Which President Will Show Up Over the Next Four Years?

WASHINGTON — There’s a new sheriff, er, president, in town. Maybe.

Observers of Tuesday night’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress were left wondering which one would henceforth occupy the most potent seat in the land, the new one or the old one? 

The new guy wants civil rights for all. The old guy had his Justice Department drop its pursuit of voting rights protections for minorities in Texas while his attorney general has indicated the administration would stop aggressively policing police departments accused of harassing minorities and violating their civil rights.

The new guy wants the nation to enjoy clean air and clean water. But the old guy just permitted coal companies to dump their waste into rivers. And he is bullish on reviving the coal industry which pollutes the air. He’s also looking to demonstrably cut back regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The new guy wants health care for all. He wants “to invest in women’s health.” But the old guy wants to defund Planned Parenthood which often is the only affordable health care provider to low income women.

The new guy blasts the Obama administration for racking up huge deficits but then outlines a Santa Claus wish list of military and infrastructure investments coupled with lower taxes that will further deepen the national debt.

The new guy wants to work with Congress, wants Republicans and Democrats to work together with him. The old guy bragged that he alone could fix the nation’s problems, that he received a mandate from the American people even though he lost the popular vote by more than three million votes.

The new guy says he wants to “drain the swamp” of Washington insiders. The old guy stacked his administration with fat cats and Washington insiders.

The new guy decried anti-Semitic acts and a killing of a in Kansas last week (but without noting the victim was a legal immigrant from India or calling it an act of domestic terrorism). The old guy’s rhetoric saying some illegal immigrants take American jobs and many are violent criminals emboldened bigots and racists to step out of the shadows and take violent actions against non Christian and non white residents.

The new guy said he wants to rid the country of bad illegals, those that commit violent crimes. The old guy sicced his enforcement goons on all illegals, even those who merely had traffic violations and other nonviolent infractions.

The new guy blamed illegal immigrants for a wave of violent crimes. So did the old guy. Both guys are wrong based on statistics that illegal immigrants perpetrate fewer crimes than native-born Americans.

The new guy appeared presidential. The old guy was clownish, vulgar, disrespectful, inarticulate, a bully, mean-spirited, divisive, ill-informed.

The new guy kept his suit jacket buttoned. The old guy’s stomach protruded out from his unbuttoned jacket.

So which one will it be? Will we live in an alternative universe of alternative facts for the next four years or will we finally find normalcy in the Oval Office?

Authoritarianism Threatens Our Democracy

I’m beholden to my friend Cathy Hotka for posting a most troubling but illuminating article on the implications and ramifications of Donald Trump’s rise to prominency in the Republican presidential race. The article from Vox.com analyzed the rise in authoritarianism, its acceptance as a political force not only as it pertains to the United States but also in other countries now and beyond 2016.

I can’t find a link that easily directs you to the article, so you’ll have to work a little to find it. But it will be well worth your time and effort if you care at all about the future. So here’s the drill: go to Vox.com and in its search function type in “The rise in American authoritarianism.”

 It is a long article but disturbingly pertinent to the convulsions emanating from the political hustings this year and perhaps for years to come as our country, and others, try to cope with social, demographic and economic changes and military/terrorist threats from outside and even inside our borders.

With each passing day Trump and his supporters seem to channel behavior last seen in Italy and Germany more than 75 years ago. Could it possibly be that people under 40 don’t truly understand the evil of the Hitler-Mussolini era? My generation grew up watching World War II-based  movies. Many of our fathers and uncles served in the armed forces. We knew why we fought fascism. Today’s young voters grew up on Star Wars. The evil empire was bad but it was a sci-fi abstraction, even if it was a stand-in for totalitarianism. 

Regrettably, too many young voters have little understanding of how life was different before women reached the level of achievement they currently enjoy. Even young women see nothing historic in electing a woman president. They don’t appreciate what it was like to live during a time when seeking an abortion, for whatever reason, was a crime. Many young people have little understanding of how different life was for Afro-Americans before the Civil Rights era (unfortunately, the Supreme Court apparently believes racism has been vanquished, leaving no need for a vigorous defense of the Voting Rights Act). Too many lack perspective on the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian conflict. 

As the Vox.com article explains, Trump’s appeal is not just to the uneducated. Take the time to read the article.

What's at Stake In Iowa and New Hampshire

Let’s get down to brass tacks. For Democrats the presidential election is not going to be about a revolution. Rather, it will come down to protecting the domestic legacy of Barack Obama and the myriad of progressives who preceded him and extended equality and opportunity to millions of minorities, be they of color, religious sects or gender, not to mention the tens of millions of middle class families of all backgrounds created by legislation and regulations that supported and protected workers. A Republican victory, whomever is the GOP standard bearer, would roll back 80 years of progressive legislation and enforcement.

So the question boils down to, which Democrat has the best chance of keeping the Oval Office blue: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley?

O’Malley might be a good man. He has not aroused any semblance of passion behind his candidacy. On the other hand, as much as Sanders engenders passionate followers his phenomenon is reminiscent of the debacles fostered four decades ago by anti-Vietnam War candidates Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Perhaps it is because too many Democrats are too young to remember or have not been taught the consequences of a quixotic candidacy, they are ignorantly eager to adhere to Sanders’ banner. They would follow him to sure defeat in a presidential election even against a divisive Republican such as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. I’m sorry, but the country is simply not ready for a Social Democrat, a Jewish Social Democrat, born in Brooklyn, to be president.

Clinton is not an ideal candidate. But her pluses outweigh the minuses. Last time out in 2008 her campaign engendered more passion. Fatigue might have set in this time among many of her supporters, but as November grows nearer I believe they will be re-energized by the prospect of electing the first woman president, especially someone who has the wide-ranging experience she possesses.

Her challenge once securing the nomination will be to bring into her tent disaffected Bernie-backers. Otherwise, as Hubert Humphrey and the nation found out, a less than solidly unified Democratic Party will result in a Republican victory and this time the winner would be much more regressive than Richard Nixon.

Nixon had to work with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Both houses will be Republican in 2017. Imagine the social network legislation, the worker-consumer-environmental protections and the civil rights laws that would be gutted by a triumvirate of conservative Republicanism. (Are you shuttering at the prospect? I did when writing that sentence.)

Most importantly, the next president may well have the opportunity to nominate two to four Supreme Court justices and countless lower court judges. If you cherish the advances of the last 80 years you cannot countenance the prospect of a judicial system tilted to the right for decades to come.

So as Iowans go to their caucuses Monday and New Hampshirites troop to the polls eight days later let’s hope they have perspective. Bernie has been a useful diversion, especially in this age of Trump when crazy passion seems to be restricted to Republicans.

Hillary doesn't need a coronation. But the party, the nation, will not benefit from sidetracking her nomination.

Do Nothing Congress II

The parallels to events of our time are eerily similar.

In the third and fourth years of a Democrat’s initial term as president of the United States, a Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly and stubbornly undermined his agenda. The GOP favored pro-business bills. The president advocated for civil rights, more unemployment compensation, universal health care. As the election campaign heated up, the president wound up maligning the Congress for thwarting his proposals as much as he ran against his opponent.

That 1948 campaign is perhaps best known for the infamous “Dewey Defeats Truman” Chicago Daily Tribune headline mockingly raised up for the cameras by the real winner, President Harry S. Truman. But to election buffs, Truman’s labeling of the legislature as the “Do Nothing Congress” is perhaps a more telling perspective on how events will unfold in the 15 months before the 2012 elections.

To secure a second term, to secure the type of support required for his progressive plans, Barack Obama will have to champion not only his credentials but he also will have to convince voters of their need for a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. One without the other will result in continued stalemate at the federal level. Truman’s Do Nothing Congress attack worked. It can work again, but only if Obama vigorously stumps for Democrats across the land.

Unless he’s a very good actor, Obama does not have the same feistiness Truman possessed. He does have a temper, but he’s cool, too cool, in public. After nearly three years in office, after three years of trying to portray a presidential-above-the-fray demeanor, Obama has left too many of his supporters wondering about his commitment to Democratic, progressive principles. Plus, they wonder how good a poker player he is (Truman, fyi, loved playing poker), considering his failed attempts to roll back the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and the lack of any revenue enhancement provisions in the recent debt ceiling deal. When your opponent (John Boehner) boasts he got 98% of what he wanted, it’s hard to find backers for a stake in the game.

Yet that is what Obama must do. He must re-invigorate the coalition of voters who elected him in 2008. He must campaign in lock-step with congressional candidates. He must convince the disenchanted that sitting out the election, abstaining, is not really an opt-out choice. Not voting for the lesser of two evils, or as a protest against his performance, is, in fact, support for the worst candidate. People in opposition usually are more passionate than those content with the status quo, so they’ll turn out to the polls in droves.

Obama and the Democrats also have to contend with the misguided suggestion by Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz for a boycott of campaign contributions to all incumbents until they act more responsibly and compromise their rigid positions. Was he not listening to Boehner’s remarks? Did he not hear or read how Democrats caved so a debt ceiling deal could be reached? Withholding funds from Democratic incumbents would only exacerbate Washington’s problems, unless Schultz seeks a Republican/Tea Party mandate, a result seemingly incompatible to his previous socially progressive positions.

Obama must define for those on the fence what a Republican/Tea Party win would mean: a more conservative-leaning Supreme Court; an anti-labor, anti-working class White House and Congress; less enforcement of civil rights; attacks on the separation of church and state; tax policies more favorable to the wealthy; fewer consumer protections; less environmental regulation; weakened food and product safety laws; less emphasis on education and the introduction of questionable science; restrictions on medical research; elimination of universal health care. The list could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point.