Agnew and Trump

Another of the books I received for Christmas was Bag Man by Rachel Maddow and Michael Yarvitz. I spent some of last week reading it while I was off from work.  It recounts one of the untold stories surrounding the Nixon Presidency in vivid detail, along with some interesting parallels between Spiro Agnew and Donald Trump.

I faintly recall the announcement that Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned from his office, the first (and only) vice president to do so.  At the time it seemed a mere side note in comparison with the ongoing Watergate investigation, but Maddow and Yarvitz demonstrate very clearly in this book how inextricably linked the two events were, not necessarily that they reflected two sides of the same crime, but in that the relationship between Nixon and Agnew, the dynamics of why Nixon chose this unknown governor from Maryland to be his running mate and the break in their relationship which followed, explain some of the reasons why Agnew was not indicted for any Watergate crimes and why even Nixon wanted him gone.

History, of course, is an interesting mistress.  Once you decide to study her, to attempt to strip away the allure of the day-to-day description of events as told by those who lived them, it becomes clear that what people say about what happened during an event, and what actually happened, is not so easily determined.  While we all saw the horrible events of January 6th in Washington, the true unvarnished story of what took place, may take a decade to discover.  Sadly, it is often only after a person's departure from this world, that those in the know, those actually present who have been quiet, are free to disclose the real truth about who said what or who did (or didn't) act to intervene.

For Agnew, all most of his supporters knew was that he was an anti-establishment man of the people who said what he thought, sometimes without polish.  He stood for old time values, law and order, apple pie and America.  One of his strongest group of supporters, Republican Women, flocked to his rallies, believed his denials of guilt, joined in the chorus of calling those persecuting him, Democrats, the Justice Department, the press, as enemies of everyday Americans. (No, Trump didn't invent the playbook of attacking our institutions, he just took it to a new level).

And, when the final deal was made to allow Agnew to plead no contest to simple tax evasion, it was agreed to, not because he wasn't guilty of extortion, bribery, and fraud, but because it was presented as best for the country to allow him to resign as soon as possible so that he would not become President, a prospect all too possible given the growing evidence of Nixon's part in Watergate.  

Oddly, it was the brief written at the time by the Justice Department, the brief that determined that while a president could not be indicted while in office, a vice president could that played a part in Agnew negotiating the details of his resignation.  It was that brief that led Agnew to stop fighting his indictment, and that became prominently quoted during the Trump Presidency when Robert Mueller used it to justify his decision not to recommend an indictment after his investigation.  It wasn't that Trump wasn't guilty, it was that there was precedent that a sitting President couldn't be indicted, and that precedent emanated from the Agnew investigation.

There is a lot to the book that would make this post far too long, should I choose to try to summarize all the highlights.  One item is Nixon's jealousy that Agnew was so popular, had risen so fast, while Nixon had worked so hard to attain his position juxtaposed with his complete dissatisfaction with Agnew, an unhappiness that resulted to a point where the two did not meet or talk, sometimes for months.  And, which ultimately spared Agnew involvement in Watergate since he had long lost the president's confidence.

What is also incredibly fascinating is what Agnew did after leaving office.  Despite the disgrace of having to resign, he used his previous title without restraint to garner influence and money.  Can you imagine, the only vice president in history to resign and he is still using the prestige of that office to generate income?  Up until recently, I would have guessed that it might never be seen again, but I expect we will be in for a whole new level of shameless use of office by a disgraced public servant from the now twice impeached former president.   

In the end, Bag Man paints Agnew as an immoral, greedy, lying, opportunistic huckster who took full advantage of being in the right place at the right time.  Sound familiar?

----

Finally, now that Trump has been acquitted by the Senate, it is important to note that never in the history of presidential impeachments, has the sitting president been found guilty of the crimes presented by members of his own party.  Mitt Romney made history in the first impeachment trial when he voted guilty, then he and six others voted to convict Trump in yesterday's trial.  I know Trump and his allies see acquittal as a victory, but 57 to 43 is a significant majority.  Anyone who loses an election by such a majority, 57% to 43% would be hard-pressed to claim some type of victory.  

By comparison, Clinton's impeachment trial was 50-50 for obstruction of justice, and 55-45 for acquittal for perjury.    Five GOP Senators who voted guilty in Clinton's impeachment, among them McConnell, Graham and Grassley, thought that Trump's involvement in an attack on the Capitol during a constitutionally mandated tally of the electoral college votes for which the president lied to his followers in telling them that Pence could alter the tally, was less important than Clinton lying about having sex.  I guess their priorities have changed over the years. At the time, Susan Collins voted not guilty, yet voted guilty in yesterday's voting. Perhaps, unlike Trump, she did learn her lesson.

Also interesting is that some of the GOP Senators who voted to acquit claimed the trial was unconstitutional even though Trump was actually impeached during his term and it was the Senate itself, led by McConnell, which decided to hold the trial after inauguration. Also, to say it was unconstitutional seems a bit odd when the Senate itself voted twice on the very idea of constitutionality of the trial, and both times it was deemed constitutional.  

As for the ridiculous notion that it was close to the end of his term so why impeach now, I guess we should have expected that from a party which used the excuse of it being too close to an election to block Obama's Supreme Court nomination 8 months before the 2016 election, but rushed through Trump's nomination within 10 days of the 2020 election.   

Finally, I never thought I would feel sorry for Mike Pence, the lead enabler of Donald Trump.  But I can only imagine how he felt when he heard the insurrectionists chanting Hang Mike Pence as they stormed the capitol.  That in itself should give anyone pause who believes for one iota that Donald Trump cares about anything or anyone other than himself.  It seems that some of those who violated our democracy last month were actually prepared to die for Trump. I wonder if Mike Pence was, and had he died, would it have mattered to McConnell, Graham, Grassley, Paul, Cruz, Hawley, etc?

 

Lessons from the Pandemic

As is tradition, I purchased some books for Nora this Christmas.  One of them was Ten Lessons for a Post-Pandemic World by Fareed Zakaria.  I have occasionally watched his weekly show, and saw him on a talk show during which his book was mentioned.  Curiously, Nora must have also found his perspective from that show interesting as she bought me the same book for Christmas which made for a good laugh. (We also each bought the other an Obama book, but not the same one!)

I recently finished my copy of Ten Lessons.. and found it very interesting.  Zakaria presents some rather complex issues in relatively plain language, but avoids simplistic statements.  He acknowledges what he is unsure of, in terms of what might happen as we emerge from the pandemic, yet also provides well thought out instructions for how we might use the negative aspects of the pandemic to craft a better future.

I can not possibly do the book justice by summarizing it in this post, so I thought I might pique your interest in reading it by listing the ten lessons and then discussing the one I found the most relevant.

https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Post-Pandemic-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/0393542130

Ten Lessons

Buckle Up

What Matters Is Not the Quantity of Government but the Quality

Markets Are Not Enough

People Should Listen to the Experts - and Experts Should Listen to the People'

Life is Digital

Aristotle Was Right - We Are Social Animals

Inequality Will Get Worse

Globalization Is Not Dead

The World Is Becoming Bipolar

Sometimes the Greatest Realists Are the Idealists

While there is much to say about all of these "lessons", I am most drawn to the 2nd one - What matters most is the quality of government not the quantity.

It seems that one of the biggest debates in American politics, at least since the 1980's, has been the size of government.  I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that smaller government is one of the mainstays of the Republican platform along with their call that Big Government equates to Socialism.  On the other hand, while Democrats don't necessarily proscribe to bigger government, we do believe that good government can address many of the problems of our times, which generally leads to a bigger government presence in our daily lives.  

While it may seem obvious, Zakaria illustrates very clearly why both sides are right, and wrong, and that the real question, the real focus of the electorate should not be size but quality.  A small government that does nothing for the people is just as bad as a big government that does nothing for the people. Conversely, a small government that advances opportunity, rewards hard work, acts as referee to prevent rampant inequality, and safeguards the rights and safety of its citizens is just as good as a large government that does the same thing, perhaps better.

One might say that we should seek the best quality of government first, and worry about the size second, but it seems we have been doing just the opposite.  

Zakaria gives poignant examples of how both small and large governments handled the pandemic well, to date, and how both small and large governments have handled it poorly.  In fact, his analysis seems to indicate that size did not matter in the least (sorry ladies), but only competence, clarity in setting priorities, and execution of stated goals with accountability when goals were not met.  Seems pretty straight forward, almost common sense, yet the debate since early last year when the virus was first detected, centered more on who was at fault, when it would disappear, and, to me, the worst false equivalency of them all, how much we should wreck the economy in our battle, as opposed to how can we defeat the virus with the least damage/most economic support for those most effected. And, sadly, how wearing a mask somehow marks one as a sheep, while not wearing one equates to patriotism.

No great problem was ever solved in isolation, yet the current global trend to put one's country first, to circle the wagons and name scapegoats, played out to the detriment of all those souls who died, especially here in America.  Paradoxically, it was the concerted effort of the pharmaceutical companies, on a global scale, that is beginning to bail us out, now that we have a number of efficacious vaccines.  One of the very big drivers of the populist movements, resistance to globalization, exacerbated the spread of the virus, yet it is the globalization of medical knowledge in the area of epidemiology that will make this pandemic far less deadly than the one which ravaged the world 100 year ago.

The real question is when will we alter the debate to focus on quality rather than quantity.  Certainly, it is much easier for the political message which equates size with Socialism to be marketed, not so much when the message is, how do we best involve government in our lives.  For far too many it has become an all or nothing proposition, which is both sad and false, since we accept (and require) government in our lives to reach the ideals to which we aspire.  

It is not that hard to realize that equality may be a God given right, but without a government that values it, that endorses it, that establishes laws to guarantee it, it is not possible to achieve it.  Just look around at all the tyrants, dictators and despots that control, literally, the lives of billions of people, and it seems pretty obvious that we must work together to fashion the best government.  We need to change the paradigm that suggests that no government is best, since history and present day optics tell us that countries without a strong government are violent and/or poverty stricken, just as we need to change the paradigm that advocates for a government solution for all problems, as history also demonstrates that when everything is controlled by the state, there is little place for the innovators and difference makers.

All government programs are not productive, but all government regulations are not intrinsically negative.

Wisdom comes from knowing which ones work, which ones are needed, which ones can be reduced, which ones are not necessary. 

Do we really want to eliminate Social Security, the biggest and costliest "social" program in our government?  Perhaps if people stop living past the age of 70, we could stop taking their money with the promise that when they can't work they will have a basic income to help them live, with less worries, but since we need to make sure those that the average working person who toiled for 50 or more years, can have some sense of security that they will have some choices, some control, over how they spend the last 25% of their lives, we need this safety net.  But, just as important, we need our government to secure that money, make sure it is there, as promised, and not use it as if will magically reappear when needed.  Good government.

Do we really want to allow the business community to self regulate?  Or do we need the nameless and faceless government worker who makes sure those businesses produce safe food, properly dispose of their waste, treat their employees fairly, and punish those who would use bribery and lies to eliminate their competition or cheat the consumer? Good government.

Do we really want to return to the time when the color of your skin or the make-up of your genome or the god you choose to worship or the person you fall in love with, is a factor in where you can pee, where you can live, where you can work, where you can shop?  Good government.

Can you imagine a world where competency is the main attraction for a politician seeking our votes?  

I have voted in 12 presidential elections in my life.  If I really thought about it, I am not sure any were elected based on their competency to run the United States Government, at least not as the primary reason.  We voted for change, we voted for a soothing demeanor, we voted for consistency in party, we voted for even more change, we voted for a known name who we might have a beer with, we voted for history, we voted for a return to the past, we voted for calmness in a storm of disruption. Were there some votes for competency, perhaps, but no one runs with the slogan "I am the most competent" and wins. 

Perhaps we have concluded that all politicians are the same, that party over country is the real poison, so it doesn't matter in the end how we vote. Perhaps we even think that we want competence and leadership, yet we somehow always fall victim to abandoning that desire for a catchy slogan, or worse, someone willing to tell us who to blame for our problems.

I enjoyed Fareed Zakaria's book immensely, and I encourage you to read it.  You may find one of the other lessons more poignant or thought provoking than I, but my money is on the hope that if we can learn and internalize lesson 2, if we can vote with just that one priority in mind, then we might not need to learn the other lessons.

Stay safe, stay masked.

 

     

Accidental infections

I recently continued reading the Summer edition of Lapham's, entitled Epidemic.  I had set it aside for a while, partially to catch-up on some other reading, and, I guess, partially because we have been living in this surreal world of the virus for the last 9 months.

A few days ago I encountered the story of Gene Tierney and her experience with being on the receiving end of an accidental infection.  For those of you who know the story, it is well worth hearing again, and for those of you unfamiliar with it (as I was) it is certainly relevant to what we see occurring with COVID-19.

Gene Tierney was a famous America actress during the 1940's and 50's.  Being a renowned and popular actress during WW2, she often spent time visiting and entertaining our troops.  In March of 1943, Tierney visited the Hollywood Canteen to meet and entertain the local GI's as was often done during those years.  The evening was uneventful, although she did encounter a young woman Marine that evening, an encounter that would change her life immensely.

A few days after that appearance, Tierney awoke with red spots all over her face.  Her doctor diagnosed her ailment as rubella, also called German measles, and he advised her to delay her scheduled trip to Kansas to meet with her husband, famed fashion designer Oleg Cassini.  It was at Fort Riley, Kansas that she and Oleg planned to raise their first child as Tierney was in her first trimester of pregnancy.

Within a year of the birth of their daughter, Daria, Tierney knew something was wrong. Then one day she read an article that a year after an outbreak of German measles in Australia, a generation of defective babies was being reported.  Up until then, there had been no direct evidence that this form of measles was dangerous to the a baby in utero, but as the research intensified and the evidence mounted, it was clear that German measles was one of the few diseases that could be transported via the bloodstream to a developing fetus, and that it could permanently damage the nervous system of the baby.

As it turned out, exposure in the first trimester was the worst time for the fetus, and was the time frame for Tierney's bout with the disease.

Daria never improved.  She never spoke, could never see clearly and could barely hear. 

About a year after Daria's birth, Tierney was visiting in Los Angeles when a young woman approached her and told her that she probably didn't remember her but she had met and spoken with her at the Hollywood Canteen when she was in the woman's branch of the Marines.  Tierney shook her head that she didn't recall the meeting, but the woman remembered every little detail.

"You know," she said, "I probably shouldn't tell you this, but the whole camp was down with German measles, but I broke quarantine even though I was told not to.  I just had to meet the stars, and, you were my favorite."

Tierney didn't tell her the damage that had resulted but she remembers no longer caring anymore after that if she was anyone's favorite actress.

As sad as this story is, as mad as one might feel towards the selfish lady marine who placed her desire to see someone famous above the health of others, it is not a rare occurrence.  While we don't yet know how many people have been infected (and died) of COVID-19 by their own family members, friends, co-workers or neighbors, let alone strangers, it is not hard to guess that tens of thousands of Americans have been victimized just as Gene and Daria Tierney were in 1943.

When someone gets in their car, drunk, and kills someone while driving home, there is a penalty for such behavior.  Now, one might say that alcoholism is a disease, and the perpetrator of such a tragedy should be given help rather than prison, but we certainly would restrict their ability to drive again.  

But what of a person who wantonly endangers another person through a lack of caring for others, or simply because it is inconvenient.  How do we gauge the patriotism of someone who actively resists the simple act of wearing a mask in public, just in case they are asymptomatic, yet infectious?  Who have decided that their rights or freedoms demand a resistance to being "muzzled" when the act of masking up can lessen the kind of tragedy that had befallen Gene Tierney, let alone her innocent daughter.

We will probably never know how many Americans were saved sickness, whether just for 10 days, or an extended time frame due to complications, never know how many of our older citizens, or those with underlying health conditions were saved from death by the simple donning of a cloth mask or face covering.

But we do know that there are at least 400,000 stories of people who did not survive this pandemic.  That this disease will kill more Americans than any other event save the Civil War.  I don't know how history will judge us for our failure to address this virus, our acceptance that we need to make the false choice between death and our economy, but I imagine that there may be some who will call this our Uncivil War.  A time when we purposely defied standard health practices as some kind of act of patriotism, when we chose to maintain the stereotypes and prejudices that put Confederate generals on pedestals and the knee of a white police officer on a dying black man's throat, when we made the decision, conscious or subconsciously, to reject our founding documents which were forged from debate, contention and compromise in lieu of a misguided belief that consensus is possible or even desired.

Gene and Daria Tierney were accidentally infected and suffered the consequences.  It is difficult for me to describe as accidental, the rancor and division that has been employed which drove Americans to attack their own capitol, and continues to drive even more Americans to believe it is all or nothing, one way in absolutes, or nothing.  But it is certainly clear to me that like Gene and Daria, there are far too many victims, victims of a viral disease, victims of ideological diseases, victims of a war without guns and bullets, but just as deadly. 

Freedom of Speech

Just a quick aside.

I watched almost all of the impeachment debate yesterday. There were a few statements which struck me, but none so much as that of Representative Dan Newhouse of Washington.  In his short speech he encapsulated what, I believe, a majority of Americans think; that both sides share the blame for tacitly and even directly stoking the violence that occurred this past summer and last Wednesday in Washington, that they (and us as voters and citizens) need to do better, and that the president has added to our toxic, partisan environment, then did nothing when his supporters attacked the seat of our government to disrupt the confirmation of the transfer of power.  

We can certainly debate the false equivalency that Newhouse referred to, can even debate whether Trump's words led directly to the attack or whether that attack might have occurred no matter what was said at that rally, but there seems no doubt that Trump watched on TV as the marchers walked towards the Capitol, watched as the violence began, yet did nothing.  He did not perform his sworn duty to protect our country from all enemies, because they were HIS supporters trying to subvert the tabulation of the electoral count when his campaign of pressure and intimidation against various state legislators and the Vice President failed to achieve that goal.  

For that alone, Trump deserves to be removed from the White House.

With the spate of censorship that has arisen since last Wednesday's insurrection attempt, I thought it relevant to read some of my past posts on the First Amendment, and then comment today on the perceived attacks on this precious right.

The first link is from March 27, 2010 and was a copy of a letter I sent to the Philadelphia Inquirer in response to an article written by Michael Smerconish concerning the protest that had occurred by the members of a Baptist Church during the funeral of a slain, gay Marine.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/03/hateful-speech.html

The next post is from November 12, 2010 and was inspired by the calls for the president to revoke the first amendment rights of a pastor who was going to burn a copy of the Quran.  Interestingly, that call came from Pat Buchanan whose point was that such an action might inspire our enemies to take aggressive action against our soldiers abroad or soft targets here at home.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/09/testing-strength-of-our-freedom.html

The third post attempted to distinguish whether the First Amendment protected all speech, even speech which was a blatant lie.  My point in that post is that when, for instance, those church members mentioned above protested at the funeral of a Marine who had died protecting their rights because they truly believed that gay people are condemned to hell, then, while odious and repugnant, their freedom of speech should be protected.  But, should the speech of a US Senator (or President) who knows that the Constitution does not provide for the Vice President to throw out the state certified electoral results, yet, who, in effect, lies, and continues to propagate that lie to those already angry citizens who then act upon that lie, should that speech be protected by the First Amendment?  And, that just because one has the right to free speech, should it be employed in a way that does harm to another?

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/08/opinions-lies-and-responsible-speech.html

My conclusion at the end of that last post, written on August 23, 2018, is that we should never engage in censorship, that we should assume that all speech is protected regardless, and especially, if we find it to reflect the exact polar opposite of what we believe.  That we should assume that all speech is spoken out of belief in the truth of that speech, even when there are no facts to back it up, or a plethora of facts that contradict it.  That speech that is opinion, is protected.

But, of course, like all freedoms, there are limits to our first amendment rights and the protection it guarantees.  When I say that the 2020 election was ripe with fraud, I am allowed that opinion despite evidence to the contrary if I truly do not believe that evidence.  But am I protected by the first amendment if I know what I am saying is a lie, but I continue to say it anyway?  When one tells lies about another person that get that person in some kind of trouble, they can be sued for libel and jailed if it is proven that they knew it was a lie but said it anyway.  Similarly, if someone tells a mob that person X just killed someone, and that mob hangs person X out of belief of that lie, are not all those involved guilty, those who did the crime and those that perpetuated the lie?

If a Muslim cleric held a legally sanctioned rally in Washington, fired up the crowd by telling them that their legal rights were being denied, exhorted them to walk to the capitol and make their voices heard and demand changes, and then violence ensued which caused the death of a police officer guarding the building, I would imagine that many Americans would call for that cleric's arrest, even though he never mentioned violence in his speech.  And, especially, if he had posted many such inflammatory statements on his tweeter feed or facebook account.

Are this cleric's words protected if he truly believes what he is saying?  Are they protected if he believes what he is saying but also knows his words could lead to violence?

I have said before that great freedoms come with great responsibility.  (I did not make that up, Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with that saying).  Justifying acts which harm others, or violate others rights, because '"I am free to do and say whatever I want", is a poor interpretation of freedom, or at least very childish.  

If, in the exercise of our freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, we are tasked with evaluating our speech in the context of how our words might cause harm or negate the rights of others, how much more important is it for those of influence or political power to be careful when making provocative or inflammatory statements, even if true, let alone those same kind of statements that are knowingly false?

I was not happy to hear that Donald Trump was silenced on the various social networks.  Not happy, not just because I believe that free speech should be restricted in only the most serious situations, but because the President of the United States had chosen to repeat over and over that our elections were fraudulent, even though there were countless rebuttals of those claims by judges and state officials from both sides of the political aisle who ruled against or refuted such charges.  

Does Trump truly believe what he is saying?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I can no longer decipher when he is lying to just himself, or to all of us including himself.  But does he not hold an even greater responsibility in the exercise of his freedom of speech than the everyday person? Is he not responsible for the actions of those who react to his words given his position of influence? 

When we debate such issues, we often do so as if in an ivory tower, above the realities of life.  In an ideal world, we would not need the first, or any amendment guaranteeing our rights because we would all respect the rights of those with whom we share our homes, our neighborhoods, our country, our planet. We wouldn't dream of telling someone that they could only drink from  a specific water fountain or piss in a specific bathroom, only go to school in a particular neighborhood, or only marry a person of a specific gender.  But, sadly, we do not live in that world.  

It is necessary for us to record our rights in legal documents, to test those rights against the actions of individuals in our courts, and to remember, above all, that when we deny someone else their rights, we deny them for all of us.  And, if in the exercise of our rights we trample on the rights of others, we lessen those rights for ourselves as well.

One last call for Trump to resign

On Wednesday, May 8th, 2019 I published the following post asking President Trump to resign, and detailing a host of reasons why I thought he should do so.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/05/dear-president-trump.html

Then, on Thursday, July 16th, 2020, I published the following post asking, once again, that Donald Trump resign from his office. (At that point, I did not believe he deserved the title of president, so I did not use it). One of the many reasons I mentioned for him to resign touched on what I anticipated would be his immature reaction to losing the election, and the damage his false narratives about how he lost might cause.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/07/dear-mr-trump.html

So now, here we are on January 13th, 2021.  The attack on Capitol Hill is one week past.  Another vote for impeachment is hours away.  Cracks in the GOP leadership of defending Trump above all have begun to develop.  A majority of the American people place some blame on Trump for the seditious riot that will stain the reputation of our country for many years to come.   Multiple cabinet members and staff have resigned from the Trump Administration, the sight of open rebellion in the halls of Congress being the final straw.

Yet, Trump fights on.  After hiding out in the White House for a few days, he finally addressed the media yesterday and labelled the speech which immediately preceded the attack on the capitol "appropriate".  Further, he said that many Americans were angry (true), and that impeachment would only make them angrier, (also true), but did not mention that his words about his "landslide" victory that was stolen were the root cause of the anger, and that his support for conspiracy theories, some which even convinced people to ignore their own eyes to believe that those rioters were anything but Trump supporters, is what continues to generate the anger of those millions of Americans who have replaced loyalty to America with loyalty to him.

When someone as conservative as Pat Toomey, Senator from my home state of Pennsylvania, declines to vote to object to the electors of his state, and actually calls for Trump to resign, it becomes painfully clear that the true believers (legislative members of Congress and everyday Americans) will never listen to facts, never seek the truth over far right conspiracy theories to justify the 2020 presidential loss, never direct their patriotism back to America and away from their leader, unless that leader tells them so.

At this point, it is not enough for Trump to resign, certainly not enough for him to be impeached whether convicted or not.  It is the words of Donald Trump that has fed the fire of this anti-democracy mob, and it is only his words that could begin to douse that fire.  And, even then, it will take many months of him denouncing violence and admitting defeat for the momentum of this rebellion to be slowed.  

Perhaps that is the solace that Trump should take from his loss.  That even though he will no longer be "the most powerful man on earth" after January 20th, he will still be one of the most influential men on earth, and that it is up to him to use that influence to protect American democracy, and advance the cause of healing and unity, or continue to measure his actions and words against the yardstick of his own ego.  

Frankly, I have real doubts that Donald Trump would rather create a legacy of unity over chaos.  You see, it takes real strength to create bridges between the diverse opinions of people.  It is far easier to create division, which is how Trump built his power and his base of voters to begin with.  It is more than ironic that a man who talks of strength and weakness, rarely treads a path which requires actual strength.  Being a bully is far easier than someone who strives for peace and reconciliation. 

There will be much debate in the coming months about how to handle a man who loves himself so much that he is willing to damage the country which provided him with the freedoms and opportunity to be elevated to such a position of power and influence. But more importantly, how do we engage with his devoted followers who have been brainwashed into believing that Donald Trump cares for anything other than himself.  How do we bring these hard working, patriotic, misguided Americans back into the fold of our American democratic experiment?

Let's just hope that, while it is true that the environment that helped create Donald Trump did not just appear when he first began his run for the White House, it might also be true that by ignoring Trump, as it will be more possible once he is a private citizen, the veil will be removed from the eyes of more Americans every day, and it will be possible for President Biden to begin the slow process of unification, not to mention improving our approach to conquering a virus that will have claimed over 400,000 American lives by the end of this month. 

Please, Mr Trump, resign from office, but then, even more importantly, admit your defeat.  And, if that is not possible, then resign from American politics and political discourse.  Build your legacy by subtraction, by retracting one falsehood at a time.  Put America first, for once.  

KISS

KISS is an acronym for keep it simple, stupid.

It dawned on me today, that Donald Trump has been employing this philosophy for all of his political career, and perhaps even longer.

While Trump has focused his message on a number of topics, immigration, China, and law and order among others, there was always a key thread running through his campaign, and his presidency.  US vs Them.

If you recall, he first made headlines in the political theater when he popularized, and became the spokesperson for the birther movement.  Whether on far right talk shows or the more mainstream Fox and Friends, Trump claimed that Obama was not born in America.  He demanded proof via a birth certificate, then claimed it was fraudulent, once it was published.  Regardless of his never producing any proof of his claim, he sowed the seeds of doubt in a significant percentage of Americans, especially those who were already primed to receive such a racist message concerning the first African American President, that so resisting Obama at every turn was not only the right thing to do, but the patriotic thing to do.  

Then, during his campaign, he continued to stoke the US vs Them power by reminding his followers how much crime emanated from the illegal swarm coming from Mexico, justifying his Build the Wall idea.  It didn't matter that a large percentage of that swarm were children, or that statistics showed that illegal immigrants committed less crimes on the average than Americans, he never relented.  And, while it didn't get much play on his state run TV station, he also slashed legal immigration, removing the basis for so many defenders of his racist policies.  Sadly, those defenders never realized that they supported an immigration policy that would have kept their own ancestors from becoming part of the American tapestry.

But no topic better illustrates the keep it simple, stupid philosophy than his view of elections.  Even before 2016, he assured his cult that he would win, and that a loss would only be because of fraud and cheating.  Oddly, when he did win the electoral college with narrow victories in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, he still claimed voter fraud, claiming he won the popular vote as well.  The fact that the commission that he authorized found no evidence of massive fraud, did not deter him from using the same strategy for 2020.

What was brilliant about this year, however, was that as the president, he could influence the postal service by attacking its competence, and placing one of his stooges in charge of it, while claiming that mail-in votes would delay the declaration of a winner of the November election.  Additionally, when many states sought to legally expand their mail in voting process, he made sure that the legislators who knew that their constituents wanted safe, mail-in voting, also put restrictions on when the ballots could be tallied, which, of course, resulted in a delayed determination of the victor along with a plethora of conspiracy theories that votes were either altered, changed, fraudulent, or just shouldn't be counted at all, depending on which state's results did not add up to a Trump win.

All the while, US vs Them.  True Americans vs socialist democrats, patriots vs America haters.  

Seekers of law and order and the truth, using lies and conspiracy theories (like the one that claims a connection between Dominion voting machines and Hugo Chavez), to further cement the US vs Them divide that has millions of Americans doubting the veracity of the democratic process in a country that they continue to believe is the greatest country ever, in history.

I guess it doesn't dawn on them that a country that has rigged elections, a federal law enforcement organization that is rife with law breakers, a Congress of which half its members hate America and/or are closet communists, (or who eat children if you are a QAnon fan), a Supreme Court filled with cowards, a federal bureaucracy run by the "deep state", whatever that is, and a free press that is the enemy of the people, can't be in the running for greatest country today, let alone ever.

At this point, even those who have defended him in the past, Republican elected officials, his own Attorney General, a number of judges he appointed, all of them are off the US team and part of the ever growing, all encompassing Them conspiracy to steal the victory from US.  Sadly, US has long ago become him, it is just that those who believe in him haven't figured it out yet.

And then there is the pandemic. I have a relative who thinks that Americans who wear masks are sheep for following the guidelines put in place to slow the spread of a virus that has killed more Americans than any event since the pandemic of 1918-20, and has created a daily death toll that has surpassed that of 9/11 a number of times. See link below, which, unfortunately, if it were updated, would include a few days since that article.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deadliest-days-american-history-single-week-coronavirus-pandemic/

He is a victim of KISS, ignoring all the grim statistics because he believes the simple message that Trump has voiced, we are on top of it, we have done the best job in the history of mankind, we are turning the corner, it will all be forgotten after the election.  

A true sheep being led to slaughter by the ultimate con man. Trump downplayed the virus by his own admission, then turned his simple sheep against the very policies that he refused to take to save their lives, knowing that his simple message could be turned against the Democratic officials who did their best to save the lives of those in their cities and states.  He even held rallies that he knew were dangerous, even events at the White House that sickened him, his family, and innumerable people whose only mistake was being employed at the White House or assigned to guard someone who did not care about their welfare.

It is evil genius, simple, effective.  So much easier that understanding that a novel virus takes time to research and understand so there may be times that medical advice might be altered or adapted to the new data.  So much easier than understanding the basic foundations of American democracy that prescribe the process of a peaceful transfer of power precisely because so much of mankind's history is filled with power transfers that required horrendous bloodshed and suffering.  So much easier than thinking.  Especially when thinking involves calculating how we are going to return to normal if people all around us are getting sick and dying.

Perhaps then, it is time to propose our own KISS theory.

Personally, I would like to see all the "essential" workers who make less than $15 per hour, or have scant of no health care benefits, or need to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, to all stay home for a month.  Of course, they can't because they don't have large stock portfolios or tens of thousands of dollars in an emergency fund, but it would sure be nice if it were simple enough that when our child care centers close, there are no more fast food outlets, no department stores, no one to take our online orders or deliver our online food, no lawn cuts or snow removed, and much less food on the table since the agriculture and meat packing industries aren't well known for their treatment of their workers, people realized that the policies that would actually help Americans, are not US vs THEM driven but WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER driven.

Or maybe just this.  Before you open your mouth, politician, pundit, talk show host, social commentator, tell us how many people we should sacrifice to save the economy, and how we should decide who to let die.

In the end, what is more realistic?  That state voting officials of both parties, the Supreme Court of the United States, the now resigned Attorney General, and the state and federal judges who almost unanimously threw out the various suits brought by Trump to challenge the results of the election, all conspired secretly to create a Biden presidency, or that Donald Trump is a sore loser?

Keep it simple, stupid.

  

 

Fake News/Real Facts

Assuming Mike Pence doesn't decide to be the ultimate arbitrator of the 2020 election as Rep. Gohmert from Texas would have us believe, Donald Trump will leave the White House three weeks from yesterday.

For those of you not following the latest attempt to steal the election from the American people, one of Trump's biggest sycophants, Louis Gohmert, is suing Mike Pence to force him to either throw out the rightful electors who are compelled to vote for President-elect Biden as reflective of the will of the citizens who voted in their states, or just unilaterally declare Trump the victor because, well, because Gohmert thinks that the United States Constitution gives such power to Pence.  Yea, right, the founders wanted the outgoing Vice President to be able to negate the results of an election that he lost!  

Curiously, Pence doesn't want such power; his lawyers claim that Gohmert should be suing himself along with the rest of Congress.  If Pence was at all interested in gaining even a minuscule amount of respect from this writer, he would accept the "power" Gohmert claims he has, count the votes as prescribed by the Constitution, and then declare Biden the winner, just as Biden did in 2016 when he presided over the process and named Trump the winner of the 2016 election, an election decided by even less votes in the 3 swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. (Trump won those 3 states in 2016 by a combined margin of 80,000 votes while Biden won those same 3 states by a combined total of 250,000 votes.  And, of course, Trump lost the popular vote in both elections by just about 10 million votes combined). 

So, again, assuming this last attempt to subvert the will of the people and convert the White House to just another dictator's residence fails, just as all the other attempts by the temper-tantrum-in-chief, in 3 three weeks, the analysis of the Trump presidency will begin.  Never one to wait for the spin to begin, here is my take on the last 4 years, facts up.

In January 2009, the unemployment rate when Obama was inaugurated was about 9.8%.

In January 2017, the unemployment rate when Trump took office was just 4.9%. During Obama's 2 terms, the rate fell by half, just about 5%.

In January 2021, the unemployment rate will most likely be about 6.7%, which means that while the rate did drop another 1.5% or so up until February, it will have risen almost 2% in total during the Trump administration.

In January 2009, the US was in the throes of a recession, which began in 2008.  This led to an surge in federal deficit spending during Obama's fist term, amounting to $5.1 trillion, and also spurred the Tea Party movement which focused on national debt, blamed Obama and the Democrats for selling out our children's future and led to the GOP taking control of the House in 2010.  As the economy improved, Obama's Administration added another $2.2 trillion to the national debt during his second term, $1.5 trillion of that in the last 3 years.

Trump, who inherited a relatively healthy economy, added $2.4 trillion to the debt in his first 3 budgets.  Another $3 trillion will be added in his fourth year, which means that during Trump's first term, he will have added $5.4 trillion to the debt, more than that which occurred during Obama's first term. 

Strangely, many of those same tea party advocates who voted for such deficit spending in times of a healthy economy, remained silent although I expect that when the final tally of becomes true later in 2021, they will be in full voice despite the fact that it will reflect Trump's budget, not Biden's.  (This info came from the article in Forbes referenced below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/09/27/trump-will-create-more-debt-than-obama/?sh=7955e90b12f1

In January 2009, the Dow Jones stood at just below 8100, again, the result of the ongoing recession. During Obama's 8 years in office, the Dow rose to about 19,800 when Trump took office.  An increase of about 11,700 points, or about 144%.  

If we assume that the Dow will go from its current 30,660 to, let's say 31,000, that will be an increase of 12,200 points since Trump took office, or about 62%.  Less than half the increase during Obama's 2 terms.

So, to summarize.  Obama took office during a recession which occurred during a 4 year term for a Republican president who had a GOP controlled Congress. During his 8 years in office, based on the 3 metrics detailed above, Obama's record was better than that of the business man who was elected to rescue our economy from the democrats.

One last number, GDP.  During Obama's 8 years, GDP grew about 12.5%, which includes the 2.5% slide in 2009 when the recession was at its peak. Growth was just under 9% in his 2nd term which is about 2.25% per year, a rate described as sluggish and unacceptable by Trump and his supporters.  GDP growth in the first 3 years of Trump totals about 7.7%, or about 2.6% per year, about 17% better.  See below.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate

However, projections are that GDP will drop about 3% for 2020, so if you subtract 3% from the 7.7% we have a 4 year growth rate of 4.7%, or about 1.2% per year.  Compared to 2.25% for Obama's last 4 years, and overall GDP increased at a rate almost 50% less during the Trump single term; sounds like less than sluggish and unacceptable to me.

At this point, for the 2nd time in 12 years, a Democrat president will inherit a bloody mess from a GOP Administration. We can only hope that Biden is able to oversee our recovery and build as strong a foundation as was built during the Obama years.  The only question is, when will the American electorate abandon its belief that the GOP is the party of financial responsibility.  This is not to say that the Dems are all that better, but the above information certainly indicates that those who vote Republican for its fiscally responsible policies may need to reassess that thinking.

Let me end by wishing everyone a Happy New Year.  Stay safe.  And please, put on your big boy pants and mask up!

Playing the numbers, revisited.

So, here we are, December 29th.  Before beginning this post, I reread the 3 posts I had written in March, as both a perspective of how things were 9 months ago, and to see if there is a way to answer some of the questions which I posed in those posts.  You may reread them by clicking on the links below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/03/playing-numbers.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/03/playing-numbers-2.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-price-of-freedom.html

First, let's be clear that the United States of America did a horrible job of battling the COVID-19 virus.  From the president through the legislature, the governors and even various state and local officials, our leadership failed us.  

But even more so, we failed each other, and so, in the end, it is the fault of the American people that we have lost about 340,000 lives to this pandemic, with probably another 100,000 to come.  Long ago we swallowed and internalized the belief that America is great because of its economy and wealth, and so, by the time the vaccines have created a large enough percentage of immunity in the population, we will have sacrificed almost half a million of our fellow citizens upon the altar of greed and the almighty dollar. 

But Joe, many of us sacrificed a lot during these times?  How can you say it is our fault?

In face of just such reasoning, true as it is for a large number of Americans, I acknowledge that much suffering, economic and health wise has occurred, is still ongoing.  We wore masks when it was uncomfortable.  We stayed away from our older relatives just in case we were sick and did not know it.  We washed and sanitized our hands and common surfaces so much it would make Felix Unger proud. We altered our daily routines in innumerable ways in hopes of saving the lives of those we might infect unknowingly, or those who could not survive the virus.

In sports, there is an old adage that you are what your record says.  4-10-1 (4 wins, 10 losses, 1 tie) makes you a bad team, regardless of whether you played good teams, had a lot of injuries, or lost a number of close games.  

And so it is with our record.  As of today, almost 25% of the cases in the world have occurred in the US, yet with only 4% of its inhabitants.  About 20% of the deaths.  One of every 1,000 Americans have died, in 9 months, from this pandemic which puts us ahead of Spain, Italy, the UK, Belgium, Peru and 8 other countries, but behind Israel, Germany, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Norway and 180 other countries that have lost citizens to this virus.  Yes, in terms of deaths per million, out of about 195 countries reporting coronavirus deaths, we are 182nd. We are what our record says.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

In my first post in March, I asked that we require all politicians and pundits to specify how many Americans they were willing to sacrifice to keep our economy open.  At the time, I was naive enough to wonder if they might answer that 50,000 dead would be OK, but that perhaps 100,000 might not.  

I wonder how many people would have received much air time, in March, had they said they were willing to sacrifice 300,000 Americans to keep the economy open?  Of course, since we somewhat flattened the curve in the spring, then lost our nerve and began protesting the simple wearing of masks, and limiting our social contacts, I wonder if anyone promoting the idea that we do nothing would have stated they were willing to sacrifice half a million Americans to "be free" as it is obvious we will get close to that number, even with the use of all the mitigations put in place.  

Can you imagine if, in the interview with Bob Woodward, the words Trump's "I always wanted to down play the virus" were replaced with, I was willing to sacrifice 500,000 Americans?  Well, guess what, they mean the same, it is just that too many people were too far down the rabbit hole to realize that the high death rate was partly due to "being a cheerleader" rather than a real leader.

And so, too many average Americans listened to those saying that our freedoms were at stake, looked around and saw that the virus hadn't struck anyone they knew, or only people who were sick or a different color than they were, and refused to demand actual numbers.  Or worse, listened to those who continued to deny it was even real, right up until the time that the virus starting rampaging through rural America, and by then it was too late.  

If you happen to be interested in the death rates of some of those "freedom" loving states where the governors actually encouraged virus spreading events like motorcycle festivals and political rallies, you might note that North and South Dakota currently own the 4th and 7th highest death rates, respectively, of the 50 states.  I can only wonder if, had the White House been more interested in preventing death than winning an election, the governors of those states might have been more assertive in trying to prevent the virus from spreading, thereby saving the lives of Dakotans who might have been able to stay relatively unscathed had they tried even a little bit.

And then there is the obvious fact that upwards of 40% of the deaths (where barely 1% of the population lives) happened in long term care facilities.  Would a coordinated federal effort in concert with better decision making by some of the east coast governors have helped?  For sure.  But, if you want to better understand why those facilities, that industry, suffered so much death, you can read this month's AARP magazine for more details.  

Suffice it to say, that when you allow an industry to self regulate, to pay paltry wages to its caregivers, to be dependent on tax payer money for a large percentage of its revenue, and to reflect the all too pervasive attitude that America exhibits towards its elderly (better unseen), then we have a recipe for disaster when facing such an unexpected pandemic.

Ultimately, the question is, what did we learn?

For me, the question of how much trust we place in our elected officials goes to the heart of some of our problems today.  For many years there has been a concerted effort to drive a wedge between the people and the government.  While it is certainly important to apply the smell test to the words and actions of our public servants, it times of crisis it is only through large scale action that can only be accomplished through coordinated efforts by all levels of government (and public-private partnerships), can effective measures be realized.  When the smell is too much too handle, we vote for someone new.  And when election results are threatened to be overturned, we call bullshit, and apply the label traitor.

During WW2 when rations of gas and meat were required, air raid drills were held, and sacrifices were made for our brave soldiers, policies that certainly restricted individual liberty, the vast majority of Americans understood the necessity of temporarily adhering to such restraints. Did we trust the government more, or did we understand that exceptional times demanded exceptions measures?  

Far too many politicians (and news organizations) made fighting the pandemic (or resisting calls to do so) a political issue rather than a health issue, and far too many Americans were unable to put their fellow citizens (and ultimately anyone in their family or circle of friends who worked in essential jobs, lived in long term care facilities, or were just old or sick) ahead of their own misguided selfish needs.  Too many were convinced that the individual is always more important than the whole so that give me liberty or give me death turned out to mean my liberty is more important than your death, "your" being defined as those who were already sick, or old, or just not like me.

It is a not an easy line to walk, valuing individualism over the state, then knowing when the state (all the citizens) needs to be prioritized even over one's own liberties.  Perhaps we need to remember that the United States government is we, the people and when you have completely fell victim to a con man who tells you that he is the government, or that only some people are part of we, the people, it is inevitable that you will lose the very thing that you prize the most. 

In the meantime, wear your mask, limit your travel, value your family, encourage the prioritization of health above wealth, and get vaccinated if your doctor recommends you to do so.

 

More Thanks for Donald Trump

Last month I posted the following

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/11/thank-you-donald-trump.html

In it, I posited that for good or bad, Donald Trump has energized the electorate far more than any person in recent history, and should be congratulated for, not only this fact, but perhaps, for awakening the sleeping giant, the American electorate.  As it turned out, I under performed in my assumption that we might reach a 60% voter turnout as it was in the range of 66%.  Now, let's be realistic, that still means the one out of three registered voters chose not to participate in one of the most contentions presidential elections in our generation.  

Still, as I said, it is a beginning.  Let's hope, no, let's demand, that we continue to stay involved in our democracy by encouraging our elected public servants to overhaul the election process by mandating that all states have some form of early voting, an organized framework to handle (and count) mail-in votes by election day or the day after, and the adoption of Democracy weekend which features voting from Saturday through Monday with Monday being a national holiday.  And, to further emphasize our seriousness, that the American electorate removes from office anyone not in agreement with the basics of this plan.

Today's post, is again, a tribute to Donald Trump.  

While Trump has governed from day one with no concerns for the norms and standards of modern presidential and political thought, it was not clear, at least to me, just how far he might go in challenging the foundations of our democracy.  (Nora, my wife, on the other hand, knew from day one that he would go as far as destroying our democracy if it pleased him).  Regardless of where you fell on that scale of doubt/certainty, it is now abundantly clear that Donald Trump cares even less about America than even the most naive among us might have thought.  Even starting before election day, he told his true believers that should he lose in 2020 (just as he said in 2016, by the way), it will be the result of massive fraud, cheating by the Democrats, the fact that the election is "rigged", or any combination of the three.  

He disparaged mail in voting even though he had mailed in many votes over the course of his lifetime, then spent taxpayer money to fly to Florida to cast his vote to prove that true Americans only vote in person.

Once there appeared that no proof of massive fraud could be found, he and his sycophants challenged in court the actions of various Democratic led states which altered their voting rules to allow for safer voting in this pandemic year.  In other words, they sued to have legal votes cast aside. 

And now that virtually all court challenges have resulted in abject failure, as judges from both sides of the aisle tossed out these frivolous suits, he is encouraging sympathetic GOP state legislators to ignore the vote of the people and choose electors that will vote for him, not Biden.

The good news is that there appears to be no path by which enough rogue electors can change the outcome of the current electoral count, which is 306 to 232. The bad news is that there is still one more hurdle before Biden is officially declared the winner of the 2020 election.  

The electoral votes must be tabulated and confirmed by Congress on January 6th, with Mike Pence, no less, to read and tabulate the results, in alphabetical order, state by state.  It is at this time that there is an opportunity for members of Congress to object to a state's submitted electoral result, and it will certainly happen this time, as a number of GOP House representatives have indicated, and as, undoubtedly, Trump will encourage both directly in contacts with those GOP representatives who he knows he can bully, and indirectly, by telling his cult members to contact their federal representatives to insist that they object to this "rigged" election.  

But, the rules require that a representative from both Houses object, which means a Senator from the state must also participate in this attempted coup.  While it is clear that there is little integrity residing within our current GOP senators, there may be an unwillingness even among them to tell the voters of their state who voted for Biden that their votes do not count.

Ultimately, however, an objection to a state's electoral submission must be upheld by both bodies of Congress, and there is little chance that the House of Representatives will choose to agree with a GOP assertion that a state won by Biden should not have its electors given to Biden.

That only leaves a military coup, which, if you have been watching the firing of key Pentagon civilians by Trump with the replacement of Trump loyalists (note that in this case, a Trump loyalist is not an American loyalist, since this person has been chosen based on his views Trump is more important that our country).  I know, you are saying, a military coup in America?  Sounds crazy, a manifestation of Trump syndrome.

Perhaps so, but then again, an incumbent president who claims that America's election system is rife with fraud and rigged is pretty far-fetched in itself.  It is truly amazing how Trump has convinced so many people to vote for him while telling them that the election is rigged.  That rampant fraud has occurred, but only in states that he lost.  (Just for the record, I heard that in Maine and Iowa, votes cast for the senate races there were changed from Dem to GOP.  How else can you explain Ernst and Collins winning again?  I have no proof, but since when is proof required to make an assertion?)

So, why am I thanking Donald Trump, you must be asking?

Well, for starters, his attempt at sedition has spurred many people to gain a better understanding of how our election laws work.  I was not fluent in all the details which I have laid out in the above paragraphs, as I would imagine most Americans are not.  His overt and covert attacks on the foundations of our democracy and freedoms, have motivated, perhaps millions of people, to learn more about the intricacies of how our government works, and how it can be used to not work.  Thank you.

But even greater than that, I am firm in my belief that come January 20th, 2021, Joe Biden will be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States.  Our democracy may have flaws, it may have been bruised a bit, with some bruises going right to its core, but it will have survived.  So, thanks again Donald Trump for testing the American Democratic Experiment, and proving just how strong it is.  And, if you could do us one more favor, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. 

Congratulations to Joe Biden

Just about 4 years ago, I posted the following entry into my blog.  It was partly a congratulatory message to the new president, partly a review of my evening as I watched the returns come in, partly some thoughts on why Trump may have won, and lastly, a comment on the lack of turnout for such an important and pivotal election.  I have a link to it if you choose to read it in its entirety.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/11/congratulations-to-donald-trump.html

So, to be consistent, congratulations Joe Biden.  While one might say that Donald Trump won the 2016 election by employing tactics that were, to say the least, totally outside the norms of a traditional presidential campaign, Joe Biden's campaign was almost the exact opposite.  He was steady in his message of unity and did not make the mistakes that Clinton made by denigrating the supporters of Trump while ignoring the voters of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  But most importantly (to me), did not pretend that a pandemic that has killed over 240,000 Americans (over 1.2 million earthlings), would go away on its own, choosing to convey his message in ways that lessened the spread of the virus, while Trump conducted rallies that spread the virus among the citizens of our country.

There was one significant similarity between 2016 and 2020; the polls under estimated Trump's support.  It was not a blue wave as some predicted, although Biden will win the popular vote by a wider margin than Clinton.  Also, while one might say that the person, Donald Trump, was rejected by Americans as a leader, the GOP most likely will gain a few seats in the House (although it will still be a Dem majority), and will also retain control of the Senate, 51-49 or 52-48 depending on the outcome of the Georgia runoff.  So, we remain a split country in our perspective and philosophy, a state of affairs that will present president elect Joe Biden with an incredibly complex challenge.  

The big difference, hopefully the beginning of a trend, and not an anomaly, was the 2020 turnout.  We will break all records for votes cast, Biden and Trump both over 70 million received votes, both surpassing Obama's 2008 record.  Percentage of registered voters who will have voted will exceed 66%, may even reach 70%, a number not seen in a century.  As I said in my last post, we owe a debt to Donald Trump for this record, but more importantly, we must congratulate the American electorate who, rather that shrugging their collective shoulders and saying "all politicians are the same", made a choice and exercised their most precious right, the right to vote.

I watched some of the speech that Biden gave as the vote count continued into the weekend, and then his victory speech yesterday.  He continued expounding of the theme of unity that he displayed during the campaign, and I was happy that he addressed those who supported the president, while not attacking the president himself.  I would encourage that Biden, indeed all liberals, progressives, etc, do their best to put Donald Trump out of our consciousness.  He will continue his legal attacks on the election, will continue his attacks on the institutions of our country, but we must remain steadfast in our reaction, or in this case, non-reaction.  If there is one thing of which I am most certain, it is that Trump feeds on attention, positive or negative, and the best way to encourage him to disappear is to pretend he is already gone.  

Of course, the best way to remove Trump from the limelight, is for Biden to create and execute a successful plan to combat COVID-19 while allowing the economy the opportunity to recover.  Certainly a vaccine by early 2021 will help, but Biden must jump start confidence in the public's perception of the government's message concerning the use of mandates to protect the health of Americans versus our ubiquitous belief in freedom and liberty.  It is a fine line that Trump preferred not to walk, due to the difficulty of treading such a difficult path.  If there is one overall strength that Biden has always displayed, it is the ability to listen to a range of opinions, then merge those various opinions into actions.  He will need to temper the desire of those on the left to charge ahead while also assuring those on the right that change will be for the good of all, and not just those who voted for him.  

For now, we have just over 10 weeks before inauguration 2021.  We will hear about some of Biden's plans.  We will continue to suffer the ravages of the pandemic in terms of sickness, deaths, and economic stagnation.  But, as Biden has said many times, together, we can overcome these difficulties.  Together we can balance the needs for suppression of this deadly pandemic with the needs for our children to be in school, our small businesses to be able to operate safely, and our communities to incorporate the new normal of masks and distancing with the indomitable will of individual Americans to adjust, accept, and then prosper.

I am cautiously hopeful, and encourage anyone who reads this to be the same. 

  

 

Thank You Donald Trump

My opinion of Donald Trump is no secret; I am not a fan.

I don't agree with his policies or his leadership style, and I have a serious issue with his attacks on the institutions of our country, especially the free press and the judicial system.

But there is one area that I must give credit where credit is due; he has energized the electorate!

Whether you a true believer or a never Trumper, it is expected that more people will vote in this upcoming election than any in history, and that, between those votes already cast and the expected long lines at the polls, we might even surpass a 60% turnout.

While the 2008 presidential election which resulted in the first African American President, also energized the voters and set a new standard for election participation, that campaign enthused the electorate on one side of the aisle more than the other.  This election is spurring enormous interest on both sides, although for very

different reasons.

So, thank you Donald Trump.  Let's hope you have awoken the sleeping giant, and that 60% or more voter turnout will become the norm rather than the exception.  

Unfortunately, I am compelled to retract half of my appreciation for Trump's ability to get out the vote, as he, along with far too many GOP legislatures and conservative groups, are actively attempting to negate hundreds of thousands of votes through their actions in court over mail-in ballots.

Perhaps the electorate, in its newly found power and interest, will insist that our federal public servants, in cooperation with our state public servants, will fashion a national standard for elections, or at least a framework with some ability to tweak within that standard.

We know that more than half of the states allow for early voting, so let's mandate that all states must allow for some form of early, in-person voting, whether that be 7, 14 or 30 days.  We also know that some states allow for the tabulation of ballots before the actual election day, so let's mandate that as well, again with room for each state to determine how much time might be needed, so that a winner can be declared on election night rather than exposing our democracy to needless court rulings to determine our next president.

And why are we still married to the idea of election Tuesday?  The agriculture paradigm that created such a requirement is long gone.  As part of an early voting mandate, perhaps an election weekend might address both the bottleneck that can occur when interest is high and restrictions create long lines, and could also address the simple fact that the average working American is just that, working on Tuesday, in addition to whatever other obligations that might exist, family or otherwise.  A national time frame of Saturday through Monday, with Monday a nation holiday day - Democracy Day - might be worth considering.

As far as I can tell, there is no current legal standing that says that a voter in line as of close of polls, is not guaranteed the right to still cast her ballot.  Most states seem to allow just such a thing, again, as long as the person is in line by 8:00.

Yet there seems to be debate over whether a mail-in ballot received after election day, but postmarked on or before election day, is valid.  Clearly, mail-in ballots should be mailed at least a week before election day.  In fact, I would be fine if the national standard were set as such; all ballots must be postmarked by 3 or 5 or 7 days before election day, whatever each state believes will result in the vast majority being received and counted by election night.  But, since there is no such standard, it smells of politics when one party chooses to attempt to invalidate votes based on the assumption that a higher percentage of those votes will be for the other side.  Again, one should not wait until the last minute.  But, I am sure that the president would be alarmed to hear that some of his supporters were told to go home at 8:00, without being allowed to cast their vote because they waited until the last minute to get to their polling place.  Procrastination might be a trait that needs to be addressed, but the penalty should not be disenfranchisement.

I have said it ad nauseam, that Americans know far too much about pop culture, sports, and what is trending on U-tube, than we do about our democracy.  What percentage of people can name 5 Supreme Court Justices?  Their federal representatives in the Senate and Congress?  Their corresponding state reps?  We are proud of the greatness of our democratic experiment but fail to see that the experiment is ongoing, and needs an informed and involved electorate to be successful.

But, one step at a time.  More people will vote in this election.  Good start.  Do we need a law that says if you don't vote, you get penalized in some way?  Boy, that just might explode the heads of people who resist being told what to do by the government but consider voting an important privilege.  Sometimes, often times, when an authority figure tells you to do something, your parent, your priest, your local police officer, your elected public servant, your "of the people, by the people, for the people" government, the advice is for the best.  

Clearly, knowing when to swim upstream and fight the current is tricky, but always saying no smacks more of a childish behavior rather than a well thought out adult decision.

Still, rather than compelling people to vote, I would surely prefer that we assume the responsibility we have been given, and earn it by making the time to cast a vote once every two years, 4 times in 4 years if you vote in the primaries and the general.  That is a few hours a day, 4 days out of 1460 days, or about 1/4 of 1% of the days in that 4 year period.  Frankly, if we can't spare that much time, and just under half of us have not in the recent presidential elections, less than half again in the midterms, why do we get so angry when we don't like the government we elect?  We get what we deserve seems to apply here.

This election will shine a very strong light on the deficiencies of our electoral process.  It may even expose us to some very real negative consequences of not having a modern approach to such an important event.

When all is said and done, there should be only one goal for the future.  A federal framework that allows every citizen to be given the opportunity to vote, whether in person or by mail, whether a few days early or on election day, and a guarantee that their vote will be counted regardless of which party they prefer, and especially if their preference is different from that of the party in Washington or their state capital.

  

 

The Debates

Last week, I was one of the tens of millions of people who wasted 90 minutes of their life to watch the presidential debate (it doesn't deserve a capital P).  I wasn't planning on watching, as I assumed I wouldn't hear anything that would alter my perception that Donald Trump is not even a good person, let alone a good president, and that Joe Biden is a competent politician who at least has experienced events in his life that allow him to sympathize with everyday Americans and their problems. But in the end, I felt compelled to do my civic duty and sit through, perhaps, one of the worst debates in  memory.  To call it a shit show would be an insult to shit shows.

Afterwards, and for the next day or so (until it was revealed that Trump had contacted COVID-19), I heard many pundits attempt to identify a winner of the debate, although many merely focused on who didn't win.  More than one commented that it was much easier to merely state that both candidates were losers, but more importantly, that the American electorate was the biggest loser of all.  I certainly felt like I lost 90 minutes of my life I would never get back, and lost an opportunity to hear real solutions for these troubled times.

And America, the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of the world (so called), was revealed to the world as a nation of limited vision, limited leaders, and limited citizenry to have voted in such a way over the past years to have produced two parties offering such a horrific choice.

I am hopeful that there is a way out of this morass, that perhaps we will begin the long climb towards understanding how our democracy works and appreciating its uniqueness and worthiness, so that in the coming decade, we can vote at a higher percentage (will we make 75% this year), and with a far more in-depth understanding of how to choose, and hold accountable, our leaders.  

Our leaders. If they suck, it is no one's fault but our own, and right now, they suck.  Which means, we suck, as citizens, as neighbors, as humans.

I also watched the Vice Presidential debate last night.  It was at least more civil, far less instances of one candidate exceeding their time or talking over the other person.  But very little substance.  It was like watching two political ads playing side-by-side, as each candidate, sometimes answering the question, often bypassing the questions completely, trotted out their talking points.

It was certainly less painful, but still a waste of time.

So, what are we to do?

If the candidates are not going to obey the ground rules as agreed to and set forth by the debate commission, are going to behave like kindergartners on a playground, are going to only answer the questions they want to, or insert their own questions towards their opponent, if debates are all about trying to get the other person to misstep or make an onerous gaffe, than we should stop pretending they are a source of information to make such an important choice, and cancel them entirely.  At this point, they are only good for paid commentators to dissect and spin.

It is time, way past time, for the American public to follow the 5 D's of Dodgeball.

Dodge the rallies and focus on town hall meetings where we, the people, can ask questions that matter to us. When a candidate evades a question, the next citizen should ask it again, and again, and again, if it is necessary to get an answer.

Duck under the appeals to prejudice and hatred.  When a candidate points the finger of blame at a group that is dissimilar to you, remember that people of your demographic could be the next scapegoat.  It is our disparity that is the strength of America. 

Dip, no, immerse yourself in a candidate's actual voting record and actual actions.  When someone says they are concerned about the environment, but acts to reduce car emissions and mileage standards, turns away from enforcing EPA regulations, and seeks discredited science to justify their methods, it means they are weak on the environment.  That is certainly their prerogative, but they should at least own it, or we should at least recognize their hypocrisy.

Dive into civics, which, if you need reminding is, the study of the rights and duties of citizenship. Know the 3 branches of government and their roles and interactions, be able to name your Senators, your representative in the House, and your governor and state reps.  Perhaps even at least half of the Supreme Court Justices.  Who knows how far you might go from there. You might even learn how to pass a bill.   

and finally,

Dodge discussions with people who view disagreement as anti-American or anti-Patriotic, but please, please, engage in discussion with those who can debate the issues with facts, perhaps even disagree completely, but who will respect your opinion (as you do theirs), and agree to disagree.

Supporting the president on an issue you feel strongly about does not make you a sycophant, just as disagreeing with the president on an issue you feel strongly about does not make you a hater of America.

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be better citizens, better educated voters, and above all, we need to NOT follow the example as set forth in the recent debates, especially the presidential one.