Look Past 2020 To See Future of the Republic

While most political views are focused on 2020, a longer lens to 2024 and beyond may be more informative as to the future direction of our republic.

Some never-Trumpers retain a pipe dream that an alternative, such as Bill Weld, Nikki Haley or John Kasich, could wrest the Republican Party presidential nomination from the incumbent, Donald Trump. They are seeking the remnants of the soul of what was once a Grand Old Party. At one time it could be argued, and was, that working with Trump inside the White House and in Congress helped to restrain his excesses. But that argument for too long has not held water. Anyone who continues to take a federal paycheck inside the current administration or is a Republican member of either house of Congress, ostensibly as a public servant, has clearly sold his or her soul. Moreover, those who already abandoned ship should be under a patriotic obligation to reveal on the record Trump’s illegal and unpresidential acts.

Almost any Republican of stature and integrity would be better than Trump not because their domestic social and fiscal policies and international agenda would be markedly different, but rather because they would convey their positions in a more statesmanlike, mature fashion. Abortion rights still would be restricted; conservatives would be nominated for federal court appointments; Iran and North Korea would still be trouble spots; Israel would be favored over Palestinians. But their tone would be better. They would be more appealing to suburban women. They would not be a constant source of lies. A less provocative president would probably have long enough coattails to secure a GOP House and Senate. Democrats would try but mostly fail to influence legislation.

In this Age of Trump, party apparatchiks have sold their souls. At his behest, they have stacked the deck against any inside insurrection. One can hardly blame Trump for doing what comes naturally to almost all incumbents.

The lurking dilemma for the GOP and the nation is, who will win the battle for control of the party come 2024. Will the party look for a Trump protege or will it seek to revert to its traditional policy planks and level-headed leaders? The answer may depend on how much Trump loses by or how much he wins by in 2020 (assuming, of course, he doesn’t declare an emergency if he loses and refuses to accept defeat, and if he wins doesn’t try to repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting terms of office, or simply ignores it).

Trump has shown he is like a dog gnawing on a bone he will not give up. He fixates on a topic, abetted by social media that, regardless of 2020 results, will continue to carry his mean spirited, divisive missives. Win or lose he will defend his legacy to the extreme, making it difficult, but not impossible, for the rational wing of the party to appeal to mainstream Republicans.

Our democracy works best when we have robust dialogue between Democrats and Republicans, when compromise is virtuous and the public welfare is foremost in the minds and actions of our elected and appointed officials. Grifters, incompetents, party hacks, and outright liars have reduced America to a shell of its once internationally-held glory, a status held under Democratic and Republican presidents.

We could return to those halcyon days when our word was our bond, a post-Trump world, but only if enough Republicans reconnect with their souls.

American Values Are Worth Saving

Misspeaks by politicians are nothing new. From Bill Clinton's finger-pointing avowal, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” to Richard Nixon's jowel-shaking, “I am not a crook,” Americans have been treated to one doozy after another as our ruling class and would-be members try to balance the need to talk a lot with the difficulty of not saying or doing anything controversial.

Does Hillary's “a basket of deplorables” spring to mind? Or do you remember “mucaca” (monkey) from George Allen's run for a U.S. Senate seat from Virginia? How about Howard Dean's exhilarated scream to rally downcast supporters after he lost the Iowa presidential nominating caucus many expected him to win. He never recovered from the over-exuberance. 

To this short, incomplete record of history add Andrew Cuomo's foot-in-the-mouth comment that America has never been great. Never mind if he is right. All that matters in political misspeak is, does it provide an opponent endless opportunity to exploit the comment to stir up his or her base while sowing doubt among the speaker's cohort and potential followers.

The "Make America Great Again" candidate and now president pounced. Rightly so, for in politics nuance does not secure votes. Cuomo stumbled and no amount of backtracking will erase a videotape that will launch a thousand shiploads of negative ads.

There's another reality in current political conversation. No matter what Donald Trump says or does, his base will not falter. Elected Republicans and those wanting such status will not abandon him. Only those retiring or already out to pasture speak out. The former, however, still vote the party line, the party these days being the Party of Trump.

To unseat Trump independents and brainwash-free Republicans will have to put greed aside to save the republic (ignore the economy, patriots). It won’t be easy.

We hear a lot about American values. How Trump and his disciples push ideas and actions—on immigration, bashing dissenters, tax relief, support of autocrats, to name several—that are not reflective of those values, at least the values most often identified with America since the end of the second world war.

But just how complementary or contradictory is Trump to our historic values? Perhaps, our history is different than our values of the last seven decades. Perhaps, Trump is the mirror we cringe at looking into because we would see a long history of slavery, worker exploitation, racism, xenophobia, restrictive immigration, eugenics, repression of dissent during times of war, boundless executive authority, discrimination of the latest wave of immigrants.

Cuomo might well have been thinking of these stains on our heritage when he spoke. But telling the American people the truth is not always the wisest or safest road to the White House.

A year ago, former vice president Joseph Biden talked about American values in an Op-Ed printed in The New York Times.

Under the headline "Reclaiming American Values," Biden phrased them thusly: inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. If these are the democratic principles we wish to see around the world, America must be the first to model them." https://nyti.ms/2y0xPq9

Let's be honest. America did not always embrace them. Sadly, Trump gets a failing grade for all of them. Even more sad, the Republican Party has abandoned its principles to blindly follow him down the rabbit hole. Saddest of all, nearly half the American public has turned its back on what it should have learned in any basic civics class.

No Confidence in Senate Vote on Obamacare

I have no confidence Republicans will do the right and honest thing. 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to begin the process of holding a Senate vote to repeal and replace, or just repeal, Obamacare Tuesday even though it is expected he lacks the necessary votes for passage of either option. 

I don’t believe Republican senators will not undo the Affordable Care Act. Maybe not in the current iteration of either bill put forward by McConnell. But sooner or later, enough pressured-and-scared-of-an-ultra-right-primary-foe GOP senators will choose re-election tenure over the good of the country. They will parse out false and misleading statements explaining their vote, but it will be pure political survival rather than their constituents’ health, welfare and longevity that will motivate their vote. 

Why do I take such a cynical viewpoint? Because when confronted time and again by the incompetency, mendacity, outright fabrications (lies) and debasement of our national heritage and standing among nations by Donald Trump and his family, Republican legislators in the Senate and House may have spoken out against him but when voting time came they backed him.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation, according to The New York Times, John Dickerson “bluntly asked Mr. (Anthony) Scaramucci (Trump’s newly appointed communications director) if Mr. Trump would get what he wanted in repealing and replacing President Barack Obama’s signature health legislation.

“‘I don’t know if he’s going to get what he wants next week, but he’s going to get what he wants eventually, because this guy always gets what he wants,’ Mr. Scaramucci said. “O.K.?”’ 

In pressuring senators Monday to follow through on their seven year pledge to dismantle Obamacare, Trump—flanked by a score or more of healthy-looking, almost all white people he said could not obtain affordable coverage under Obamacare—argued that the law has been a job killer. 

Perhaps. No doubt there have been instances where small businesses were affected. But no one died because they were forced to obtain health insurance coverage. 

Yet, if upwards of 20 million people lose coverage should the law be repealed, as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office, tens of thousands will die because they would not be able to afford medical care or the prescription drugs they need to sustain life. 

It’s another example of Republicans putting financial considerations—especially the huge tax relief targeted for the super wealthy in the bill—above the safety and welfare needs of the American public. 

It’s another example of the mean-spirited manner in which Trump has formulated his administration. The very people who have benefited from Obamacare and who paradoxically voted for Trump would be most affected by its repeal. 

Trump and GOP Leave Me Full of Questions

Here’s a question. Or two, or more.  How is it that Donald Trump can claim no knowledge any of his associates met with the Russian ambassador? Did none of them talk with him about their meetings? Do they purposely keep him in the dark? Are they involved in some shadow government?

Why would anyone, or any country, believe anything Trump or his administration says after:

With no proof, Trump for years questioned the birthright and therefore the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency?;

With no proof, Trump has claimed three to five million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, thus depriving him of the popular vote victory?;

Contrary to easily accessible official records, Trump claimed the largest Electoral College victory total since Ronald Reagan?;

With no proof, Trump has claimed thousands of Massachusetts voters were bused across the border into New Hampshire to tip the U.S. Senate election to the Democratic candidate and to vote for Clinton for president?;

Contrary to government statistics, Trump had repeatedly claimed the murder rate is the highest in decades?;

Citing no proof, Trump now alleges Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped before the election?;

Trump falsely claimed Muslim immigrants had made Sweden unsafe?;

Trump has expressed compassion for Dreamers brought to this country illegally as children by their parents but he has set his immigration police on a mission to round up and deport them ASAP?

With these contradictions, and many more, the question remains, why would anyone believe anything he says?

Conservative radio talk show host Charlie Sykes, appearing on Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday, wanted to know if any of the people who talked with the Russians asked them to stop hacking our election. Apparently not. Or they didn’t listen.

Of course not. For his part, Trump, you may recall, invited the Russians to hack Clinton’s email server. No matter. Trump doesn’t believe the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s files.

He does believe, without citing any specific source, that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower telephones prior to the election. Naturally, Obama’s people are denying it, as do intelligence and law enforcement officials including the FBI.

Trump’s latest outrageous claim leaves one wondering, when will Republicans grow a spine and stand up to the conspiracy-theorist-in-chief masquerading as a legitimate president?

One further wonders what it will take for Trump voters to reach their boiling point? They need not worry—election results won’t be overturned. If Trump abdicates or is removed, a Republican will continue to reside in the White House in the form of vice president Mike Pence who may be more, or at least as, radical a reactionary as Trump. But Pence is not certifiably loony. I hope.

Question: How do you control the volume of scientific information that underpins the reality of climate change and global warming?

Answer—by turning off the spigot. In Washington terms that is done by defunding scientific research. Trump’s proposed budget hacks away funding for the basic foundation data that verify global warming

collected by the Environmental Protection Agency and other government departments.

Which raises an even more important question: When did Republicans become the anti-science party?

Even the military believes in global warming and is planning strategies and equipment needs to counter its effects. Yet Republicans, long-time military boosters, reject the science, probably because Big Business wants the shackles of environmental protection laws removed or at least loosened.

Creationism theory has found a home within the Republican mind, no doubt placed there by evangelicals who cannot accept the theory of evolution.

And too many GOP leaders, including Trump, assign credibility to the anti-vaccination crowd that believes autism could result in children despite overwhelming scientific studies to the contrary and the positive effects of immunizations.

What’s next for Republican skepticism? Will they give credence to those who question whether the earth is round? Or if we really landed astronauts on the moon? Or if the remains of extra-terrestrials can be found in Area 51 in Nevada?

I can’t pinpoint an exact date their disbelief in science began but it surely came shortly after Republicans realized the potent combination of Big Business and the religious right.

Postal Note:  In the post office parking lot the other day a car next to mine had three campaign bumper stickers, one for Obama, another for Jill Stein 2016 and a third for Bernie Sanders.

I was too timid to ask the man getting into the car if he was happy now that Trump is in office. I wonder, just how repentant any of Jill and Bernie’s supporters are these days?

Southward Bound: Earlier this week General Motors announced it is moving production of its GMC Acadia SUV from Michigan to Tennessee. D’ya think the 1,100 laid off Michigan workers feel any better that their jobs didn’t go to Mexico? I wonder what Trump thinks about the move considering Michigan is more in play to his reelection bid than Tennessee?

Feeling Old? Not really, though I turned 68 on Monday. I will tell you what does make me feel old. Not the “love you grandpa” messages from Finley, Dagny and CJ. Rather, it is the “Uncle Murray” notes from my nephews and nieces. Uncle just seems like such an old salutation. Uncle Murray seems downright ancient.

Desperate People Do Desperate Things

How to explain the phenomenon of Donald Trump? How to explain why evangelical Christians embrace a candidate whose principles and life history are diametrically opposed to all they believe in? 

Perhaps a clue can be gleaned from the saying, “desperate people do desperate things.” If you google it, you’ll come across a Christian genre song by Micah Stampley with the following lyrics:

Cause I’m tired of the status quo

There’s gotta be more than this

There’s gotta be more, gotta be more

There’s gotta be more than this

Desperate people do desperate things 

And we’re pressing in

There’s gotta be more

Gotta be more

There’s gotta be more than this

And then there’s Trump’s blatant appeal to disaffected, threatened, disgruntled White America. In an interview with evangelical Christian journalist David Brody and in comments to an evangelical audience in Washington, D.C., last Friday, Trump positioned Hillary Clinton’s support for comprehensive immigration reform as what can only be described as Armageddon-like.

“I think this will be the last election that the Republicans have a chance of winning because you’re going to have people flowing across the border. You’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote and once that all happens you can forget it,” said Trump, as reported in The Daily Mail (http://dailym.ai/2ctjegR).

When you’re adrift at sea with hope all but lost, and you’re clinging to an overfilled life raft, civility and compassion often are the first casualties when confronted with the choice of helping yourself or the greater good. Or helping another poor soul latch onto the presumed safety of the raft. So it is with the desperate voter.

Despite all his faults, Trump garners the support of the desperate, as Roger Cohen of The New York Times discovered during a trip to Kentucky.

“At the boot store, Carrie McCall, a FedEx driver, appears with a package.

‘I love Trump,’ she declares. ‘He shoots from the hip.’

“But, I ask, isn’t that dangerous?

‘I don’t care. After all we’ve been through, I just don’t care.’” (http://nyti.ms/2bXtNIl)

Your political witticism of the day courtesy of whowhatwhy.org:

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” —Karl Marx

A Party Platform Worth Considering

Here’s a party platform I could support, with some tweaks:

• Reject additional tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year, but expand breaks for low- and middle-income workers through tax credits for children, the earned-income tax credit or a new wage subsidy using tax dollars to bring low wages toward the local median level.

• Promote the benefits of global trade agreements, but help displaced workers.

• Rule out fully privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and reassure workers they will be exempt from cost-cutting.

• Acknowledge that universal health care is here to stay, but push for market-oriented changes.

• Disavow mass deportations and promote the economic benefits of legalizing longtime workers who are in the country illegally, but reduce the legal entry of less-skilled immigrants.

It might surprise you that these platform planks are part of the “Reformocon” movement of disenchanted conservative Republicans, as described in a New York Times article Friday (http://nyti.ms/2an1YbR)

It’s a long-shot that any of these more sober thoughts will become anything more than heresy to Grand Old Party poobahs (second time in a week I’ve used that mildly deprecating description of Republican leaders, but who cares, it fits). Yet it is revealing that some within the party are even thinking it is common sense to make the GOP appeal more universal.

Democrats should welcome such an overture. Perhaps the country would be able to return to what truly were “good old days” when politicians reached across the aisle to forge legislation that benefitted all, not just the rich and entitled. Back in those “good old days” the Second Amendment didn’t mean a gun, especially not an assault rifle, in every home. Nor did it mean taxes couldn’t be raised to fund infrastructure projects and other needs. Nor did it mean Roe v. Wade was the litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. Nor did it mean a presidential candidate could suggest not complying with NATO treaty defense obligations, or suggest Russia spy on an opponent, or suggest the military engage in torture. 

Yes, those were good old days. Trumpsters, however, will not go down easily in defeat. Donald Trump is seeding thoughts of a rigged election, oblivious to the facts that voter fraud has been found to be almost non existent. Federal appeals courts have repeatedly invalidated tighter voter identification laws enacted by states based on the alleged premise that voter fraud has been rampant. 

Elections at the state level are a supervised by appointees of each governor. There are 31 Republican governors, 19 Democrats. In the 11 so-called battleground states that may decide the presidential election, Democrats are governor in just four: Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Their states account for 51 Electoral College votes. Republicans are governors in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. Those states have 100 Electoral College votes. 

For Trump to claim the election is rigged, his own party’s election machinery would have to be conspiring against him. If only that were so …

Reacting to a Death Notice, Legal Irony, Zika Politics

The day we moved into our current home 32 years ago I took a break from unpacking to shoot a few baskets. Our former home had a steeply sloped single car driveway so a hoop would have been impractical. The new abode, on the other hand, had a metal pole with backboard and basket next to a flat, two car driveway. The former owners had left a basketball. After pumping in some air, five-year-old Dan and I started shooting some shots. 

Perhaps the boing, boing, boing of the bouncing ball attracted a father wearing a Columbia University sweatshirt and his six-year-old son from down the block. The father was tall, as was his son. Every shot Jim took went in. Clearly I was not going to challenge him to a game of H-O-R-S-E. 

Then it dawned on me. Columbia. Jim. Tall black man. I asked him if he ever played for the Knicks. Yes, for two seasons, though that was not his claim to basketball fame. Jim McMillian had excelled at Columbia. Chosen by the Los Angeles Lakers, he was the 13th pick in the first round of the NBA draft in 1970. He was part of the 1972 championship the Lakers won with a team that included Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West and Pat Riley.

And here I was shooting hoops with an NBA star. Finally, maybe, if I was lucky, I would learn how to play basketball from someone who had been there, done that. 

Alas, it was not to be. Shortly after we moved in the McMillians relocated to New Jersey. Jim McMillian died Monday in Winston-Salem, NC, from complications of heart failure. He was 68 (http://nyti.ms/27wPNhi).

My encounter with Jim McMillian wasn’t the only association our family had with members of the NY Knicks. When our children were young, Gilda used to take them to health food store Manna Foods in downtown White Plains where they’d see several Knicks, including Marvin “Bad News” Barnes. It’s amazing to believe that was 30 or more years ago.

Legal Irony: Did anyone else see the delicious irony in the name of the judge who ruled within the last week that Cleveland, MS, middle and high schools must be desegregated? 

Her last name was Brown. As in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown vs (Topeka) Board of Education, that declared separate is not equal when it comes to schooling.

This time it was Judge Debra M. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi who made the ruling. In the Topeka case, Oliver L. Brown was one of 13 plaintiffs to seek relief on behalf of their 20 children (http://nyti.ms/23VWjJW)

Bug Bites: Republicans in Congress so far are refusing to provide all the funding requested to counter the inevitable invasion of the Zika virus onto U.S. soil. It seems crazy given that the prime landing spot for the mosquitoes that carry the disease would be southern and Bible belt states which have dominant Republican representation in Washington.

So why are they being so stingy? I have no proof but I suspect racism and income bias are behind it, much as they were factors in the decision by Michigan officials to ignore reports that the water in Flint was harming residents in the once vibrant industrial city.

In Brazil, poor neighborhoods were found to be prime mosquito-breeding areas. The same can be expected here. Simply put, GOP politicians in Washington won’t provide sufficient money to fight Zika until middle and upper class white enclaves are threatened. By then, however, it will be too late to stem the epidemic. 

The Right Revolution

Across America there’s a revolution going on. Too bad it is not the revolution Bernie Sanders is calling for.

Rather, it is a revolution of the Right, rolling back hard won civil liberties. In state after state, funded by the Koch brothers and their allies, conservative Republicans are undoing progressive legislation, denying citizens unencumbered voting, affordable health care, education opportunities and the right to choose their own reproductive options without intrusions and obstacles.

State house after state house, governor’s mansion after governor’s mansion have turned red, the successful implementation of a strategy to take hold of America at the grass roots level.

Hillary Clinton’s or Sanders’ election as president might well ensure a left of center bent on the Supreme Court. But even a flip of the Senate into Democratic hands would not unshackle residents in many states from regressive laws enacted by state legislatures and signed by doctrinaire conservative governors.

In the last two weeks alone examples abound. In Kansas, perhaps the poster-child state for failed conservative dogma, Gov. Sam Brownback is pushing to recall judges who do not hew to the conservative line of permissible death penalty verdicts, anti-abortion laws and tax cuts that reduce spending on education. In North Carolina, the legislature and governor have usurped the right of local municipalities to adopt laws that bar gender discrimination. This brazen act runs counter to long-held conservative thinking that government is best when it is administered at the lowest level possible so that it reflects the beliefs of the most local populace.

Only a threatened veto by Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal stands in the way of a law passed by conservatives that would permit faith-based groups to deny “social, educational or charitable services” and employment to individuals who “violate” their religious beliefs. 

The battleground of conservatism versus progressivism is in the trenches of state and local elections for governor, state legislators, state judges, local boards of education, and even to town/county clerks who have the authority to issue marriage licenses (FYI, a measure to permit public employees to deny same-sex marriage licenses is expected to be signed into law in Mississippi).

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida signed a law that cut state funding to clinics that perform abortions. Planned Parenthood, already denied funding for abortions, may now have to cut back or curtail programs for birth control, cancer screenings and other services for thousands of low-income women in Florida.

States continue to come up with new obstacles women must overcome if they seek an abortion. In Utah, a new law requires a woman undergoing an abortion at 20 weeks or later of pregnancy to be anesthetized to prevent a fetus from feeling pain during an abortion, a condition most medical professionals believe is not safe for the mother and is irrelevant to the fetus because it does not have any neurological sensation at that stage of development.

We have Donald Trump’s revealing faux pas about a woman’s culpability when having an abortion to illuminate the real threat from anti-abortion activists. They seek to criminalize not only the providers but also the recipients of abortions. Their most potent plan is passage of personhood laws that proclaim life begins at conception and anything that harms a fetus would be grounds for prosecution. Personhood status protections would go beyond fetal homicide laws. 

If, for example, a pregnant woman is not wearing a seat belt while riding in a car, she could be charged with endangering the life of the unborn. Similarly, smoking or drinking while pregnant could be prosecutorial offenses. 

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states have repeatedly passed restrictions on voter rights. They require voters to show state-issued identification cards, they’ve cut back on early voting times and polling places, and are making voter registration more difficult.

The vortex of social and political change clearly can be found in state capitols. Yet Democrats focus their eyes almost exclusively on the big picture—the presidency and the U.S. Senate. Democrats fail to turn out in sufficient numbers for mid-term congressional elections and for too many state and municipal elections. 

They moan when schoolbooks picked by conservatives deny climate change or equate creationism with evolution. They cry foul when states refuse to extend medical coverage under Obamacare to Medicaid recipients. They rail against restrictions imposed on abortion providers and the stripping of funding for Planned Parenthood.

Ironically, it is Big Business that is mounting the most effective challenge to conservative hegemony. Numerous corporations and executives have warned North Carolina, Georgia and other states about the economic fallout repressive laws could generate. 

The threat of losing the chance to host national sporting events, with the millions of dollars in revenue they generate, appears to be more potent than a BankAmerica expressing its displeasure with North Carolina officials. BankAmerica, after all, most probably would not move its headquarters out of the Tar Heel state. But not getting the Final Four NCAA basketball tournament next year could sway politicians to reverse course.

One need only look at Arizona’s example. Republican governor Jan Brewer last year chose not to sign a bill passed by the GOP legislature that would have allowed business owners citing religious beliefs to refuse service to gay people. She made her decision after the NFL threatened to move the 2016 Super Bowl out of Arizona. 

Relying on Big Business, however, is not a long term solution. Democrats must ignite passion that turns into votes for their progressive platforms at local and state levels. Otherwise, the Right will prevail in creating a sub-country of state and local intolerance and inequality regardless of which party controls Congress or who sits in the Oval Office. 

Brussels and the True Threat to our Values

Gilda and I have flown into the Brussels airport several times. We’ve walked around Brussels. For that matter, we’ve walked Paris and London and Copenhagen, as well as Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Rome, Florence, Venice, Tokyo, Moscow and St. Petersburg. We’ve walked all over Israel. At least three times a week we are in Manhattan. In short, we’ve been to many places terrorists— Islamic jihadists or run-of-the-mill types—would go to sabotage normal life.

I don’t know how to combat fanaticism. But I am certain it is not through repression. Even in totalitarian states individuals willing to forfeit their lives can blow up complacency. Not deliberate complacency. Just everyday vigilance gone soft because no society can maintain 24/7/365 red alert status against the deranged or misguided. 

So we’re left with trepidation mixed with ernest resolve. Fear of flying balanced by an unwillingness to let the terrorists win in their random assault on our liberties to travel as we please, to dine out, to attend concerts or commute to work.

Fear of new attacks is driving more people to consider Donald Trump a rational choice for president. No doubt fear is a powerful motivator. One can only hope that fear doesn’t trump (pun intended) more rational emotions like decency, tolerance, integrity and compassion. Otherwise, the terrorists surely would have succeeded in toppling Western values.

Are you afraid ISIS is an existential threat to America? Don’t be silly. We are in no danger of losing a battle, much less a war, with ISIS or any other extremist organization or country. Our military is the strongest in the world, in the history of the world.

But America could be lost if we allow our values and system of government to be eroded. Look no further than the Republican scheme to undermine the constitutional process of nominating and confirming an appointment to the Supreme Court because, the GOP says, the next justice would have a long term impact on the future of the country and therefore should be chosen by the next president elected by the people, ignoring the reality that the people chose Barack Obama, not once but twice, to serve for full four-year terms. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote on a presidential nomination within a specified number of days. But by suggesting that in the last year of office a president should not nominate a justice Senate Republicans are emasculating the powers of the chief executive. By extension, they might also argue that a president in his last year in office should not conduct foreign policy, should not advocate legislation, should not command our armed forces. All these tasks would affect the future of our country, as would a successful nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate has a right to reject a nomination but it is constitutional malfeasance to not even meet with, interview or schedule a vote on the president’s choice. 

Would-be presidents Trump and Ted Cruz would like to abrogate our values in other ways pertaining to the ISIS threat. Trump wants to legalize torture and kill families of terrorists. Apparently indifferent to causing civilian casualties, Cruz wants to carpet bomb ISIS strongholds. He also wants to “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods (in the U.S.) before they become radicalized.” 

Cruz seems to be advocating a medieval “ghetto” solution. Perhaps he could ask Muslims to make it easier for police to keep track of them by “voluntarily” wearing yellow crescent armbands. After all, such a private citizen solution to our country’s problems have a long Republican history dating back at least to George H.W. Bush’s “thousand points of light” initiative to bolster the safety net rather than have government provide for the needy, George W. Bush’s call for consumer spending as a response to the September 11 attacks, and Mitt Romney’s belief that illegal aliens would voluntarily repatriate to Mexico.

Confronted with their draconian pronouncements, Trump and Cruz have waffled between doubling down or retracting or modifying their statements, oblivious to the impact such original comments would have throughout the civilized and uncivilized world. Diplomatic-speak is not a language that falls trippingly off their tongues.  

The Bride of Frankenstein Is Back

The bride of Frankenstein is back on the hustings to haunt us.

Not content to have been chosen as her party’s 2008 nominee to be a heartbeat away from the presidency—but thankfully not elected—Sarah Palin now wants to influence the choice of the next Republican standard bearer. She’s thrown her support behind Donald Trump, a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

As populist speakers Trump and Palin are the mouths that roared. They can fire up an audience. But they lack depth, the ability to put together comprehensive programs based on a complex and nuanced understanding of an issue. Trump’s idea to solve the illegal immigration problem—build a wall paid for by Mexico and throw all 11 million illegals out—is a soundbite solution that fails to consider the legal status of children, the disruption of families, the economic impact of reduced labor in many industries where Americans do not want to work, such as on farms or meat/poultry processing plants, not to mention the absurdity of audaciously expecting Mexico to pay for a wall. But hey, it sounds good on the stump.

We can thank, ruefully, John McCain for saddling us with Palin, perhaps the least qualified person ever to grace a national election ticket. Even the discombobulated retired admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s vice presidential choice in 1992, sounded erudite compared to her.

Palin gave birth to the no-nothing Tea Party which only wants to tear down government, or, in her case, find excuses for behavior and commentary beyond the pale. She was such a good family role model that her daughter not once but twice had a child out of wedlock. And after her son was recently arrested for assaulting a woman she blamed his behavior on President Obama’s alleged indifference to the trauma American servicemen, including her son, suffered during their deployment in the Middle East. 

But here’s the problem with Trump and Palin: Too many of our fellow citizens are willing to give them a pass. They are willing to gamble our country’s future because they feel left out of its present. They forget that without Obama’s stewardship our economy would have tanked from mismanagement under Republicans; they forget that Obama has been president during one of the largest job creation periods in our history; they forget that the stock market has more than doubled under Obama (even with the recent downturn) and with that the value of their retirement plans; they forget that the car industry would have all but vanished without Obama; they forget that 17 million more Americans are now covered by health insurance (yes, Obamacare is imperfect but it is better than no insurance); they forget that Obama has championed alternative energy sources and that our country is now less dependent on imported oil; they forget that fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the Mexican border. 

Do they really want another land war in the desert? Do they really want the wealthy to get richer, with more and more influence? Do they really think in a global economy manufacturing jobs will return to our shores? Do they really think that investment in education and physical infrastructure can be postponed? Do they really think there is an armed forces anywhere in the world equal to ours, that we need to invest in new, costly armaments to fight 20th century wars while our true enemies take aim at real vulnerabilities in our power grid, our Internet and communications networks, our ports of entry, our water supplies? 

All they want to do is focus on a bogus claim that Obama wants to take guns away from individuals; or the misguided belief that ISIS can be carpet-bombed into oblivion; that nuking Iran is an option; that their lives would be better if the federal government stopped watching out for product and worker safety, that worker conditions would be improved if only unions would go away, that bosses would benevolently offer adequate raises and health care benefits. 

I don’t know about you, but it depresses me to write these things. Does it depress you to read them, depressing because you realize I am not making this up? 

Trump Turns US into Chumps; Not a Principled Stance in KY

Let’s be honest about Donald Trump’s appeal to too many Americans—Republicans, Independents and even some Democrats.

Some of it may be attributed to his anti-politician stance. Some to racism. or nativism.

But the bottom line to me is that too many Americans are just flat out dumb. Stupid. Too ignorant to realize they often vote against their best interests. Why else would they choose to elect candidates from a party dedicated to keeping the rich rich and making them richer at the expense of the majority, those mired in the working and middle classes?

Trump makes outrageous statements. Who among us doesn’t? But the consequences of private comments pale in comparison to the polarizing, often inaccurate and bombastic views expressed by a candidate who hopes to lead not just our country but the civilized world. 

The Donald speaks his mind, no doubt about it. His fans, I believe, care not that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. After all, they too probably couldn’t differentiate between Shia and Sunni Muslims, or know the names of leaders of different terrorist factions, as Trump failed to do on a Thursday radio show with conservative host Hugh Hewitt (http://nyti.ms/1UvMtJR). His fans just want someone to voice their frustrations with a system that does not seem to be working for them.

That alone doesn’t make them dumb or stupid or ignorant. What crosses the line for me is that they don’t see beyond the façade. His vision of leadership is that he would be able to do it all himself. As he told Hewitt at the end of their interview, “I will be so good at the military, your head will spin.”

My head is spinning in disbelief not just at Trump but at the chumps he has made of so many of our fellow citizens.

Principled Stance? I Don’t think so: Our country was founded on several principles—that no one was above the law; that religion would not supersede government; that opportunity would be available equally to all.

What we have witnessed in Rowan County, KY, has been an elected official who tried to impose her religious beliefs on others in direct conflict with the adjudicated, constitutional law of the land. 

One may disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of same-sex marriages, but failure to adhere to its determination is a usurpation of someone else’s rights.

Kim Davis’ denial of a marriage license to gay couples because it violated her religious beliefs was not a principled defiance of an unjust law. She was not practicing freedom of religion. She was the incarnation of religious extremism no less severe than that practiced by ISIS and other Muslim reactionaries who choose to exercise religious intolerance rather than inclusion. 

Taken to the next level, Davis or some other fanatic could come up with religious beliefs that would deny rights to any class they disapproved of, such as Hispanics, Jews, Afro-Americans or Jehovah Witnesses. Her resistance to changing times and mores is personal, not to be countenanced in an elected official. 

Or by an elected official. Which leads to the more troubling reaction of some Republican presidential candidates who profess allegiance to the Constitution but apparently not if it conflicts with their views. Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and others want a government defined by Christian values as contained in the Bible. 

So tell me, if you substitute the Koran and Sharia law for the Old and New Testaments, how is that different from what ISIS wants in its mostly Muslim sphere? 

Brady and Hillary Share Deleted E-Message Legacies

Tom Brady is the Hillary Clinton of the National Football League. Hillary Clinton is the Tom Brady of politics.

Regardless of what you think about them, both have stellar resumes. Millions adore them. Yet both have sizable portions of the population that abhor and despise them. Their detractors won’t believe a word they say. And they now share legacies of deep-sixing sought-after electronic messages that could implicate them, or vindicate them, in scandal. 

Politics in the United States has been steeped in conspiracy theories, probably going back at least to Aaron Burr and the unsuccessful attempt to convict the former vice president of the United States of treason in the early 1800s. There indeed was a conspiracy, a partially successful conspiracy, to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln and members of his cabinet. Never proven were innuendos that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew in advance about Japan’s plans to attack Pearl Harbor but let it proceed as a pretext to enter World War II against Japan and Germany. Nor were conspiracy theories proven for the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. 

Richard Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy engendered numerous other “-gate” investigations, two of which involved two more Republican presidents—Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair and George W. Bush’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hoax. Lots of investigations into Bill Clinton’s presidency produced no tangible conspiracy. Hillary’s actions before, during and after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi remain an open festering wound Republicans continue to investigate as a means to derail her presidential bid.

So what do I think about Hillary and Brady? Nothing so far has swayed my belief she is the best announced Democratic candidate. Yes, she showed hasty judgment in deleting all of her emails. But aside from fostering more conspiracy theories, many of which have been dispelled by Republican-led Congressional inquiries, Hillary’s main challenge is weathering the years-long assault on her character the GOP has waged. Such is the life of a frontrunner.  

With four Super Bowl rings, Brady, as well, is a leader. His image is now tarnished. But I will say that tinkering with equipment, as Brady is alleged to have done in Deflategate, is not unusual in almost all sports. Jerry Rice, considered the best receiver in football history, admitted to putting stickum on his gloves to aid in catching passes. Hockey goalies have been known to dress in leg pads wider than permitted, while their teammates try to bend the rules by curving their stick blades beyond the legal limit. Returning to football, linemen swab their uniforms with Vaseline so their opponents can’t grab them easily. Vaseline also was a favored tool of baseball pitchers hoping to influence the flight of a ball, while batters corked their bats to hit it further. 

Did Brady have his minions on the New England Patriots take the air out of balls used in the team’s 45-7 victory in the AFC Championship game? Who knows? What we do know is that in the second half, in driving rain, after the referees inserted properly inflated balls, Brady scorched the Indianapolis Colts with 28 points compared to scoring 17 points in the first half using under-inflated balls. 

Perhaps a better question to ask is why Brady would think he needed the supposed advantage of under-inflated balls. Probably for the same reason Nixon had the Democratic Party offices bugged in the Watergate Apartments. Because they could and they thought they could get away with it. And no matter how sure you think victory is, they think it’s never wrong to take steps to make sure of that victory. Until, that is, you’re caught. When that happens, it’s wise to remember, it’s not the crime but the coverup that trips you up. 

Governors Front and Center in Race for President

Rightfully so, the nation for the last two weeks has been engrossed in several dialogues—on race, on marriage equality, on Pope Francis and his encyclical on global warming and its impact, particularly on the disadvantaged, on foreign trade agreements, on negotiations with Iran and its nuclear capabilities, on the threat posed by ISIS. Important issues, issues that have overshadowed another debate, one that is especially pertinent to Republicans.

There’s a not so silent argument going on among presidential hopefuls and their respective supporters debating whether anyone hoping to attain the highest office in the land needs prior executive experience. Otherwise, as those who favor gubernatorial or business experience often admonish, the country might wind up with another “community organizer” running America. Those without a governorship or a CEO title on their CV suggest that time served in the (once) greatest deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate, gives them the cred to lead the nation forward.

If recent history can be a guide, the debate would wind up as a teiku, what the Talmud describes as a stalemate in deliberations that will only be adjudicated when the prophet Elijah returns to Earth to herald the beginning of the messianic era. 

Let’s consider the history of the presidency going back 50 years:

Lyndon Johnson never ran a state government but as president was a masterful manipulator of Congress, a byproduct of his long tenure as a senator from Texas. If not for his failure to control our deepening involvement in Vietnam and the domestic turmoil it engendered, he would rank among our most progressive presidents. 

Richard Nixon had scant congressional and senate experience, but he was vice president for eight years, albeit never really close to the decision making of president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Watergate, and Nixon’s expansion of the war in Southeast Asia, cloud much of what we think of him. Yet he did have domestic and foreign policy triumphs, including opening relations with communist China, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the military draft. He was not liked, but he was effective.

After a long career as a congressman and a short time as vice president, Gerald Ford presided over a depressed economy battered by high inflation. He’s remembered for one signature executive decision—the pardoning of Richard Nixon.

Four of the next six presidents (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) served as governors. It’s hard to separate one’s political leanings from an assessment of each of their terms of office. 

Carter oversaw the Camp David Accords but was viewed as an ineffectual leader by most onlookers. 

Reagan was an undisputed great communicator. Conservatives loved him (even though he raised taxes 11 times). He forged an aggressive anti-Soviet Union stance. But his foreign policy was stained by the Iran-Contra scandal. He championed supply-side economics, another tainted legacy that rewarded the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. 

Putting aside the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton posted an impressive list of accomplishments, among them the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history with ancillary growth in jobs and home ownership.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A legacy of misguided foreign and domestic responses to 9/11 by George W. Bush. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited from Clinton. The wars and his failure to avert the Great Recession left the nation mired in debt.

His father, George Bush I, arguably, had the most impressive resume of any president of the last 50 years. His four years in office reached its peak in the formation of a wide ranging coalition against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But his failure to connect with the public, coupled with conservative anger at his raising taxes despite vowing not to, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, thwarted his second term bid.

Barack Obama, arguably, had the least impressive resume before entering the Oval Office. Despite Republican militancy from Day One of his administration, Obama’s legacy includes passage of the Affordable Care Act extending health coverage to millions as well as overseeing the economic recovery. 

So what are we to make of it all? Reagan and Clinton are revered by their respective parties, loathed by the opposition. Bush II and Carter are disdained by both parties.

Johnson-Nixon are symbols of failed expectations muffling great accomplishments. Ford and Bush the Elder are afterthoughts, no more thought of than Franklin Pierce or Chester Arthur.

Obama alternately frustrates and excites Democrats. He is  demonized by Republicans.

Looking further back in history our greatest president— Abraham Lincoln—revealed little public success prior to his election. He served but two years in Congress, six years in the Illinois state house. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, and his cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, served as governor of New York, among their other appointed and elected positions. 

George Washington was a general; before that a member of the House of Burgesses in Virginia. Woodrow Wilson was governor of New Jersey. Thomas Jefferson was Washington’s secretary of state then vice president under John Adams. But being secretary of state and vice president didn’t help Martin van Buren rise to greatness as a president.

The aforementioned undistinguished Pierce was a congressman and senator. James Polk and Calvin Coolidge were governors. Warren Harding was a senator.

So there you have (most of) it.  Being a governor is no ticket to success as president. Nor is a legislative background. It is a hung jury on the value of a military career. Washington—a plus. Mixed reviews for Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Eisenhower (though Ike is gaining esteem of late).

With so many governors seeking the presidency(by my count there are 8 from the GOP, along with two Democrats, among the 20 or so hopefuls), we are bound to hear lots of talk about their being used to making executive decisions and working across the aisle to forge a united way forward. 

Just keep in mind that history is no guide. It all depends on the man and woman behind the talk.

Fiorina Matters Only in the Bizarro World of GOP Politics

In the bizarro world of Republican politics, a candidate who almost destroyed an iconic American company and was forced out (albeit with a $20 million golden parachute severance package) can be considered a presidential hopeful because she has a tart tongue. Carly Fiorina left Hewlett-Packard tarred and feathered for multiple sins, yet she dazzles on the GOP hustings because she has the wit to voice critical, funny soundbites about Democrats, mostly Hillary Rodham Clinton ( http://nyti.ms/1HE0pAa). 

My guess is she’s likely to gain traction as a vice presidential standard bearer, a woman much smarter than Sarah Palin. She doesn’t need to see Russia from her house (a phrase Palin never actually said). She’s been there and has even met Vladimir Putin.

But while too many Americans have short memories or are too young to have experienced history (or didn’t learn it in school), it is incumbent upon journalists to enlighten them (sadly, the soon to be departing Jon Stewart of The Daily Show was among the only mass market political watchers who resurrected a pol’s previous utterances and actions. Who will emerge as his truth-be-told successor?).

For those who merely hear that Fiorina was the head of HP, once considered the most powerful woman in business, the first female CEO of a top 20 U.S. company, it would be instructive to also hear that, according to Wikipedia, “CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time. In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the ‘anti-Steve Jobs’ for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers.”

Sure she has her supporters, which means she is a divisive, not an inclusive, personage. It doesn’t help that she laid off 30,000 HP workers during her five and a half year tenure as CEO. 

Also according to Wikipedia, “Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors, and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian ‘The HP Way’ work culture and guiding philosophy, which she felt hindered innovation. Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed ‘widespread unhappiness’ and distrust, and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.” Hardly a ringing endorsement when running for an office that is supposed to bring all the people together.

Fiorina is not the only Republican who seems to be hiding something. None of the announced and soon-to-announce candidates appears able or willing to articulate what they would do differently in the Middle East. They criticize President Obama but are short on specifics they would embrace to thwart ISIS and stabilize the region.

It reminds me of 1968. Richard Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, so secret that it cost the U.S. another 21,195 deaths during the next five years that American combat troops served in Vietnam. 

Obama has not been the greatest commander-in-chief. But let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisors, led by Vp Richard Cheney, who bungled the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s also remember that it was under the Republican watch that our economy tanked. Under Obama the country has enjoyed prosperity, though too disproportionally tilted toward the wealthy, which makes it rather amusing that so many of the one percenters favor Republicans. But then again, Republicans live in a bizarro world.

Democrats vs. Demonizers

And so it begins, or should I say continues, the demonization of Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-president Bill. Character assassination that in some quarters might be compared to gang rape in its viciousness and virulency. 

It has transformed the nascent 2016 presidential selection process into a contest of Dems vs. Dems—Democrats vs. Demonizers. 

The most recent attacks on her character center on financial gain at the alleged expense of independent and objective stewardship of the affairs of state while she was U.S. secretary of state. Outside of the Washington Beltway, I suspect these attacks are fodder for the 40% of the public who watch Fox News and despise her from the get-go while being balderdash to the 40% who view MSNBC and would support her even if she were a confirmed witch being burned at the stake. 

My take on all this in my increasingly cynical mode is that all politicians play loose with the financial benefits that come across their desks when they are in or recently out of office. Of course they are trading on their influence. They have few other assets to market. 

I’m not condoning influence peddling. But I am more concerned with policy. Where do candidates stand on issues.

Do they favor a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Or do they support onerous rules that make a decision difficult to reach and execute?

Do they favor extending the right to vote to as many qualified citizens as possible, or do they support rules that would place undue burdens on the young, the elderly, or the disadvantaged in the alleged interest of thwarting voter fraud when no such fraud has historically been proven?

Do they favor a higher minimum wage or do they believe in tricky down economics (that should be “trickle” down economics but Apple Pages self-corrected it to tricky down, which I thought was a nicely comical transposition)?

Do they accept the science of global warming and our need to slow its advance, or are they blind and deaf to the realities of climate change?

Do they accept evolution, or are they bound by Scripture in a belief the world is less than 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?

Do they believe government can be an instrument for good, or is it all evil, particularly agencies that help the poor, regulate drugs and food, civil rights and education? 

I am in no way suggesting Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate. But I trust her to appoint federal judges who would be progressive, not regressive. Based on the fact that during Bill’s and Barack’s presidencies the economy has been more robust than during Republican administrations, I trust her to oversee greater economic growth. Given the repressive actions in states controlled by GOP governors and state houses, I fear the direction this country would take if a Republican, even a moderate Republican, if there still is such a person, would be elected president. 

Yes, there might be gridlock in Washington. Republicans might even try to impeach a Clinton, again. They’ll have more select committees investigating “wrongs” than standing committees. But the alternative is much more dire. 

If I sound pessimistic let me seek comfort by identifying with Jon Stewart, the soon to be departing host of The Daily Show. Wednesday night, in conversation with Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush and currently a co-host of Fox News’ The Five, Stewart identified himself as an “optimistic idealist.” 

As for his outbursts against politicians, he said, “This is anguish, not pessimism.” 

I will be saddened when he leaves The Daily Show anchor seat August 6. But I think his decision is a good one. Of late, I’ve been seeing too much of Howard Beale in him. Beale, you might recall, was a news anchor in the 1976 film Network who encouraged his viewers to shout out of their windows, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Stewart hasn’t gone that far (yet), but he seems to be more liberated in his diatribes recently now that his tenure is finite. 

Existential Threats Within and Without

When I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s we lived under a palpable existential threat to the United States. Despite what you might have seen in newsreels about that time, I don't recall ever hiding under a school desk in mock preparation to thwart the impact of an atomic explosion. 

Nuclear catastrophe was made real through film. On the Beach. Dr. Strangelove. Fail-Safe. Mutual assured destruction kept the bomb bays at bay, the missiles siloed.

Two countries I care deeply about--the United States and Israel are engaged in what some of their leaders believe are existential negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bomb making capabilities. I trust Israel and the U.S. have the means to militarily thwart any actual attempt by Iran to fulfill the rantings of its ayatollahs and government leaders.

What I have less confidence in is the ability of both of my revered countries to withstand internal attacks on their respective values. Hallowed, respected practices of diplomacy and legislative discourse have been cast aside for short term political gain.

Repeatedly Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu has announced new housing projects at moments that disrespected the Obama administration. Now, in a last ditch effort to corral votes before Tuesday's election, Bibi has finally been candid about his position on an independent Palestinian state--it won't happen under his watch.

Which means Israel would continue on a path of denial to others of a basic human right the country's founders fought for beginning nearly 100 years ago. I am well aware of the physical dangers a Palestinian state could pose. One need only consider what Hamas has turned the Gaza Strip into, or what Hezbollah has done to southern Lebanon.

But the threat to the democratic values of Israel are greater. To keep a  people perpetually subjugated is to foster a mindset of inhumanity, of intolerance. No civilized nation could hope to survive long term as a denier  of dignity and opportunity. This is the  real existential threat facing Israel as its people go to the polls Tuesday.

The United Stares has been a land of expanded opportunity since its inception. Though equality and equal opportunity were not available to all at the outset the whole thrust of our national existence had been to extend these rights, first to all men, not just landowners, then to blacks, then to women. Targeted legislation corrected what didn't get implemented at first. When economic forces polarized society, government stepped in to create safety nets--social security, Medicare, Medicaid  and the like.

The arc of history has been to open the doors to all. Except now. In far too many Republican controlled governments efforts are underway to roll back opportunity and helping hand legislation. The Haves do not want the Have Nots to have any of their good fortune.

Moreover, Republicans have sought to undermine the validity of our established form of government. Over the last six years they have questioned the constitutionality of our elected president. They have poisoned political discourse. They have stymied the appointment process, they have unhinged the economic foundation of our national budget. They have questioned the validity of numerous scientific theories to the detriment of our educational and environmental futures. They have refused to fund necessary infrastructure investments unless they can gut social service programs, as if investing in our populous is not an investment in our future. They have most recently challenged the president's ability to conduct foreign negotiations.

I am not against political debate. Lord knows George W. Bush gave Democrats plenty of reason to attack him and his policies. But never did Democratic opposition rise to the level it has under Republican/Tea Party extremism.

We are approaching a dangerous point of extreme polarity in politics and economics. Unless we move to the center in both areas--compromising in legislation as we provide more opportunity for the underprivileged while requiring more taxes from the economic elite--I fear the existential risk to our democratic republican experiment will only heighten.


Sent from my iPhone

Government Oversight, A Defense of Government and No End to Religious Strife

Does anyone seriously believe Takata Corp. executives were ignorant of the truth that far from saving lives their airbags posed a mortal risk to drivers and passengers? When was the last time a company voluntarily admitted its output could injure or kill people? Or steal their money? That’s why we need the alphabet soup of government organizations: OSHA, FTC, FDA, EPA, NLRB, ATF, EEOC and so on.

Takata, as with General Motors and its malfunctioning ignition key switch, is the poster-company reason we need government oversight of business. Otherwise, companies would merely follow actuarial tables and determine it is cheaper to pay a few death or injury claims than fix a dangerous flaw in their product. Just look at Honda, long considered one of the gold-standard companies in the auto industry. As revealed Monday, for more than a decade Honda underreported deaths linked to possible defects in its vehicles (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/business/honda-failed-to-report-defects-full-human-toll.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=0). 

To those who opine that President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration has poisoned his relationship with Congress, I ask, “Were you awake or comatose during the last six years? Did you not observe how obstructionist Republicans have been to all of his initiatives? Did you not witness their unrestrained enthusiasm to repeal Obamacare? When they talk of a mandate from the 2014 elections don’t you stop to wonder why they did not accept the mandates of 2008 and 2012?”

No, Obama was not acting as an emperor. He was merely, after six years, acting as a realist. 

The real tragedy in this political pas de deux is that it has painfully revealed how pitiful Democrats are compared to Republicans in framing national debates. Instead of hammering away at positive results in such areas as health care, minimum wage, income inequality, immigration, alternative energy, gun control, unemployment, economic recovery, inflation control and lowering of the national debt, Dems have had to defend (poorly, I might add) GOP lies and distortions that have poisoned political dialogue.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi might be good politicos and legislators but they lack dynamic speaking personas. Democrats need more combative, yes combative, spokespeople to carry the good fight to the public. Democrats must learn to control the debate, not react to it. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but they need more outspoken leaders like Sen. Charles Schumer. In a speech to the National Press Club Tuesday, New York’s senior senator argued Democrats need to more vigorously defend the role of government (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/politics/charles-e-schumer-to-urge-democrats-to-embrace-government.html?ref=politics). 

The horrific murders inside a synagogue in Jerusalem last week are all the more repugnant because they reinforced stereotypical behavior that Muslims do not respect other religions, not even that practiced by different Islamic sects. It is no more or less abhorrent that repeated attacks on mosques and funerals by competing Islamic sects.

Truth is, Western religions (Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy) went through their own sectarian purges as they evolved into their present formats. So it’s not unique to the Muslim world that Shia kill Sunni, and Sunni kill Shia. Nor is it unique that they kill them during times of congregation inside religious buildings. 

Twenty-first century sensibilities are affronted by the Dark Ages values of Islamic militants, be they ISIS, Boko Haram or any other group that claims it is acting in the name of Allah or his prophet. I hate to be a Debbie-Downer, but we are destined to live with these extreme militants for the foreseeable future, and beyond, as it is impossible to totally eradicate individual or collective irrational behavior. Fanatics do not listen to reason. They are crazy with their own perceptions and ideas. We can only hope that saner minds within the Muslim community help us limit the evil the extremists hope to wreak on the rest of humanity.

Supreme Court May Well Decide Next President. Again

History may be poised to repeat itself. For the second time in the last five presidential elections, the U.S. Supreme Court may well decide who will sit in the Oval Office.

The Court has accepted for review another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The question before it—does the law permit federal government subsidies to the needy in states that do not have their own health exchange programs. In those states the federal government has stepped in to provide subsidies (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-health-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0). 

If the Supremes declare the subsidies to be illegal, Obamacare may tumble down from lack of sufficient funding. It also would mean millions would lose health care coverage. It’s pretty certain the four justices who voted against Obamacare two years ago would do so again, meaning Chief Justice John Roberts would be the deciding judge. Again.

If Roberts blocks the subsidies and the ACA ultimately succumbs to a Republican-led attack, universal health care once more would become a key campaign issue in 2016. As they have championed it for decades, Democrats, most prominently their presidential candidate, would benefit from such an outcome. 

Given a June 2015 court decision, Republicans would have just over a year to forge an acceptable alternative to a law that has extended health coverage to more Americans than at any other time in our history. That’s unlikely to transpire given the venomous reaction many conservatives have to such a program.

A negative decision and Republican antipathy toward a replacement ACA might also provide incentive to voters to elect more Democrats to the Senate and even possibly return the Dems to the majority in the House. 

It’s an intriguing state of affairs. Having injected itself into state election law in Florida and chosen George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court may wind up influencing who gets elected to the White House in 2016. 

Ah, I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Democratic leadership meetings as they discuss what would be better for the party, and the country, come next June.

Have You Noticed ...

Have you noticed … a certain sameness to the rhetoric coming from the political left and right? Both want to take the country back.

Here’s what U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told Bill Maher last Friday: 

“We now have a government that works for millionaires and billionaires and Fortune 500 companies, but it’s leaving real families, real people behind. And so, what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to get over there and we’ve got to be willing to fight back, to take this country back.”

A conservative, retired friend of mine sent along a right wing screed that contained the following:

“We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” … Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.”

It’s an “us vs. them” attitude that has overtaken much of our political dialogue. Solutions are rarely advanced beyond “throw-the-bums-out.”

I pointed out to my conservative friend that the fighters of WWII, Korea and Vietnam “fought to defend social security, the GI Bill, Medicare and Medicaid, the FDA, national parks, Civil Rights, and other progressive programs, all of which were passed and in place by 1965 at the latest and many pre-WWII. 

“If we want to blame Obama for anything, let’s blame him for reducing unemployment to its lowest levels in about a decade; for saving the domestic car industry; for extending health care to millions of uninsured; for having the longest run of positive job growth; for following through on Bush’s contract with Iraq to remove US troops (he’s now being blamed for doing what Bush signed on to do, another mess W. left).”

Have you noticed … that despite daily reassurances by broadcasters, doctors and government officials that it is hard to contract Ebola even from an infected carrier, many Americans are panicking, believing the deadly disease will invade our shores and kill thousands, even millions, of us? Why? Because there are too many dumb people living among us. 

First, let’s note the obvious—more people than you care to believe don’t wash their hands before leaving the bathroom. Second, and perhaps more important, Americans are mostly ignorant about stuff that really matters. We choose political leaders based on emotions not reasoned thinking; we prefer mindless TV shows and movies over thought-provoking performances; we celebrate and emulate celebrities with no talent. I could go on but the point is, we are a shallow people, easily led by media that has an agenda that is anti-Progressive.

Did you notice … the article in Thursday’s New York Times about expensive watch collectors and their weekly Red Bar meetings to ogle and fondle time pieces worth the down payment on a Manhattan co-op? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/fashion/for-luxury-watch-buyers-one-just-isnt-enough.html?_r=0

I couldn’t believe one attendee admitted to regularly bringing half a million dollars worth of watches to the gatherings. That sort of ostrich-head-in-the-sand attitude toward crime just invites foul deeds. I’m reminded of a post I did back in 2010 about a metal detector enthusiast whose house was burglarized after I profiled him in The New Haven Register and, by newspaper policy, had to include his address story (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2010/07/too-much-information.html). As with my story, sometimes too much information is too much.

Have you seen … the new Republican Party TV ad that tries to soften the image of the GOP by portraying “Republicans are people, too”? With a # IAMaRepublican in the lower left hand corner, the ad shows various shades of “Republicans”—a black woman, a woman with a tattoo, a man with a tattoo and beard, a young professional-looking white man reading The New York Times in public, and other activities not generally associated with conservative types, such as recycling, shopping at Trader Joe’s, using a Mac, driving a Prius, listening to Spotify and putting together Ikea furniture.

A warm and fuzzy ad, only all the pictures are stock photo images. There’s no assurance all or any of them are Republicans or even U.S. citizens. Heck, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, the man standing next to a Prius is a Swede. Given that country’s social welfare system it’s highly doubtful he has much in common with Republican, especially conservative Republican, values.

Let’s end on an amusing note about the differences in our national society, sent to me by my aforementioned conservative friend:  

You may have heard on the news about a Southern California man who was put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had 100,000 rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.

By Southern California standards, someone owning 100,000 rounds is considered “mentally unstable.”

In Michigan, he’d be called “The last white guy still living in Detroit.”

In Arizona, he’d be called “an avid gun collector.”

In Arkansas, he’d be called “a novice gun collector.”

In Utah, he’d be called “moderately well prepared,” but they’d probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

In Kansas, he’d be “A guy down the road you would want to have for a friend.”

In Montana, he’d be called “The neighborhood ‘Go-To’ guy.”

In Idaho, he’d be called “a likely gubernatorial candidate.”

In Georgia, he’d be called “an eligible bachelor.”

In North Carolina, Virginia, W.Va., Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina he would be called “a deer hunting buddy.”

And in Texas: he’d just be “Bubba, who’s a little short on ammo.”