Punishment

That’s what all this has been about from the beginning, isn’t it? Punishment for your imaginary enemies, and those public servants whose job it is to protect the citizenry from scoundrels like you. Punish those “deviants” who only want the freedom to live their authentic lives, free from fear of violence and bullying and discrimination. Punishment for women who dare to assert their rights to bodily autonomy, and equality in the business world. Punishment for those immigrants seeking asylum and a better living, fleeing from oppressive regimes like the one you envision for yourself. The thing is, none of those demographics deserves punishment; nor does anyone who loves and advocates for them.

Insulated from the hoi polloi by your inherited affluence and celebrity, you consistently and successfully portray yourself as a victim. Bravo. That should win you an Oscar or an Emmy, but not an election to the Oval Office. You are by every measure a perpetrator. Maybe we should spell it “perpetraitor," instead, given that your political BFFs are dictators and war criminals.

Your campaign of distraction has been frighteningly successful. You managed to draw attention away from the criminally affluent who are truly ruining our country, and the planet, and shift the focus to demonizing artificial subsets of humanity that make easy scapegoats. Complicit in your diabolical scheme has been religious extremism, bending the Bible to your benefit. Your benefactors have muzzled the formerly free press, if not enslaved it, for your benefit.

It is clear that you have no interest in improving the lives of anyone but yourself and your heirs, and perhaps those billionaires to whom you owe privileges. Your rank and file either don’t see that, or you have convinced them that the wanton suffering of others is enough to entertain them while you rob them blind.

The only thing guaranteed by your administration is the continued misery of runaway corporate capitalism, White supremacy, LGBTQ intolerance, mass incarceration, Christian nationalism, and climate change denial, to name but a few of the atrocities you willfully and joyfully represent.

Your “concepts of a plan” for healthcare, your addiction to tariffs as the panacea for economic prosperity, and your fervent desire to “drill, baby, drill” would be laughable were it not for the very real, dire consequences of your ineptitude. Your foreign policy acumen is so warped and lacking that you pose a clear and present danger to the very nation you seek to govern.

What do you expect me to do now? Submit? At least pretend to be red, that coldest of colors? Flee the country and seek asylum of my own? Those might be tempting options, but they are not in my nature. No, if anything, I will take it up a notch, be the incendiary voice for truly radical progressive policies, an advocate for lifestyles that work in harmony with the rest of life on Earth.

Congratulations, then, on making me even more intolerant of you, and those who support you, even those who refused to choose either candidate. They are cowardly, and blind to the damage you will do. I will be committed to standing in your way, at every opportunity.

America: Fixer-upper or...?

My spouse enjoys the modest suspense of those renovation and rehab shows on HGTV. Invariably, a project that seemed straightforward confronts some basic issue that must be addressed lest the entire structure be doomed. It is an apt comparison to the United States in the wake of our most recent nationwide election. The U.S. still has a modicum of curb appeal, but venture beyond the façade and it is worrisome.

Copyright wvhub.org and Turn This Town Around Whitesville

One could argue that our democracy and/or republic is structurally unsound. The foundation, erected by our forefathers, appears remarkably stable, only a few constitutional cracks that we can chalk up to the contractors simply being non-clairvoyant. The language in the homeowners’ manual is perhaps outdated, too, but that can be forgiven. We’ve had upgrades, like the Emancipation Proclamation, but since then it has been mostly a new coat of paint here, new flooring there. Cosmetic changes are nice, but they often conceal damage we would rather not address.

The twenty-first century has finally exposed that we have load-bearing walls holding up glass ceilings. Our support beams have dry rot or worse. Mold has crept in after periodic floods of repression, oppression, and sheer neglect. The door is stuck shut, the plumbing shot, and the wiring is not up to code. Porch pillars, and pillars of our communities, are not what we thought they were. Our privileged experiences are not reflective of the entire populace.

As an entomologist, the term “structural pest” comes to my mind. Subterranean termites. We have not been treating for them, and now we are suffering the consequences. It is telling that termites are pale, and shun the light for the darkness of their tunnels. They are blind or nearly so. They are oblivious to whatever source of cellulose they are munching, intent only on feeding themselves and their siblings, all the progeny of a bloated matriarch. They are incredibly successful in their destruction, and completely unaware of their colossal impact.

This election revealed the termites, and it was personally punishing. It turns out that many of us have been termitophiles, blindly associating with others who have, in their privacy, been gnawing away at our nation’s health and welfare by failing to advocate for those less privileged. We either did not know them, or they metamorphosed, gradually or rapidly, into something we were not expecting. That is what really shakes me in the aftermath of the election: Personal, emotional, invested infrastructure is failing. I had assumed my friends were also my allies, my load-bearing walls, and fellow construction workers helping make the world better.

It is a curse of the empathetic and vulnerable to have compassion even for those who would smite them, or at least undermine the values they hold dear. Agonizing decisions are made daily, now, as to who in your personal circle you have to let go. There are plenty of rationalizations for saying farewell, and at least some may be legitimate if not necessary. You cannot repeatedly compromise your personal mental health by being an apologist for a friend who clearly does not stand for your own principles. It is not “social embarrassment” or “politics,” it is myself recognizing that many in our world need protection from harm, while you do not.

Parting ways may be doing your former friend a favor, too. As their own circle of friends diminishes, it may force them to abandon the outdated infrastructure of belief they have clung to for so long. That is not meant to express any kind of moral superiority, mind you. Please be wary of that.

Termites (the insects) in other parts of the world are not always structural pests. They create some of the most complex and efficient architecture of any animal species, complete with “central air” in some cases, underground mushroom gardens in others. Termites are the foundation of many ecosystems in savannahs and jungles and deserts. Ironically, they do not know their limits, and probably believe they are the superior organism in their realm, overcoming attacks from aardvarks and anteaters, and spreading their colonies far and wide. They are also unaware that they truly are important to the health of the planet.

In this regard we are not like termites, unless we abandon all logic, science, reverence, and hope. We will need to invest heavily, and consistently, in acknowledging the rights of all peoples, and advancing the appointment of the disenfranchised into positions of power. We don’t have to wait for another national election to begin the necessary demolition and restoration.

£

Pulling the Lever, Filling the Oval

© HelloGiggles.com

Watching the news coverage of the election returns Tuesday night, and the aftermath on social media, one thing struck me above all talk of a "blue wave" and the advancement of women and minorities in politics. What was graphically exposed once again were the shortcomings of the election process, from redistricting to faulty voting machines, to long lines, severe or substantially inclement weather, and inaccessibility of polling locations. All of this is inexcusable for a country that purports to be a democracy.

Interestingly, if not ironically, many states took steps to improve the election system, through measures that were on their ballots. Florida granted former felons the right to vote, unless they committed a sex crime or murdered someone. Here in Colorado, we overwhelmingly approved Amendments Y and Z to the state constitution, creating unbiased citizen committees to draw the districting maps in a fashion that does not favor one political party over another. We did that via mail-in or drop-off ballot voting. Wow, what a concept, to dispense with the archaic polling locations, at a time of year when we could have a Rocky Mountain blizzard on election day.

Back in the day (whenever "the day" was, it is all relative I suppose), there may have been good reasons for each state, or even county, to set up its own election day procedures, draw district maps the way they did, register voters, and otherwise service a largely sedentary, if not rural, population of the electorate. There are some aspects of our culture that do well to recognize and follow history, however ancient, but voting should not be one of them. Today, with our mobile society, we desperately need standardization of election rules. You should be able to arrive in your new state and county of residence and know exactly how to register yourself to vote, including exactly what pieces of identification are required, on the first try, minimal hoops to jump through.

Once you are registered, you should not have to worry about where to report to exercise your right to vote. Mail-in ballots should be the norm. Why? You have plenty of time to go over your ballot, and do your due diligence in researching the candidates and issues. You need not concern yourself with the weather on election day. You do not need to fear that you will show up at the wrong polling place, or that it will be closed, or there will be long lines....I understand the appeal of exercising your civic duty socially, in public, but this method is now being exploited by nefarious parties to advance agendas not endorsed by the electorate. Time to rectify that.

No voting system is going to be foolproof, nor impervious to hackers nor immune to other glitches of technology and human error, but evidence and repeated experience suggests that voting machines cannot be trusted, especially when their manufacturers are in bed with one political party.

Then there is enduring hostile poll workers who take it upon themselves to harass voters, if not outright evict them from polling locations. Frankly, there should be minimal requirements for identification, and of course mail-in ballots again dispense with this kind of confrontation. Voting should not be stressful, let alone embarrassing or demeaning. All of that can take place on Facebook or Twitter. I'm kidding, there is no place for that kind of....attitude.

It should not be obvious that your particular voting district(s) lean toward one party or another, and your suspicions should be aroused if the district has a long history of domination by either Republicans or Democrats. I'm not even sure why we need so many districts, or why they are independent of, say, school districts. The geography of politics these days amounts to urban versus rural, and that divide needs to heal as quickly as possible, too. Our collective dialogue, when it comes to candidates and governing policy, needs to refrain from legislating morality and concentrate instead on addressing needs common to all citizens regardless of whether they live in a suburb or on a farm.

Gerry needs to stop mandering, and realize that democratic elections cannot take place when you rig the system. "But we've always done it this way" is now a euphemism for racism, bigotry, voter suppression, and a last gasp at preserving a status quo that is circumventing the will of the People. Yes, it is that plain and simple, like how voting should be.

Raise Your Standards When Voting on Candidates

© Questioning.org

We just had a national election last November, but already we are having a local one here in Colorado Springs, on April 4, to decide City Council races and a trio of ballot issues. This got me thinking about elections in general, and how low we have set the bar for qualifications. It is high time we raised it, so here are some topics and qualities to consider when choosing among a field of candidates.

We are at such a shallow threshold for qualified candidates anymore that if the incumbent can simply avoid scandal, he or she is almost guaranteed to retain office. As long as they are not a complete embarrassment, then we seem to be ok with allowing them to carry on. Should we not be at least a little more demanding in what we expect of our government representatives? What have they done for us lately? What are their goals in the short run and the long term?

We might start by screening all candidates with these three assessments, which should render them intolerable if these qualities and tendencies are the least bit apparent:

• They demonstrate no empathy for those less economically fortunate than themselves; or those who are different from them in age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and related diversity parameters.
• They assume the worst in strangers, without evidence.
• They use or seek financial, political, and social power for self-gain. They make it public that they aspire to higher office down the road.

It is incumbent upon us as voters to dig a little deeper, consult multiple media resources, and get behind the more affluent front-runners to see if there are better candidates who simply do not have the resources to campaign as widely or effectively. We also need to spread the word to friends and family once we find a candidate worthy of our vote. This can be difficult when no one wants to "talk politics." Remind them it is not politics, but governance that is at stake, and we need people in office who are responsive to all of their constituents, not just wealthy campaign donors.

We need people in office who are more like ourselves: working class, middle class (if not even bordering on the poverty line), and of diverse occupational, ethnic, age, gender, and related demographics. Yet, we insist on consistently voting for the most affluent career politicians who have nothing in common with the majority of the people in their districts, and who are most responsive to the industrial and business interests that provide massive amounts of campaign money. This is how we get tainted water in Flint, Michigan. This is how we get dangerous deregulation of natural resource extraction industries. This is how we fail to get clean energy options, affordable healthcare, safe infrastructure, and revitalized local economies.

You should also ponder running for office yourself. It is not for everyone, but everyone should give it thoughtful consideration. We require young men (and women, now?) to register with the Selective Service upon their eighteenth birthday. We should require them to register to vote as well. How ironic that we respect those who have served our country in the military, but have no respect for those who send them off to war. We elected them, and we should not be surprised at the results. Maybe we need to start randomly drafting candidates for offices. It might be an improvement.

In the meantime, we should take voting more seriously, do at least minimal homework instead of reacting viscerally to each contender. Change for the sake of change is rarely as good an idea as it sounds, and sometimes continuity is the better option. Only you can decide that. Once the election is over, then your real work begins. We have been awful at holding our representatives accountable, informing them of our viewpoints, economic needs, and sharing our stories. They only know what is important when we tell them. Am I practicing what I am preaching? Not nearly enough; but we can be each other's elbow in our ribs to remind ourselves this is a participatory democracy; or at least it should be.

Doing the Wrong Thing

The Electoral College failed to do the right thing on December 19 when it completed the confirmation process of ratifying the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump. This was expected. Most government bodies such as this are loathe to upset the apple cart, to set any kind of historic precedent that would have huge ramifications presently, and in the future. Still, one could argue the electors abdicated their true responsibility to the welfare of our nation at large.

Before you dismiss the rest of this commentary as just another Trump-bashing editorial, please understand that ordinarily I would praise the Electoral College for not rocking the boat, regardless of what political party stood to prosper. This is an exception given at least two very disturbing conditions that presently exist. We have it on good authority that there was foreign interference in the election cycle itself. Also, our President-elect has shown complete disregard for conflicts of interest as applied to both himself and his Cabinet appointees. One more thing: Trump has not attended intelligence briefings regularly, if at all.

It turns out that there is good reason that the Electoral College convenes more than a month after the public vote. The window between the two events permits a glimpse into the behaviors and tendencies of the next potential Commander-in-Chief. This is where we gauge the prospective effectiveness of the President based on his actions, appointments, press conferences, willingness to learn from advisors of previous administrations, and other decisions made in this pre-inauguration time period. At this point, any evaluation, even an unbiased one, should raise several red flags. At the very least, the Electoral College might have considered delaying their vote until at least some of these troubling circumstances were better illuminated. That alone might have gotten the President-elect's attention, made him realize his power is not going to be rubber-stamped, and that we, the people, take his new job seriously.

The fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Administration (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) all concur that there were cyber-intrusions into the election process makes the validity of the election highly questionable. This has a lot less to do with who emerged victorious than it does the value of the public electorate and the sanctity of what is supposed to be a democracy. The fact that our newly-elected leader could apparently care less speaks volumes about how much he values democracy, and the citizenry, save those, maybe, who are attending his post-election victory rallies. Rallies. Nothing of substance, no press conference. Rallies.

It seems clear to me that the President has no intention to "make America great again," but only make America appear great.

The Trump presidency is going to be all about keeping up appearances. This is a man of Wall Street and the marketplace, where perception equals reality. Advertising equals truth. There can be no conflict of interest if you equate governance with business management. The only "intelligence" you need to collect amounts to focus groups, surveys, and polls. It seems clear to me that the President has no intention to "make America great again," but only make America appear great again. We have a remarkably good salesman as our leader now. In what business model does the salesman call the shots, wield all the power?

By now I am stunned that Trump has not named Howard Stern as his Press Secretary. This is how low my expectations have sunken. Trump apparently wants to retain command of publicity himself, but there is no one home anywhere but Twitterville. The whole impression of how the administration is shaping up is somewhere between The Wizard of Oz and....what, Young Frankenstein? It defies logic, lacks credibility by even the most basic standards, and ignores all legitimate questions, regardless of how impartial the interrogating party may be. Where is my faith, you ask? Elsewhere.

The Sudden Centrist

© JoeMohrToons.com

In the wake of the election results, I find myself in the odd and frustrating position of "centrist," trying to pull friends back toward each other, or at least back from the brink of hostility or despair; all the while trying to stay true to my own convictions and beliefs.

For many of us, I think we feel like we are in a real-life version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, whereby our friends have been replaced with alien duplicates. They look the same, but we are now questioning whether they still possess the same values, sentiments, and other intangibles that had us come to love them in the first place. We also feel guilty for our sudden suspicion.

I notice we are good at telling each other what to do lately. Stop whining. Get a job. Stop protesting. Start protesting. Emotions like jubilation from victory (how about those Cubs, huh?), disappointment over defeat, or angst over the unknown are all legitimate. If you are a woman, a minority, immigrant, LGBTQ, or other traditionally marginalized, non-Privileged category, then even fear is understandable. It is going to take time and empathy to even begin to settle things down.

Blame also seems to be an overriding theme, at least on social media. Blame the third-party voters. Blame the uneducated ruralite. Blame everybody but yourself. Well, I am not about to cast blame on anyone who voted at all. It would have been nice if the forty-six percent of our electorate who abstained would have participated. I am also not about to make vast, sweeping statements about relative intelligence or assumptions of any other kind. We are all individuals and if we don't know each other personally then we should not be casting stones. I scroll right past any Facebook post that even mentions any of the above groups because I know where you are going before you even start. Don't start.

The most troubling situation, of course, is when you thought you knew where a given friend, or even family member, stood, and when they behaved out of character from your expectations, then you were shocked, even appalled. The key word here is "expectations." Unfortunately, expectations and assumptions are closely related. Did our friends then "fall short of expectations?" Maybe we weren't really listening to them to begin with. Maybe we don't fully appreciate their struggles, their experiences, their lives. We better get better at that, and right away.

That is at the heart of it, though, assumptions and expectations, and the breakdown of trust that results from that. Not only do we not trust others any more, we assume the worst until proven otherwise. Well, you cannot prove yourself worthy of respect if you are dead, or beaten, or harassed, or threatened. Furthermore, if you are the one doing the violence and insulting, you automatically forfeit respect. Completely. Forever.

One of my dear friends, who I know personally, and who shares a love of nature with me, has just returned from an overseas trip looking at exotic wild birds. She has volunteered to sit with me and explain why she voted how she did. I look forward to this. I might learn something. I will learn something. I already have learned something: real friendships endure differences of opinion on how to fix problems.

It will be harder to reconcile with far-flung friends who may be on the other side of the country, as being a writer is essentially the same as being unemployed and therefore I have no travel budget for a face-to-face. I do hope that friends who I have connected to each other, but may not know each other that well, will be patient and reserve judgment before "unfriending" or "de-tweeting," or whatever. I urge all of us to think before we speak, not to shout, and assume the positive if we assume anything at all. We have to have faith that our friends have not become climate change deniers or racist, misogynistic bigots overnight; that they will still have our backs if our public lands are threatened by sale or development, or we ourselves become victims of persecution.

The ultimate goal must be to rebuild trust. The Village should not be your enemy. What is unacceptable right now, as it should be, is bigotry, hate, violence, property damage, and wanton destruction of our social fabric, be it from the Left or the Right. Surely, we can all agree on that.

Can We Still Be Friends?

© American Psychological Association

That may be the biggest question resulting from the outcome of our recent Presidential election. Many of us were shocked to find that close personal friends were opposed in the choice of candidates that we endorsed, however enthusiastically or reluctantly. The candidates were not nearly as important as the values, ethics, and potential policy decisions they represented, and that is of course what is at the core of our national divide. "Splintering" is more like it, actually. So, how do we reconcile with those closest to us? Do we want to? I would say that we must at least make the attempt. Here, I'll start.

What I cannot fathom, as someone who was greatly enthused by Bernie Sanders, and reluctantly supportive of Hillary Clinton, is how some of my friends could willingly sacrifice values that I thought we had in common, for the sake of a very vague description of "change." How can you be an ardent wildlife conservationist, for example, and potentially be throwing public lands under the bus when it seems abundantly clear that a Trump presidency will not value biodiversity and wild places at all? Please explain that.

How can you claim to value human diversity and vote for a candidate who has made it abundantly clear that only the most beautiful people deserve good things, that women are to be servants of men, and that immigrants and refugees have brought only grief and strife to the White Privileged class instead of enriching our collective souls as they do? If you believe, as I do, that a candidate's vocabulary and gestures and other behaviors predict his or her potential actions once in office, then how can you not be genuinely frightened of the prospects? Hey, I was appalled by the "basket of deplorables" quote, too. What was shocking was how stark that comment was in comparison to an otherwise mostly positive picture Clinton painted of the electorate.

Perhaps one thing we can agree on is that no presidential candidate in recent history, maybe even in our lifetimes, has been someone we can personally relate to. Time and time again we are forced to choose between ultra-wealthy, arguably elitist, representatives of a corporate-dominated business world that looks out only for itself, its shareholders, and its CEOs. Employees, consumers, and our environment and climate are expendable, if not actual obstacles to success. Why can't you see that?! Actually, enough people do see that, enough that it nearly got Sanders the democratic nomination. The bullying tactics of the Democratic National Committee are what delivered Clinton instead. Meanwhile the fumbling ineptitude of the Republican National Committee permitted the rise of President Trump.

Ok, back to our basic question of whether we can be friends. It boils down to the "I feel your pain" scenario. If you do not have empathy for each other's fears of what could have been (Clinton) or what could come (Trump), then we don't have hope. We have to clearly articulate those sentiments, fearlessly, and then listen to the other side without judgment. We have to realize that we need to help each other rise, start electing each other, putting those people who we can relate to into places of power where we know we will be listened to.

We live at a unique time in which social media and the digital age are leveling the playing field. We don't have to appeal to corporate interests to run for office. We have Facebook, Kickstarter, GoFundMe, and so many other campaign options at our disposal that bypass the traditional gauntlets. We can do this. First, though, we have to stay friends.

State of the Union Divide

My new masquerade in the interest of personal safety: As White and Patriotic as possible

Never have I felt such a sense of being misplaced as I do right now in the wake of this U.S. election cycle. I was less anxious after September 11, 2001. The title of this post is misleading, too. We are not a country divided, we are a nation that is shattered. Placing the entire federal government leadership in the hands of a single party sets up the potential for unimaginable tragedy.

The working class, the poor, minorities, immigrants ("illegal" or documented), the LGBTQ community, women, children, and many other conveniently-lumped groups of human beings have legitimate, profound complaints with current leadership. About the only group without an axe to grind are those with White Male Privilege, yet we elected about the most privileged White (well, orange, close enough) male possible to the highest office in the land. Yes, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rammed Hillary Clinton down our throats when it was glaringly apparent that Bernie Sanders was a cut above, able to address fully the wealth inequality that is at the core of the angst of the electorate; and without any attendant scandal. Still.

Part of the problem is that our electorate is so fragmented that their votes are based on a single issue. Blacks want a leader who will keep them alive, then, hopefully, give them more opportunity for advancement in society. Republicans are not going to reduce mass incarcerations, let alone pledge a moratorium on fatal shootings by police.

Meanwhile, immigrants from everywhere, not just south of the border, want equal opportunity. We need to work on overcoming language barriers, but they are not "taking our jobs" as many would have us believe. Frankly, nobody should be doing dangerous work like that of migrant workers for a sub-minimum wage, without proper healthcare, nutritious food, and secure lodging. "Cheap labor" is an insult that encourages poor performance, a litigious society (lawsuits are viewed as getting what the plaintiff feels is owed to them already), and a screw-you attitude toward our nation as a whole. After all, look who literally prospers from the fruits of their labor.

Women did not vote in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. I suspect many wanted the symbolism of a female leader, but were uncomfortable associating themselves (or their votes) with someone of dubious repute. Did she earn her way to the top by sticking to her values and principles, or did she compromise time and time again to survive and advance? Why they saw Trump as a viable alternative is beyond me.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the campaign leading up to the election was, well, the campaign. The media failed completely in holding discussion to issues of core importance. Trump was, is, and always will be, an entertainer first, a businessman second, and everything else a distant third. He was allowed to take his act, unrestrained, to every debate, town hall, and public appearance. Don Rickles could not have done it better. The insults. The distractions. The vulgar humor.

The act of running the country, however, is not a celebrity roast, or even a reality television show. It takes diplomacy, of which Trump has demonstrated zero aptitude. It takes tolerance, to which Trump has turned a deaf ear. It takes humility, for which Trump scores in negative numbers.

Trump appealed because he gave us the promise that all we had to do was elect him and all our problems would magically disappear, like he is the Great Houdini or something. Again, the showman emerges, with no substance behind it. Are we so lazy that we will freely admit we want someone else to do the work, even if that "work" in the short term undermines long range opportunities for prosperity for ourselves, our children, and others?

Despite the results, I would still like to believe the majority of U.S. citizens want our nation to be an example of charity and good will, both at home and abroad. We believe in rewarding good work, holding ourselves and each other accountable for our actions or lack thereof, and actively punishing wrongdoing.

What I fear is that a sizeable minority will take this political moment as a sign that they have permission to exercise their White Male Privilege even more destructively than is currently the case. Trump rallies have been a horror show in this regard, and I am not looking forward to inauguration day. There may be civil unrest for months, but the good news is there will no longer be complacency from any party dedicated to civil rights. We have clearly been living under a false sense of security.

Left to political devices and political "will" and whims alone, we are never going to rise to our true potential as a nation. We don't have all the answers, either, and until we embrace the successes and innovations of other countries as well as those here at home, we will flounder; and enjoy a global reputation as a population of gluttonous egomaniacs. Sound familiar? I'm Eric Eaton, and I approved this message.

I am not a "Bernie bro," yet

The holier-than-thou Hillary Clinton supporters who continue to rail against those Bernie Sanders supporters who have professed that they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, including the general election in November, are only strengthening the resolve of Sanders supporters and may, ironically, end up recruiting more "Bernie or Bust" diehards. This has a lot less to do with what Clinton-backers have to say about Sanders, and a lot more to do with what they are insinuating about those who are "feeling the Bern."

People do not take kindly to being insulted, and that is exactly what many of Clinton's supporters and the Democratic National Committee are doing to those who are supporting Bernie Sanders, even if unintentionally. Those advocating for Clinton may think they are harmlessly reminding the Sanders camp that the real focus needs to be on defeating the Republican party nominee in November, and the sooner everyone is on board with the same candidate and platform, the better. What I suspect Bernie's supporters are hearing is that "you silly, young, naive folks need to fall in line and get with the program."

This is the same kind of crap that I remember hearing in my late twenties, even thirties, after I had dropped out of college. When people would offer the advice that I should "go back and finish your degree," what I heard was: "You have no right to succeed unless you do it the traditional way that I and everyone else has had to!" So, when you ask us Sanders supporters to "please, recognize we must triumph over Republicans at all cost," what we hear is: "You are delusional to believe anything Sanders is feeding you, that there is any alternative whatsoever to Elephant versus Ass, no way we are ever going to achieve those 'pie in the sky' dreams of universal healthcare, livable wage, and everything else Sanders stands for." Well, baloney. "But that's not what we are saying," you claim. Doesn't matter. That is what we are hearing, and perception equals reality, especially in politics.

My impressions of this brand of Clinton supporter are probably equally flawed and overly-generalized. Here is my take, obviously exaggerated to make a point: Well, you must be perfectly happy with the status quo, then. You must be happy being a low- to mid-level employee in a multi-national corporation where you get a respectable wage, health insurance, a 401K, etc. Maybe you think that your membership in the Audubon Society is enough to guarantee that legislation adverse to the environment can be kept to a minimum. Maybe supporting the local homeless shelter is a sufficient means of mitigating the profound, institutionalized oppression of the poor. Get it, yet?

There is no perfect candidate, certainly. No argument there, but unless the Clinton backers start understanding the emotions and real-life struggles that Sanders supporters have at the heart of their very being, you really risk permanently alienating even more potential Clinton supporters should she win the party nomination. I am frankly astonished that Sanders is not winning every demographic. I am middle-aged, and I support Sanders because, in the immortal words of Peter Finch's character in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Sanders has catalyzed this sentiment better than any previous candidate in my politically-aware lifetime.

I have this image of Bernie leaving his house for work every morning, and above the inside door frame is a sign that reads: "In case of emergency, run for President." Seriously, if he is running for the highest office, it says to me that things are even worse than we citizens imagine, and this may be our very last chance to change things. But, hey, if you still prefer "the Devil you know," you have the right to vote for other candidates. Keep up the condescending rhetoric, though, and you won't just lose potential political allies, you'll start losing personal friends.

Bernie Sanders and the Debt Class

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has made the central issue of his campaign the idea that our government has abandoned its responsibilities to the middle class. I would go a step farther and argue that we don't have a "middle class" at all. What we have is a "debt class" masquerading as a middle class. Debt has become an acceptable concept for politicians and ordinary citizens alike, and actively encouraged by financial institutions that reap huge profits at our collective expense. We're propped up as local, state, and federal governments, and family budgets. We are not solvent in the least.

Not only are we encouraged to borrow, we are punished for saving money by horrendously low interest rates. I still cannot understand why there cannot be separate interest rates for borrowing and saving, but that is the current situation and it is intolerable. One should earn more than (less than) pennies on the dollar for their personal or family emergency fund.

How do we accomplish changes to the status quo? Goals must be set in both legislation and personal consumer choices. We need to resist the temptation to borrow, to "keep up with the Jones'" lifestyle. Service, sharing, and generosity should be our personal governing concepts, not the accumulation of material wealth. We can do that without a government mandate. Those admirable ideals can, however, be enhanced by policies that reward those behaviors, and reward work rather than inherited wealth and corporate excess.

One of the quickest roads to bankruptcy in the U.S.A. is a health catastrophe. When even one hospital visit can put your bank account in arrears, and/or force you to beg on GoFundMe, we have a societal issue. So, addressing healthcare is paramount to turning around the personal debt crisis. A single-payer system ("Medicare for All"), as Sanders advocates, would be a great next step for the Affordable Care Act.

Student loans are another source of debt, and if we could at least make an effort at reducing college costs, if not making higher education free as many other developed nations have, then that would put many people on a more level playing field. When you consider the current minimum wage against cost of living and student debt, it is a wonder any young person can afford housing and a car, let alone a family.

Raising the minimum wage to at least fifteen dollars an hour is doable, with tax credits for small businesses. We should be actively encouraging more small businesses, so reward them as employers and entrepreneurs, and do not demand them to play by the same rules as multinational corporations.

Collect taxes from corporations currently avoiding taxation. End bailouts, subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare. The revenue from this alone would likely reduce some individual tax rates, as well as reducing the federal deficit.

Meanwhile, we have to take some personal responsibility. We should start saving in spite of the poor returns at the present time. Cut up the credit cards. Flee big banks and put our money in accounts at credit unions where customers come first and there are no shareholders. Stop patronizing payday loan and rent-to-own enterprises that prey on our desire for instant cash or merchandise. Live frugally for ourselves, generously for others. Demand that the media stop obsessing over the wealthy.

What was it Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said? Something about "the content of their character." He was denouncing racism, but I suspect that today he would add that we shouldn't be judging the self-worth of others by the content of their bank accounts, either. That should most definitely not be the measure of any man (or woman) today.

Ok, so maybe we can do some of this. What would be the result? Were I a gambling man, I would bet that you would see some or all of the following result from increased wages, reduced debt, and overall fiscal responsibility: Alcoholism and drug abuse would decrease because of decreased stress from debt and poverty. Theft, illegal gambling, and related crimes would decrease with rising income. Frivolous litigation would decrease because currently lawsuits are viewed in part as a way to make up for low wage income. Employment would increase because one person wouldn't need three jobs to make ends meet. Dependence on welfare programs would begin declining. Volunteerism would increase because people would have more time free from wage-earning.

Bernie Sanders has, unfortunately, failed to articulate these connections between wealth disparity and the negative behaviors that result from it, let alone the potential benefits of reforming income inequality. Still, he is endorsed by virtually every economist in the land. We have at hand an unprecedented opportunity to begin reversing trends that, left to continue, will be the ruin of our society. I urge you only to think very carefully about both your vote at the booth, and how you vote with your hard-earned dollars in the marketplace.

Let's Draft Congress

Image © CNN.com

I think it was during the last presidential election, with concurrent elections of senators and representatives, that I suggested to my wife that we should draft congressmen and elect people to go fight in wars. At the time I was joking, but the idea is growing on me with every 60 Minutes story of congressional abuse of power. If we truly want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we the people need to step up and into positions of leadership.

The overwhelming problem, it occurs to me, is the co-opting of our congress by corporate interests that have only the interests of profit and shareholders at heart. That status quo is more than endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican parties. We need senators and representatives more connected to the average person.

We have had outstanding public servants in the past, but many of them have resigned in disgust over the current in-fighting between political parties and their various factions. There is little evidence this will change without a complete overhaul in how we go about choosing members of congress.

I propose that from local school boards on up to the federal level, we consider drafting people into those positions. At least draft two or three candidates for each position. Law enforcement officials, mayors, governors, and the President of the United States would be elected in pretty much the same manner as they are now, with appointments to Cabinet positions at their discretion. The benefits of drafting others to serve would be many-fold:

1. No campaign costs. There would be a huge savings in campaign costs, and no need to campaign for re-election during the term you are serving. The media would be forced to do its job of researching a “candidate,” and learn that person’s values, employment history, and educational background. I should state that any person drafted would have the right to refuse service, much like jury duty.
2. Redistricting would be rendered obsolete. Both political parties frequently attempt to secure domination in congressional districts through redistricting, changing the boundaries of the congressional district to include neighborhoods heavily weighted in favor of their party. This practice would be rendered moot if we draft candidates randomly.
3. More diversity in political views. We are much more likely to get independent voices into public office by drafting people than by electing people because the current two-party system dominates through the financial backing of wealthy individuals and corporations (even certain non-profits). People who ally themselves with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, or some other affiliation, if any at all, would finally have an equal chance at getting into office. Yes, that would be a blessing or a curse, depending on one’s current affiliation.
4. The infrastructure is in place. We already have the infrastructure to make this work. We also have the flexibility to create a hierarchy in the selection process. Perhaps we would start with those registered for unemployment compensation. Certainly the unemployed would have far more empathy for the middle-class than our current “leaders.” We definitely want to limit the pool to those who are registered to vote and who have demonstrated active participation in our current political process through a consistent voting record.
5. More consensus in decision-making. I honestly believe that a body of average citizens is better at reaching a consensus on a given issue than are the elitist people currently in office (at least at the federal level). Again, I make the comparison to a jury. Sure, there are “hung” juries, but they make a more honest attempt at reaching agreement, and there are no corporate-driven agendas to fuel the fighting. The goal is justice, pure and simple. The current goal of congress is to provide security and profit to corporate interests.
6. A more literate and informed electorate. Simply the fear of being drafted to a public office and appearing incompetent may be enough to drive the average Joe into learning more about our form of government and the responsibilities it has to the citizens. Once put into play, a draft system would also demand that citizens keep up to speed on things to insure accountability of their servants in office.

This idea of a political draft is certainly not flawless, but if it even generates a discussion on how we can refine our current system and put power back in the hands of the public, I’ve accomplished my mission. Our country and its citizens are too important to allow the continued gridlock and excesses that we see in today’s government.

We cannot continue on our present course of keeping the status quo. We know the hazards of natural resource extraction, for example. Clean energy cannot wait. We know there is “equal opportunity” in rhetoric only. We know we need to set a much better example for the world, while understanding there is no shame in borrowing ideas from the states, or even other nations. We should be fearless, but not reckless, in innovation, and fund basic research to make that innovation happen.

If public service is no longer something anyone aspires to, then it is time to turn the system on its head so that it at least has a chance at commanding the respect it once did. History can repeat itself in good ways as well as bad ways.

Election 2012

The importance of exercising your democratic responsibility to vote this November 6 cannot be understated, but you also have my sympathy for how increasingly broken our public institutions are becoming. A President, a congressman, or any other elected official alone cannot begin to repair problems that have been decades in the making, and largely out of their legal control anyway. The political process needs reform, no doubt, but we also need large cultural shifts to make America the nation it could (and should) be.

It may surprise you to learn that I am not going to be overtly endorsing any candidates in this post. That is because it is more important for me to get you thinking outside the (ballot) box. I trust you to vote with considerable deliberation, and I’m confident that we share respect for each other’s beliefs.

It surprises me to reflect that I have probably worked (been employed in the traditional sense) more consistently under Republican administrations than under Democratic leadership in the White House. I also find I have far more anxiety over our nation’s foreign and environmental policies under Republican leadership. Still, I think that most economic prosperity has little to do with legislation. As a consumer, I certainly appreciate regulations that protect me from contaminants in my water and food, and pollutants in the air that I breathe. Since I greatly value wildlife, I appreciate the maintenance of existing parks and refuges, and the creation of more. My creative side applauds all financial support of the arts, and innovations in sustainable energy and agriculture. I am grateful that I am in good health, and fall under my wife’s insurance coverage, but I have close friends who are not so fortunate. They have pre-existing conditions that until “Obama-care” prevented them from being properly insured. This issue alone is fodder for another post, so I will stop there.

Three cultural conditions exist right now that do trouble me. They are: Wasteful consumerism, the blurring of boundaries between church and state, and the worship of Wall Street.

The average middle class household doesn’t take home the income it used to. That is an undisputed fact, when one adjusts for inflation and looks back at our historical wage-earning power. Unfortunately, we are also more irresponsible than ever in how we choose to spend that income. One may even argue that there really isn’t even a middle class at all anymore, because much of what we purchase we go into debt to pay for. We aren’t “keeping up with the Joneses,” we’re burying ourselves under credit cards. I wonder how much tax reform, wage reform, and opposition to unions there would be if everyone only spent what they actually had. It would become instantly obvious how much of a gap there is between the rich and the poor. “We can’t redistribute wealth!” you say. What do you think Wall Street does?

Ah, yes, the stock market: Legalized gambling at its finest, for only the highest of high rollers. It is the engine that redistributes wealth to those who already have enough disposable income to invest. Wait, I’m sorry, many corporations also robbed retirement accounts to continue their illusion of profitability. Employees, consumers, and all too often the environment, suffer to appease the almighty shareholder. This is the one institution that needs reform above all others.

Lastly, we are experiencing a resurgence of Christian fundamentalists attempting to impose their values on all citizens through legislation and funding (or de-funding) avenues. The problem is that, for better or for worse, our constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee us the freedom to sin. Not that we should, of course, and not to say there are no consequences for our sins in terms of prosecution and incarceration to name just two, but it is pretty explicitly protected. Some misguided folks might equate that freedom with “pursuit of happiness,” but I wouldn’t go that far. I am sorry that “God” and religion have become synonymous, though, because the higher power I believe in is far more inclusive and tolerant than many of “His” Christian believers.

There you have it, my two cents with room to expand in later posts. What do you think? Do we achieve most of our personal and collective success in spite of government intervention? Are we too rigid in our adherence to current government revenue streams (taxes)? How do we overcome the grandiose expectations we have of both government and the marketplace? We need to begin a dialogue, not another debate, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.