Day 36 of Nat'l Emergency: What Will Be Its Legacy?

The yarhzeit memorial candles flickered throughout Wednesday night and Thursday for Gilda’s and my parents. Her father died in 1958. Her mother in 2005. My mother in 1996. My father in 1998.

Born between 1901 and 1924, their generation has been dubbed the Greatest, a designation earned mostly for their contributions during World War II. But they experienced and endured so much more in crafting a legacy for their children and grandchildren.

It is not too presumptuous to ask, what type of America will we bequeath to our offspring? Will we match up to the Greatest Generation’s legacy? Consider what transpired during their formative years through 1971, the year the first of them reached 70, the biblical assignment of what constituted a full life. 

As they entered their teenage years the world exploded into war. Even before the United States aided in ending the The Great War (World War I), the Spanish Flu ravaged America and societies around the globe. A decade later the stock market crashed, the Depression began, the Dust Bowl exhausted America’s breadbasket. Lucky ones, like my mother and father and Gilda’s father, managed to emigrate from Europe (Gilda’s mother was born in New York). 

The Greatest Generation defeated Nazi Germany, Italian fascism and imperial Japan.  

Prior to World War II the United States had tilted toward isolationism. But with victory came the assumption of several mantles—liberator and peacemaker, supporter of progressive democracy and enlightened capitalism, developer and exporter of ideas in medicine, science and technology.

Despite the Korean War, McCarthyism, the Cold War with its capacity for nuclear annihilation, political assassinations and the Viet Nam war, the Greatest Generation soldiered on through the post-war economic boom, the civil rights movement, the space program and cultural transformation perhaps best exemplified by the move to suburbia, rock and roll and the sexual revolution.

The Greatest Generation left a global legacy that included the conquering of many diseases, the genesis of the computer age, the rebuilding of war-ravaged regions, the formation of global pacts for defense, health, trade and care of refugees.

All that and more are threatened by a pandemic that descended during a time of retraction from the belief that the United States has a role, an obligation, to lead the world through partnerships, not through isolated example.

Daily we are advised our future will be different from our present, be it by social distancing measures in restaurants, theaters and sports arenas, or through greater reliance on virtual shopping and workplace employment. Almost all aspects of life will be affected.

Truly transformative changes—legacies—require bold action. Will COVID-19 prompt America to finally adopt universal health care and increase the availability of trained medical personnel in rural areas? With Internet access seen as vital for education and employment, will we finally eliminate Web connectivity deserts in our cities and rural areas? With so many unemployed and the need for infrastructure upgrading of our roads, bridges, airports, dams, harbors and tunnels, will we create a Works Progress Administration à la the Depression era New Deal program that employed millions to build up America? With the Internet forcing faster consolidation in the retail industry, will we find new uses for shuttered shopping centers including affordable housing and low risk penal institutions? With the increased realization of the importance of healthcare workers and educators, as well as public servants who provide police, fire, ambulance, correction services, transportation and waste management, will we more appropriately compensate these contributors critical to our collective existence? Will we take steps necessary to flatten the curve of disparity between the incomes of the wealthiest and the remaining 90% of society?

Will any or all of this happen? There is a streak of individualism in the country that shares the same genes with isolationism and averseness to big government. After 80 years of Social Security there remain diehards who oppose it. The pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities we all live with. We will never be able to guarantee a new virus strain will not emerge some day, somewhere. But we would be able to smooth out any impact it might have if we have in place a more equal society.

Being Furloughed at Home Is Not Like Retirement

For those furloughed from work or school because of COVID-19, no, this is not what retirement feels like.

Classes have bern cancelled, business travel, especially to trade shows, has been drastically cut back or eliminated, onsite staff meetings have been shifted to teleconferences, production lines have been shut down, sporting events have been played to empty arenas. The government has strongly recommended seniors avoid cruise ships.

All this and more disruptions of everyday life because of coronavirus fear. Tens of thousands die in the United States each year from the flu, yet people avoid annual vaccinations. Likewise, parents withhold inoculations intended to shield children from measles, whooping cough and diphtheria. It makes fear of a coronavirus pandemic rather extreme.

During my almost weekly visit to Costco Monday afternoon I was struck by several ironies. First, upon pushing my shopping cart inside the Port Chester, NY, unit, a staffer eagerly asked if I would like the handlebar wiped down with a disinfectant. Sure, said I, while noting that I had already been exposed to any lingering germs while pushing the cart inside. I was not offered a disinfectant for my hands.

I didn’t go to Costco to buy toilet paper. Good thing, because the recent run on toilet paper had cleaned out the stock, as it has in most stores. Did a panicky public hear something about the virus that I hadn’t? Did the virus affect one’s bowels even as it attacked the lungs?

For an answer I did what most people do these days. I consulted Google. Here’s another oddity: On the search line, after I typed in the word “why,” the immediate suggested query was “Why are people buying toilet paper?” 

The oddities continued: the first article was from CNN. It was written by Scottie Andrew. Anyone else think it peculiar that the writer’s first name conjures up a leading toilet paper brand? (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/09/health/toilet-paper-shortages-novel-coronavirus-trnd/index.html)

Seeing pictures of people the world over wearing surgical masks leads to one of three conclusions: There are a lot of sick people out there (sick as in crazy, yes; sick as in ill, nah); the human race really is composed of caring people who don’t want to infect the rest of us (nah, they’re wearing those masks to protect themselves which leads me to the third and most accurate assessment); there are a lot of dumb people out there who do not listen to health care experts who say masks, especially the most common type worn, are not intended or able to keep the wearer safe.

Shopping Costco is one of my favorite pastimes. I especially enjoy sampling all, well, almost all, of the freebies dispensed throughout the warehouse. But Costco has nixed giveaways as a health safety precaution. I have to believe it will diminish sales. I know I’ve brought home numerous items I’ve first-time tasted there (the  kosher ones only, of course).

But Costco’s bottom line was not on my mind as I walked the aisles. Rather, I pondered the fate of the men and women who have lost their jobs, at least temporarily, cooking up and dishing out bite-sized morsels.

The coronavirus has a far larger impact on low income families than on white collar households. The public is avoiding events with large concentrations of attendees. South by South West (SXSW) cancelled, for example. Think of all the workers in Austin—in restaurants, hotels, Uber and taxi drivers, plus other service industry mainstays—who will be adversely affected by the absence of nearly a half million visitors. The lost revenue in pay and tips will be devastating.

Retirement should be a time of relaxation, sans anxiety. Visits to museums, theaters, restaurants. Taking classes at nearby colleges and religious institutions. Seeing the grandkids for a few days. 

Instead, furloughed worker are worrying about the possibility of losing their jobs. With the average person having just about $10,000 in bank savings (much lower for hourly workers), prolonged time off the job will heighten anxiety about how rent/mortgage will be paid, how food and medicine will be bought, how car payments will be made, how credit card debt will be lowered … how long before life will be back to normal, if ever. 

Retirees usually have monthly Social Security checks and, if they’re lucky, some other income from pensions or retirement accounts. Furloughed workers might be eligible for unemployment compensation as it would be doubtful their employers would be generous enough to keep them on the payroll for an indefinite period.

Students usually exult upon receiving an unexpected day off from school, such as a snow day. But multiple, consecutive days at home become boring and counterproductive, not to mention a nuisance for parents to cope with. Teachers, meanwhile, may receive their full year’s pay, but what about school bus drivers? 

Having been retired for more than 10 years, I strongly suggest to those finding themselves at home instead of at work that they limit television viewing time, especially of cable news stations. Nonstop, repetitive reports about the coronavirus and Trump/Biden/Sanders will intensify your blood pressure, a condition that you don’t want once you eventually reach true retirement age.

1-Issue Voting Behind Jews for Trump. How Sad.

A friend forwarded a video said to be trending all over South Florida, in other words, the retirement home of many Jews, key voters in all elections. It’s a video of Cantor Sagee Goldenholz of Temple Beth Shalom of Boca Raton, speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering last year about why he and others are leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party (

https://www.facebook.com/michelle.l.terris/videos/10222159708763441/).

My takeaway from this video is the speaker is advocating Jews should be 1-issue voters. Vote for the candidate who does the best for Israel, in their eyes. Anything else is irrelevant.

And so, the strong suggestion is that Jewish voters should turn their backs on decades of support for liberal democratic (small l, small d) values. What matters is loyalty to Israel, not to America.

Never mind that Trump wants to remove affordable health care from millions of Americans. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump wants to close down Planned Parenthood. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump wants to end a woman’s right to choose. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump ordered the separation of asylum-seeking families at the border in a move reminiscent of WWII refugees. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump gutted environmental regulations. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump abandoned allies in the field. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump speaks to Jews in anti-Semitic tropes. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump has denigrated the office of the president and America’s standing in the world. Israel not affected (it has its own leadership issues).

Never mind that Trump abuses the truth almost every time he speaks or tweets. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump’s immigration policies would have kept many Jews from entering the United States had they been in force when they arrived. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump has created an atmosphere that has emboldened white nationalists to openly espouse anti-Semitism. Israel not affected.

The list could go on. 

Yes, Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognized annexation of the Golan Heights. Has the rest of the world rushed to congratulate Israel or Trump on the bold moves? Has it saved any lives in Israel. Has it made Israel safer (let’s be honest—no one presumed Israel would ever give up the Golan).

From my vantage point Trump is playing American Jews for suckers. He is trading on good PR actions to woo Jewish voters. But as we have seen with the Kurds, he will abandon friends and allies when he deems it beneficial not to U.S. interests but his own. 

American Jews have every reason to be bi-partisan in their selection of political parties to support. FDR was not a fan of Jews. Neither was Nixon. The State Department, long a Republican stronghold, preferred Arabs over Jews. Most Jewish congressmen and senators aligned with the Democrats. 

An emotional vote is as valid as a reasoned one. If the Jews of South Florida or anywhere want to back Trump because of his support for Israel, so be it. I only hope they balance their decision by the impact a vote for Trump and Republicans in Congress and in their state houses will have on their social security, their health care, the health of the planet, their dedication to civil rights and other issues they have supported and championed for the last 80 or more years. 

Three Plans to Solve Vexing Issues

I’ve got three game-changing plans to solve vexing issues of the day. They require some tweaking before implementation, but I have every confidence they would be successful.

Plan 1—Control the incendiary impact of social media on politics.

No one can seriously dispute the fact that social media has been infiltrated by agents hoping to sabotage our free and open elections (as well as those in other democratic countries). The challenge is how to contain the spread of misinformation and disinformation. 

Israel, for example, stops all television political advertising 24-48 hours before citizens vote. 

We could and should do better. 

We should impose a 30-day (or longer) pre-election moratorium on any electronic political advertising, commentary, or tweeting punishable by a mandatory 90-day jail sentence for offenders, even presidents.  

Also, companies that have Internet platforms would face double scrutiny and punishment—all their C-level executives would face jail time for any infractions. A company itself would be fined $1 million for a first infraction; fines would double for each subsequent violation. 

These penalties surely would get the attention of corporate officers. 

Yes, First Amendment zealots would condemn this restraint on speech, but the future of our democracy depends on keeping our political dialogue honest and domestic. 

Plan 2—Simplify the democratic socialism vs. capitalism debate.

Trumpers say Democrats are trying to impose socialism on our country, even as they carry signs that warn politicians to keep their hands off their Social Security checks. 

My plan is a simple one: For those who fear socialism, let them opt out of the services and benefits government provides, such as the aforementioned Social Security, or Medicare, Medicaid, municipal water and sewer systems, public schools, emergency medical and safety services, and public parks and recreational facilities, to name a handful. 

If citizens choose to defer on building their own wells, let them pay exorbitant rates for the convenience of turning on the water tap in their homes. If they call 911, emergency services would first advise them of the cost of sending a police car, ambulance or fire truck to their assistance. Credit card payment upfront before any help would be dispatched. 

I, for one, am tired of hearing people badmouth democratic socialism. It has worked in Scandinavian countries. It can work here. 

The question becomes at what point do people shift from a totally capitalist mentality to one that embraces the ideal that it is in the common good and welfare for all of our residents (yes, illegals as well) to be healthy and capable of contributing to society and paying taxes (which many illegals do. BTW, I am not advocating for illegal immigration, but am just recognizing the reality of their presence).

Anti-democratic socialists fear rich citizens and corporations would have to give up some of their wealth. I know, it would be a burden on billionaires and mega-millionaires to own only two or three mansions and yachts. But I am confident they would find the moxie to live through any discomfort. Similarly, corporations should lose the ability to earn millions without having to pay federal taxes. They are, after all, availing themselves of the benefits our government is providing, such as safe and secure borders. 

Plan 3—Contain anti-Semitism and BDS activists.

Anti-Semitism has been around for more than 2,000 years. Whether it be fueled by religious intolerance, economic insecurity, scapegoating, fear of the different or just plain old fashioned ignorance, anti-Semitism is like the cockroach—it resists eradication. 

BDS is a cancer. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is but another manifestation of anti-Semitism, cloaked in an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian manifesto. 

My solution (incapable of being implemented but I can dream) is that people who are anti-Semites or who support BDS should not be able to benefit from any invention or other product/idea that originated from a Jewish mind or in Israel. Inventions such as the Salk polio vaccine or the Waze GPS-based navigation app. Or pill-cam colonoscopy screening. 

The list is too exhaustive to reproduce here, but suffice to say everyday life would be far different without the contributions of Jews. And that extends to the arts and entertainment, as well.

Rand Paul and Farmers Might Think the U.S. is a Capitalist Country, But Socialism Abounds

Making the rounds of Facebook lately is the following quote attributed to Rand Paul, Republican senator from Kentucky. Paul is a libertarian conservative. Here’s the quote: “Our Founders never intended for Americans to trust their government. Our entire Constitution was predicated on the notion that government was a necessary evil to be restrained and minimized as much as possible.”

Interesting. On the other hand, do you think the Founders considered a future with automatic rifles and machine guns? Or a future with medications that could prevent the dissemination of life-threatening contagious diseases? Or the instant communication of radio, television, cable and the Internet with their potential to undermine freedom? Or the ability to mass produce food and the need to safeguard its production and consumption? Or trains, planes and automobiles and the necessity to regulate their use? Or the depletion and pollution of clean water and air? 

Perhaps the Founders didn’t always get things right. They did, after all, sanction slavery. Rand Paul and his originalist brethren need to realize the Constitution and its amendments are templates for a governing philosophy that requires modifications based on the evolution of mankind’s technical and scientific abilities to do good and evil. 

The Constitution and amendments need to be interpreted in light of changes in reality. As the Bible is. Western society has gone beyond the literal “eye for an eye” doctrine of penalties for actions intended or not. 

So, too, must our unassailable reliance on a late 18th century document. 

A recent New Yorker article on Wisconsin farmers and their loyalty to Donald Trump contained the following from a dairy farmer: “I’m not in favor of any kind of socialism,” he said. “We’re a capitalist farm.”

As much as that farmer professed a disdain for socialism I wonder if he realizes just how much “socialism” he and his fellow sodbusters receive. Based on U.S. Dept. of Agriculture data, the Environmental Working Group computes that from 1995 through April 2019, farmers received $390.9 billion of federal subsidies. Wisconsin farmers pocketed $9.113 billion, ranking the state 16th among those accepting federal support. 

As a nation we don’t have a problem with creeping socialism in this country. Rather, we have a problem with people failing to understand how socialism—how the “means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”—is embedded in our everyday lives. 

Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. Food stamps. Public schools. Free and subsidized school food programs. Energy subsidies. Subsidies that pay farmers to limit what crops to plant and how much their acreage should yield. Yada, yada, yada.

We are awash in government giveaways. Some may quibble about individual handout programs. Overall, we are better for them. 

Rand Paul might think government is “a necessary evil,” but he would be wrong. His state of Kentucky, according to WalletHub, is the third most dependent on money from Washington (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/). A year ago, WalletHub estimated that for every dollar Kentucky sends to Washington, it receives $2.61. Just imagine how poorly Kentucky would fare if it didn’t receive its share of our “socialist” government.

My Supreme Court Nightmare

I had a nightmare last night. Not while sleeping. I had woken up as I often do in the middle of the night. I picked up my iPhone to view the most popular stories on The New York Times website. 

I read several articles before opening an analysis by Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan Law School professor (https://nyti.ms/2Y7UsXg). If he is correct, the country I have inhabited for more than 70 years might radically change. 

In that newly formulated country programs such as Social Security, the Food and Drug Administration and Medicare would be invalidated because their rules and regulations were not voted on by Congress. Rather, they were formed by administrators never elected by the people. 

This topsy-turvy approach to government could come about if a conservative majority on the Supreme Court reasons that rules regulating these programs violated the Constitution because administrators and not Congress authorized them. 

For decades it has been the conservative dream to exterminate New Deal and subsequent liberal safeguard and safety net programs, beginning with Social Security. Politicians might consider Social Security to be the third rail of politics, to be touched at the risk of losing election or reelection, but the justices on our highest court sit for life. They need not worry about tenure. 

The nightmare I am describing has already started to form. Long-held legal precedents have been overturned. Though they might have sworn allegiance to “stare decisis” during their confirmation hearings, justices may conclude that verdicts by earlier Supreme Courts were flawed, thus releasing them from their vows of upholding precedent. 

It can be only a matter of court terms before Roe v. Wade and other key liberal beliefs are put asunder by the currently constituted court. The result will be government by the powerful, increasingly represented by special interests and Big Business, with little or no congressional or federal oversight. 

This nightmare is a legacy of those Americans who so reviled Hillary Clinton that they voted for Donald Trump or Jill Stein of the Green Party. Or didn’t vote at all. Elections, we are seeing, have consequences. 

My nightmare kept me awake for an hour. There were no imaginary monsters to dismiss from memory. There were real life demons—Trump, McConnell, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh. 

To the Barricades: Socialist Dems Under Attack

To much applause from his party apparatchiks during the State of the Union speech Tuesday night Donald Trump voiced the oft-repeated trope America will never become a socialist country. 

“We are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination and control. We renew our resolve that America will  never be a socialist country,” said the demagogue-in-chief.

To which I would respond, go back to school, Donald. What about Social Security? Unemployment insurance? Disability insurance? Medicare? Medicaid? Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, food stamps? National parks? Public transportation systems? The Tennessee Valley Authority? The list could go on and on. 

We live in a republic imbued with democratic and socialist policies and programs. Yes, the country may have been founded on the pursuit of liberty (for all but the enslaved) and independence (except for slaves), but it was not done without coercion (think slavery), domination (government sanctioned slavery) and control (slavery once more). What’s more, today’s Republicans want to remove liberty and independence from women’s reproductive options through coercion, domination and control. 

Casting Democrats as socialists may be the newest fear bogeyman by a bully who has already labeled Hispanic and Muslim immigrants the source of most evil in our country (https://nyti.ms/2DWLuEp). He could succeed in his dark portrayal if Democrats do not fight back immediately and vigorously.

With rare exception senior Americans have come to rely on their Social Security checks arriving each month. Some even rely on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver them. Democrats need to educate the electorate that Democrats initiated Social Security and that Republicans have for years tried to dismantle it.

Democrats need to begin an ongoing advertising campaign pointing out all the support programs they started amid the Republican record of dissent and budgetary cutbacks.

Turn the discussion away from socialism to social welfare and healthcare programs.

Pose: Were you struck as I was by the posture Trump took during his speech? (Take a look at the picture accompanying this article: https://nyti.ms/2DYYREg). Often pursing his lips, Trump thrust his chin up and out, like…like Il Duce, Benito Mussolini. All that was missing was an upward thrust of his right arm at the beginning. (Look for yourself at video from a 1934 speech at Taranto, Italy: https://youtu.be/OOv-Ncs7vQk)

And, as long as I’m comparing Trump to an Italian dictator, does anyone else conjure up images of a Mafia don when they see Trump walking around in an open overcoat (no doubt cashmere) while his capos are comfortable in just suit jackets? 

Chutzpah à la Trump: The definition of chutzpah used to be when a man accused of killing his mother and father seeks mercy from the court because he is an orphan. That explanation, advanced by Leo Rosten in his book “The Joy of Yiddish,” can be supplanted by the racist-and misogynist-in-chief calling out Virginia Democrats for their acts of racism and alleged sexual assault. 

No doubt the image of Democrats in Virginia has been tarnished. To call out their faults, however, Republicans would have to explain how they overlook Trump’s repeated falls from grace. 

Tuesday's Vote: A Choice Between Democracy and Greed

The latest employment numbers show a vibrant economy, a continuation of the return from recession inherited from the Republicans initiated by Barack Obama. Jobs increased by 250,000 last month. 

So, as we approach midterm election day Tuesday, what will it be people: Your wallet or your way of life? Your 401k or your democracy? Your bank account or your country?

Think carefully. Think long term. Just as tigers don’t lose their stripes, leopards retain their spots, Republicans stay true to their core beliefs: In their hearts they oppose Social Security, any form of welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (especially its pre-existing condition coverage benefit), civil rights, worker rights, unions, voting rights, public housing programs and an assortment of other programs that provide comfort to average Americans and the land, sea and air we inhabit. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has evil intentions for social service programs. He is not shy about stating his plan, should Republicans maintain their majorities in the Senate and House, to strip away some Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits. Why? To pay for the GOP tax plan that has skyrocketed the national debt while lavishing huge savings on the rich but providing paltry amounts to the middle class and working class. It has been such a disaster that Donald Trump has been forced to promise a 10% middle class tax cut.

Of course, Trump also acknowledged that he often does not tell the truth. He lies, in other words, to push his plans forward, to gain an advantage from a gullible public. For anyone who heard or read his admission, the operative question is, how could you trust him? Even when promising the tax relief Trump undercut his truth by saying Congress would act on the proposal in early November, never realizing that Congress would be on recess until after November 6. Only a fool would believe Republicans would follow through on Trump’s middle class handout. 

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No, this is not a paean to Gomer Pyle. Rather it is a sarcastic commentary on a recent report asserting the Trump tax reform bill benefitted White people more than Blacks and Hispanics. Of course, some might denigrate the report since it came from a liberal think tank. 

But seriously, even conservatives should not be surprised by the elemental truth that tax relief has been more lopsided for rich white Americans than for lower and middle class minorities.

Nobody relishes paying taxes, though my father used to say he wouldn’t mind if he owed the IRS $100,000 as that would mean he earned a heck of a lot of money that year. 

We need some perspective when it comes to taxes. Without them, roads wouldn’t be built or maintained. Public water systems and waste treatment plants would not function. Food and medicine safety would not be monitored. Public safety and our military would disappear. Ah, socialism at its best. 

The grand experiment of doing away with many taxes and government services proved to be a disaster in Kansas. Striking the right balance of taxes and services is the holy grail of politics. 

Which brings us to the elections Tuesday.  

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton of Britain had it right when he coined the phrase in the late 1800s. Republicans currently have near absolute power in Washington. Rather than draining the swamp, as he promised, Trump has installed acolytes who are corrupting the government, even as he and his family milk  their tenure for undisclosed profits. 

The Founders of our country foresaw the need for checks and balances so that absolute power could be restrained. It is in our electoral power to install a check on Trumpism. 

Positive economic news is a powerful incentive to vote Republican. But that is a short term view. A true patriot considers the health and welfare of his/her country and all its citizens and residents, not their personal bank roll, before casting a vote. A deliberate voter discounts the fear-mongering spouted by those who seek to retain their absolute power.  

It is imperative that everyone vote like your future depended on it, vote like your children’s future depended on it, vote like your grandchildren’s future depended on it. 

With that in mind, here’s a word from our guiding mantra:

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

The Future Hinges on Voters of Suspect Intellect

Less than two weeks until the fate of the country is decided. Not specifically on the ballot are the futures of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, civil rights, voting rights, gender rights, labor rights, nuclear arms control, environmental laws and a host of other issues that will directly affect the lives of most Americans, even if they don’t realize it (for example, those who complain about socialism overtaking our daily existence do not comprehend that Social Security and Medicaid are forms of socialism, as are public schools and public police forces and fire departments).

Let’s be honest. You’re probably as sick and tired of election coverage as I am. That goes doubly for having to see and listen to Donald Trump at rally after rally as he foments crowds into raw meat delirium. How hypocritical of him to blame the media for inciting incendiary behavior.

Now let’s be really honest. You’re probably melancholy, perhaps more than a bit disappointed, maybe even angry that Barack Obama didn’t fire up his faithful in 2010 and 2014 to defend his progressive platform, as the provocateur-in-chief is doing almost every day with his rabble of a following. Had he done so maybe we wouldn’t have so many Republicans currently in office on the national and state levels.  

For now, I am beyond soaking up all the minutia of 435 House races, 35 Senate square offs and countless state house and gubernatorial contests. I just want it to be over, like I wanted the Mega Millions lottery to finally find a winner (I am really disappointed my five tickets contained no more than one of the picked numbers; I didn’t fare any better with Wednesday’s Powerball drawing). I’m even too exhausted to watch Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers skewer Trump, or listen to Brian Lehrer on WNYC public radio impart more reasoned analysis of our disastrous political state. 

That could be the Trumpster’s plan all along. To rope-a-dope us all into submission. 

I wonder how many people under 45 would get that rope-a-dope reference. Muhammed Ali used that strategy on October 30, 1974, in the Rumble in the Jungle fight to tire out George Foreman. Ali allowed Foreman, the reigning heavyweight champion of the world, to barrage him with punches through seven rounds while he nestled on the ring’s ropes, a tactic that allowed Ali to dissipate much of the impact of each punch. His energy spent from swinging lefts and rights to little effect, Foreman succumbed to Ali’s assault before the bell rang to end round eight. 

Why did I pick 45 as the age factor? Because a recent national survey found that just 19% of those 45 and younger could pass a citizenship test if it were required of Americans born in the United States. 

“With voters heading to the polls next month, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential,” Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, which conducted the study, said in a statement. 

“Unfortunately, this study found the average American to be woefully uninformed regarding America’s history and incapable of passing the U.S. Citizenship Test. It would be an error to view these findings as merely an embarrassment. Knowledge of the history of our country is fundamental to maintaining a democratic society, which is imperiled today.”

Citizens 65 and older fared much better, scoring passing grades 74% of the time, the highest mark for any age cohort. (An actual citizenship test is just 10 questions, six of which must be answered correctly. Take a longer—96 question—test by clicking on the “select all questions” button in the link: http://www.citizenshipstudyguide.com/member/citizenship-test-questions-quiz.php.)

According to the foundation’s press release, “The survey also found that:

• 72% of respondents either incorrectly identified or were unsure of which states were part of the 13 original states;
• Only 24% could correctly identify one thing Benjamin Franklin was famous for, with 37% believing he invented the lightbulb;
• Only 24% knew the correct answer as to why the colonists fought the British;
• 12% incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War; 6% thought he was a Vietnam War general; and
• While most knew the cause of the Cold War, 2% said climate change.

Simply put, too many of our electorate are dumb. Without basic knowledge of our history, our founding principles and values, it is no wonder that a lying, uninformed autocratic bigot can manipulate the truth and lead a throng of morons to repudiate what this country has stood for domestically and internationally for more than eight decades. 

Under the Roberts Court, Precedent Be Damned, Even Without Kennedy's Successor

In conversation the other day my sister Lee and I shared a problem afflicting both of us—we haven’t been able to sleep well since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, leaving to Donald Trump a choice that could well tilt the court to the right for a generation. 

Not that it wasn’t already a mostly conservative ensemble, though Kennedy provided that occasional libertarian vote that sided with the four progressive judges to validate gay rights, same sex marriage and the security of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

Kennedy was not flaming in his support of those bedrock Democratic principles. Now that he’s retiring it is open season on his legacy. Here’s just one example of a critique of his record on gay rights: https://nyti.ms/2lEgP4J. Similar dissections of his opinions on access to abortions, Citizens United, the Second Amendment, and other conservative court decisions are easy enough to find.

In the upcoming confirmation battle, Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are said to be crucial because of their past support of a woman’s right to choose. They have been quoted as saying Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” precedent that should not be voided.

Yet, no nominee will acknowledge how he or she would vote on a case to invalidate Roe v. Wade. As for it being “settled law,” we have seen already how the Roberts court has rejected precedent to chart a more regressive course. Just ask civil service union members how they feel about the protection of precedent. 

It’s important to remember that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion would be permitted in states where it is legal, such as New York. But each state could pass its own restrictions. In New York, an abortion could occur for any reason up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Other states could have tighter deadlines, or outright ban the procedure even if a mother’s life is at risk.

Kennedy framed his more libertarian votes on the concept of personal privacy. His conservative detractors point out that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution never identified privacy as a freedom or right. A new, more conservative majority could reject Kennedy’s foundational argument, setting aside the rights and freedoms he found ensconced in the Constitution. 

The challenges might come from a direction not previously expected. Stripping civil service unions of their ability to collect dues from all workers served by their collective bargaining unit came about, for example, through a First Amendment challenge, a tactic heretofore rarely used by conservatives. 

I’m not a lawyer, so this analysis could be off-base. But I’m fairly certain it has merit. The upfront fear of a more conservative justice than Kennedy being appointed is naturally focused on the issues that have been most explosive over the last several decades, gay rights, gun rights and legalized abortion. 

There are, however, two government programs that conservatives have long sought to disembowel: Social Security and the Internal Revenue Service. (They’d also like to ax Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.) Again, I’m no lawyer but I am distressingly confident that conservative think tanks are poring over legal strategies to upend these programs. Don’t argue with me that the first two are near-century- and century-old programs, that the population at large would not stand for dismantling Social Security and even the IRS, if push came to shove. It’s also hard to imagine a majority of Americans favoring elimination of the healthcare programs.

But I’m not talking about the population at large. All it takes is one citizen to battle all the way to the Supreme Court where he or she could find a receptive, conservative ear, or should I say, 10 ears. 

The frustration my sister and I feel (by the way, I am not excluding my brother—just haven’t talked to him about it) is in no small measure a result of our living in California and New York, two states that lean liberal, though we are both old enough to remember legal abortion in New York passed the legislature by just one vote five decades ago. 

Rights presumed to be fundamental and guaranteed as “settled law” are susceptible. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been gutted by the Roberts court. Restrictions on the influence of corporations on the political process have been lifted by the Robert court. 

Assume nothing is permanent. Assume no election is safe. Don’t leave it to someone else—VOTE! Not just for president, but for senate and congressional candidates, for governor and attorney general, for state senate and state representative, for mayor and city council, and especially for school board candidates.   

Trump: The Inscrutable, Promotional President

With rare exceptions most people have public and private faces, revealing the latter only to their closest confidants or under extreme duress. Countries and political movements operate similarly.

Saudi Arabia, for example, professes to oppose radical Islam but through its funding of madrasas throughout the world it is the number one propagator of extreme Wahhabi Islam that is anti-Semitic, dismissive of any infidels and behind much of the carnage by radical Islamic terrorists.

It is useful and instructive to assess a politician’s, a government’s, a movement’s true intentions by monitoring their words and deeds expressed to and understood by their primary audiences. Take the PLO, for example. Even as some of its leaders say they accept Israel’s existence, it continues to teach children hatred of Jews while lauding terrorists who kill Israelis, even rewarding their families with payments if they die in their efforts. 

It’s a two-sided street. Over the years Bibi Netanyahu has expressed support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but almost everything his government has done in the West Bank territories has undermined the prospect of that ideal becoming a reality.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. Casting himself as the great dealmaker Trump envisions being a peace broker between the Palestinians and Israel as well as a coalition builder of “moderate” Arab states to defeat ISIS.

With an oversized Santa Claus bag of military goodies, Trump curried favor with the Saudi royal family and the dictators of other Sunni lands, but how credible is he in their eyes? Did the rhetoric their ears heard in Riyadh erase what they witnessed and heard for nearly two years, months upon months of attacks on Islam, including in March 2016, “I think Islam hates us”?

Which are his baseline beliefs—his diplomatic use in Riyadh of the phrase “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires,” or the catchphrase “radical Islamic terrorism” featured in all his rallies and in his attacks on President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their failure to similarly identify Muslim attackers?

One wonders if the Arab Sunni world will be as discriminating as U.S. courts have been concerning Trump’s candor on the campaign trail. In restraining implementation of Trump’s travel ban from seven predominantly Muslim countries, courts have determined candidate Trump’s words are a more realistic reflection of his inner beliefs than his post-election public posturing.

Trump shows his true, unfiltered face when he tweets or departs from prepared remarks. 

Apparently under duress from the probe of alleged Russian influence on his campaign during the election, Trump seemingly revealed his lack of understanding of constitutional restrictions on the powers of the presidency. If James Comey is telling the truth, Trump asked the then-FBI director to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s ties to Russia. It has also been reported that Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. 

Under duress to score political wins, Trump has turned his back on campaign promises never to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding. His proposed fiscal 2018 federal budget might not get passed as is, but it is instructive as to Trump’s true feelings. 

His budget calls for an $880 billion cut in Medicaid, a $191 billion cut in food stamps, a $72.5 billion cut in aid to the disabled, and a $21.6 billion cut in welfare over the next 10 years. Many of those reductions would impact the very voters who propelled Trump into the White House. 

Trump also promised to repeal and replace Obamacare with a better, less expensive health care program that would cover more people. But the bill he supported that passed in the House of Representatives would reduce coverage by 23 million over a decade, be more costly and provide less coverage, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (https://nyti.ms/2qXzbSq).

Again, Trump’s core voters would be deeply affected by Trumpcare, if passed as is. 

So how to gauge the true Trump? Might I suggest this measuring stick—consider him the “promotional president” not bound to any rigid doctrine or philosophy. He cares only about the optics of winning, of promoting himself, without regard to those who may be adversely affected by his waffling positions and advocacy for legislation or executive orders that are detrimental to millions of Americans, many of whom voted for him in the expectation he would improve their lives.

We have always had wheeling and dealing presidents, perhaps none better at closing the deal than Lyndon Baines Johnson. Trump, however, does not seem to be rooted in any political principle other than his personal aggrandizement. Perhaps that’s why he reacts so quickly and violently to any slight, real or perceived. Perhaps that’s why he is eager to share the perqs of his office with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, why he is willing to bow down, even curtsy, before the Saudi king, why he could not help himself but risk a constitutional crisis by firing Comey, the man responsible for leading the investigation of his administration. 

Trump is a man of limited vocabulary, limited attention span, limited fealty to the truth, limited appreciation of historical context, limited loyalty to principle. It is not a compliment to say he is inscrutable. One would hope a president of the United States stands for values long forged in the American experience, not someone who favorably compares our values with those of Saudi Arabia where, among many repressive actions, public dissent is illegal, women are considered chattel with few rights, slavery still exists, religions other than Sunni Islam are not tolerated and where the press is restricted. 

Saudi Arabia practices Sharia Law. But that’s okay with Donald Trump. After all, they extended to him a welcome fit for a king, complete with a gold medal, showering him with praise. To get a $110 billion package of military hardware, the Saudis knew just how to appeal to his ego. 

   

Patriot Games: Loyal Opposition or Upside Down Flag Waver

What type of patriot should I be? Should Democrats be?

It is not an idle question in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as president and what it would mean to the majesty and character of the United States as a beacon of freedom, tolerance and equal opportunity, no matter how imperfect our execution of those values are. 

Should I endorse the combative stance of Charles Blow who, writing in The New York Times, defiantly rejected Donald Trump’e election (http://nyti.ms/2ghhIeO), a position echoed by the following statement found on the Internet and sent to me by one of my best friends:

I listened as they called my President a Muslim.

I listened as they called him and his family a pack of monkeys.

I listened as they said he wasn’t born here.

I watched as they blocked every single path to progress that they could.

I saw the pictures of him as Hitler.

I watched them shut down the government and hurt the entire nation twice.

I watched them turn their backs on every opportunity to open worthwhile dialog.

I watched them say that they would not even listen to any choice for Supreme Court no matter who the nominee was.

I listened as they openly said that they will oppose him at every turn.

I watched as they did just that.

I listened.

I watched.

I paid attention.

Now, I’m being called on to be tolerant.

To move forward.

To denounce protesters.

To “Get over it.”

To accept this...

I will not.

I will do my part to make sure this great American mistake becomes the embarrassing footnote of our history that it deserves to be.

I will do this as quickly as possible every chance I get.

I will do my part to limit the damage that this man can do to my country.

I will watch his every move and point out every single mistake and misdeed in a loud and proud voice.

I will let you know in a loud voice every time this man backs away from a promise he made to them.

Them. The people who voted for him.

The ones who sold their souls and prayed for him to win.

I will do this so that they never forget.

And they will hear me.

They will see it in my eyes when I look at them.

They will hear it in my voice when I talk to them.

They will know that I know who they are.

They will know that I know what they are.

Do not call for my tolerance. I’ve tolerated all I can.

Now it’s their turn to tolerate ridicule.

Be aware, make no mistake about it, every single thing that goes wrong in our country from this day 

forward is now Trump’s fault just as much as they thought it was Obama’s.

I find it unreasonable for them to expect from me what they were entirely unwilling to give.

Or should I assume the attitude of “This too shall pass,” and take comfort that the nation survived eight years of Ronald Reagan plus another four years of George H.W. Bush, only to survive eight years of George W. Bush? Unfortunately, that trial balloon was burst by Jeff Greenfield’s article in Politico’s magazine that maintains a Trump administration tied to a Republican Congress and Supreme Court would be more destructive to progressive causes than Reagan (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-trump-can-change-washington-214475).

Should the loyal opposition work with Trump to improve our infrastructure and get more domestic manufacturing jobs? Or should Democrats resist giving him any victories, for surely he would not waste a moment to claim them as his and his alone? 

Should they let Trump and his dark knights tear apart the social safety net and let the working class and middle class voters who abandoned the Democrats find out what it’s like to live in a country that doesn’t care if they’re insured, that reduces the certainty of retirement benefits, that provides huge tax cuts to the wealthy but little to them, that wants to privatize national parks, that doesn’t push for higher minimum wages, that doesn’t enforce or pass worker safety laws or regulations for clean air, and safe foods and drugs?

When Trump first proposed to loosen the libel laws it was thought to be a potential minefield for legitimate media. Upon reflection, I believe the most vulnerable media would be those websites and papers that print scurrilous lies and distortions, the type of media that aided and abetted the election of The Donald. 

With Stephen Bannon as one of his closest advisors, whose Breitbart News often treaded dangerously on the borderline of libel, it is no wonder Trump has refined and softened his stance on the mainstream media. 

Of course, satirical shows such as The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (who is really coming into his own), would not have to worry as their content is protected speech, but let’s not discount the damage and threat repeated denunciations from the commander-in-chief might precipitate, perhaps including physical retaliation by some of Trump’s supporters or pressure on advertisers to withdraw support of the “offending” telecasts.

It would be foolish to count on Trump to modulate his positions. Someone who spreads falsehoods and deals with unfounded accusations, such as his latest outcry that he lost the popular vote because millions of votes were cast illegally for Hillary Clinton, reinforces the notion that reacting to Trump is a no-win proposition.

Instead, Democrats must aggressively attack his expected actions and those of Congress. They need to be proactive, not reactive.

For instance, to preserve the benefits of Obamacare, they need to run ads that defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA), ads that would outline the type of people who would be vulnerable if it were repealed and how insurance companies would take advantage of them. Focus on examples of the 22 million who are covered by Obamacare and how it has changed their lives for the better. 

Republicans have been wanting to alter Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security since they were passed by Democrats. To fend off radical changes, ads must target those who would be most affected—working class families and the elderly, two groups that opted for Trump. They need to be shown how GOP policies would hurt them.

His nominee for Treasury secretary wants to gut the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed in response to the investment community shenanigans that caused the housing crisis and the great recession of 2008.

As he assembles his cabinet and key advisors it has become obvious that Trump’s inner circle will not be a cushion, softening his campaign rhetoric. Rather, it is shaping up as a more regressive force. His designated Health and Human Services secretary, for example, wants to gut the ACA and eliminate insurance mandates for pre-existing conditions and cut back Medicare coverage. So much for Trump’s 60 Minutes statement to the contrary. 

Indeed, Trump is a master at playing the American public, hinting at his openness and compassion but wielding a harsh scepter of benefits denial.

Why do I say this? Because it is becoming clearer that while he listens to several advisors, he tends to follow the advice of the last person who had his ear. Too often that will be Bannon or vice president-elect Mike Pence, a hard core conservative. 

This and previous elections have shown that national direction is decided at the state level. Progressives have been koched and kicked by the Koch brothers and their ilk who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars securing state houses and gubernatorial mansions across the country. 

The time to build a state by state ground game is long past. But it is doable, especially if the populist agenda Trump campaigned on does not come to fruition and he has to defend a record that was passed in conjunction with a Republican Congress. 

So to answer the question at the top of this blog, I’ll be a discerning patriot, not ready to turn the American flag on my porch upside down as a sign of distress, but not willing to give our president-elect a free pass. His actions and their consequences will determine the outcome.

Policy Questions for First Clinton-Trump Debate

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is September 26, a scant three weeks away. There are lots of gotcha questions that could be asked and I am sure the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC, is under extreme pressure to come up some of those on embarrassing topics such as Donald Trump’s attack on Mexicans and Hillary Clinton’s email server shenanigans. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall for the bait but rather chooses subjects that will illuminate the policy differences between the candidates. 

With that in mind, here are questions I would recommend to him, questions to be asked of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so that they might provide substantive answers with limited opportunities to dodge with generalities or obfuscations or hyperbolic attacks on their opponent.

1. How specifically would you change the Affordable Care Act? Which provisions would you keep and which would you jettison?

2. Would you continue federal funding of Planned Parenthood and why?

3. Would you continue funding overseas programs that include birth control measures?

4. Would you continue federal support of stem cell research?

5. Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Should Roe v Wade be overturned, leaving to individual states to decide the right to an abortion? Should anyone who participates in an abortion, be they patient or medical professional, be subject to prosecution if abortion is declared illegal?

6. Should clergy be permitted to advocate politically from their pulpits?

7. Do you support or want to overturn the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court?

8. Do you favor a federal minimum wage and, if so, at what level?

9. Given the low interest rate on borrowings do you favor increasing the federal debt to fund infrastructure spending projects?

10. What test, if any, would you have in determining your response to any aggression against a NATO ally or against Japan, Korea or The Philippines?

11. Are there any government departments or agencies you would close down? Are there any new ones you would create?

12. What would happen to undocumented immigrants during your administration?

13. How would you restore confidence and good relations between the police and minority communities?

14. Should there be any limitations on the type of weapons ordinary citizens may possess, and, if so, how would you implement such restrictions?

15. What specific changes would you make to NAFTA and the proposed TPP?

16. What is America’s role during humanitarian crises in foreign lands? Under what circumstances would you engage our military during these crises? 

17. What is your position on American support, both financial and philosophical, for the United Nations?

18. Explain your position on the Iran nuclear deal and how your administration would handle relations with Iran?

19. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

20. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

21. What guidelines would you impose on legal access to immigration?

22. Does the United States have any interests in helping solve the refugee problem from Africa and the Middle East?

23. How confident are you that the election will be a fair one, and do you have any evidence of past voter fraud that would lead you to believe the results would be rigged?

24. Are Americans better off today than they were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

25. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

26. What role would alternative energy programs play within your administration?

27. What is your position on equal pay for women?

28. Should Americans 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?