civil War and in the 20th century, including more recently Latinos.  Since immigrants and their descendants now form the majority of Americans, their view of the American dream has predominated.   

It was thus with great surprise when several days ago I read an article in The New York Times based on data from a National Opinion Research Center survey that found a very different concept of the American dream to be current among Americans.  I should start by saying that NORC is one of the most respected survey research organizations (note I did not call it a “polling” organization) in the country.  (I must also note that I am a former NORC employee.)

The survey found that for the vast majority of Americans today, regardless their income, ethnic, or racial group, the American dream was “freedom of choice of how to live” and “a good family life.”  About 40% felt they had achieved that dream and another 40% said they were well on there way to doing so.

Huh?  This was a surprise in two respects.  First, not lusting after material prosperity seems almost un-American.  Second, given what has been happening to people, what the majority of people have experienced, in this country over the past four decades (starting with the Reagan presidency), most people feeling positive about their lives was unexpected.

But on reflection, that very fact … that excepting the top 20%, most Americans have been so battered financially over the course of the past 40 years … plus the fact that blacks have been constantly disappointed by the promise of the American dream ever since emancipation, offers an explanation for the survey’s surprising findings.  I believe that in order to cope psychologically, the definition of the American dream for most Americans has changed to something that they feel they either have or is within reach.

The good news is that most people report feeling pretty good about their lives.  The bad news is that this is mostly based on an illusion.  First, they don’t really have “freedom of choice of how to live;” one of the things that made America exceptional … that very freedom based on upward mobility …  is no longer the case.  Most people only have freedom of choice of how to live today in the sense that the government doesn’t tell them what life to lead, as in Communist countries of old, and they have choices regarding what to buy and what services to use.  And “a good family life?”  If surveys and anecdotal stories are to be believed, this is also an illusion; there is much dysfunction in the typical American family.

So despite the article presenting a very rosy take on this transformation of people’s definition of the American dream, this report is not something to feel good about but rather something to read with concern.  

If my take on the survey results is correct, it may be the explanation for the phenomenon that has been noted often with concern that so many young men are little better than slackers.  It is women who have more drive today, and that also makes sense against the backdrop that women are more emancipated today than ever; they can see themselves being more than their mother’s were.

What has made America great and powerful over the years has been the American people pushing the envelope of their lives as well as pushing the envelope of what is known, what exists.  They have done this within the context of American democracy and freedom, but it is what they have done with their lives which has made the real difference.  If Americans lose the drive to make their lives better by pushing the envelope, America will deteriorate into a second-class nation.

Donald Trump does not understand what has made America great, so nothing he is doing will fix what is currently wrong.  It’s not as simplistic as creating jobs or fixing trade imbalances.  

There are many things that are currently wrong in America, but what most impacts America’s greatness is paradoxically it’s corporate culture.  Rather than strengthening America, as it did for many decades, corporate culture is now bleeding America.  It is the corporate culture which must change if America is to regain its greatness, if young people once again are to have hope in the future and thus have the drive to push the envelope.

And how do we accomplish changing corporate culture?  Part of it certainly starts in the business schools that educate future executives.  Part of it comes from a change in the general culture which has elevated greed … one of the seven deadly sins … into a virtue; that wanting as much money and material things as one can amass is a good thing. 

It means a return to values that served America and its citizens well for 200 years.  Progress is not always to be found in going where no man has ever gone.  Sometimes, progress is returning to the past.

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.

Has Trump Never Heard of the Veto Override?

The President seems to think that he has the final say over whether the government will be open or shut down if he doesn’t get his wall.  Not surprisingly, he does not seem to understand the constitution’s careful structure of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

If Congress passes a bi-partisan spending bill that does not provide for Trump’s wall and Trump vetoes it, Congress then has the ability to override his veto if 2/3 of those voting in each chamber so vote.  That means 67 Senators and 290 Representatives.

If roughly a third of the Republican members of Congress finally show some spine, the override would pass.  It would require 20 Republican Senators and 55 Republican Representatives.

Given the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress, it’s hard to imagine that many bucking the President.  However, many have become nervous about the shutdown, of the effect it was having on their constituents, and thus on their future electability.  After just having gone through the ordeal of a 34-day shutdown, they do not want to be tagged with supporting another one.  So it is possible.

It would be heart-warming to see democracy in action again!

The other way out that both Republicans and Democrats are actively discussing is to categorically prevent future shutdowns by continuing funding at current levels when there is a dispute that prevents funding legislation from passing.  That would not have the “beauty” of an override, but it would do the job of keeping government open and end the history of cliff-hangers that we have experienced so often over the last decade or more.

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.”