Wednesday, November 6, 2024

#311 / Your Name Here



On August 13, 2024, Heather Cox Richrdson - an historian who teaches at Boston College - wrote something pretty important in her "Letters from an American." "Letters from an American" is Richardson's blog, to which she makes daily postings. If you aren't already signed up to receive her daily observations, I hope you will get on her list. She would be happy to have you become a paid subscriber, but there is a "no cost" option, too. 

At any rate, consider the following excerpt from Richardson's blog posting on August 13, 2024:

The Social Security Act established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services. It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship of the government to its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net (emphasis added).

Let's focus for just a minute on the following phrase: "the relationship of the government to its citizens." 

The Social Security Act is premised on the idea that we are "all in this together," and that we all have an interest in making sure that nobody is left homeless, or unable to provide for their children, or without health care when they are sick, or without the funds they need to survive when they get old or lose their job.

In other words, during the Great Depression, when multiple millions of people lost everything, the federal government (representing us all) did "rework" the relationship between the government and its citizens, so as to benefit us all. That reworked relationship insists that WE (collectively) will do what is necessary to make sure that basic human needs are met for ALL OF US. During the "New Deal," the wealth available within the nation as a whole was mobilized to insure that this would be true.

Now, consider the following graphic, which I first saw on a Facebook post, also back in August:



This Facebook item tells me that the relationship between the government and the people needs to be reworked, restored, and refurbished. We really ARE "in this together," and our nation is "strong" only to the degree that we, collectively, are insuring that the incredible wealth that has been collectively generated is mobilized to provide basic protections for us all. 

Yesterday, we had an election that will put in place new leadership (in Congress, and in the presidency) starting next January. Let's urge our newly-elected representatives to address themselves to the same issues that President Roosevelt and the Congress addressed, back in the 1930s.

That "reworking" of the relationship between the people and the government that Heather Cox Richardson identified as so critically important needs to be reviewed.

And renewed!

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

#310 / A Final Pitch



If you haven't already voted, today is your last chance to do it. I urge anyone reading this blog posting to make sure to cast your ballot. Get your vote in! To the extent that politics is "action," and is not just a "spectator sport" - and that is definitely my contention, as I made clear yesterday - voting is the very minimum action that all citizens can take, in an effort to make "self-government" a reality, and not just a slogan. 

I urge anyone legally able to vote to do so, and to do so today, if they haven't already voted. To repeat myself, "today is your last chance to do it." 

Now, let me be clear about that just-repeated statement. Normally, citizens can vote on Election Day (or can decline, or fail, or forget to vote), and if they don't vote, there will be other, future opportunities to do so. 

In this election, however, one candidate for president, Donald J. Trump, has claimed that if he is elected this really will be our "last chance" to vote. I presume that most readers of this blog posting will have already heard about this claim from our former president.

Was it a "joke"? Or was it serious? You can watch Trump tell "Christians" that this is the last time they'll ever have to vote. Just click that link. 

Below, click on the video that features Trump's face to hear what historian Heather Cox Richardson has to say about Trump, and about the significance of this election, and about his claim that this is the last time "Christians" will ever have to vote. This video interview with Richardson is well worth watching: 


Because today is Election Day, this blog posting really is my "final pitch," urging anyone who reads this blog posting to be sure to vote. As you can undoubtedly tell, I am hoping that those reading this will vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, and not for the Trump-Vance ticket. But even if that won't be the case. Today is it. Get your vote in!

I want to conclude this blog posting by saying that the election being held today is not, and will not be, our "final opportunity" to make self-government work, including our opportunity to make our system of democratic voting work. 

If the election being held today were to result in the selection of a president who aims, really, to eliminate democratic self-government in the United States (and that is what various pronouncements by both Trump and Vance suggest - and what that "Project 2025" guidebook suggests), that is not the "end of the story." 

We will have many opportunities in the future to put into action the words of the Declaration of Independence, and the words of President Abraham Lincoln, and to dedicate "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to the proposition that "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth."

So, as a "Final Pitch" to everyone who cares about maintining democratic elections and an effective and active system of self-government in our country, let me make use of a phrase actually employed by Donald Trump, himself, after the 2020 election: "Stand By." 


Monday, November 4, 2024

#309 / Politics As Entertainment

 


I began writing this blog posting some weeks ago, and have updated it to take account of the latest news. The guy pictured above has been in federal prison until just recently. The picture is of Steve Bannon, for those who might not recognize him from this image. Bannon went into prison on July 1st, and began serving a four-month sentence on that date. He is now back out on the streets again. Election Day is tomorrow, so it looks like Bannon won't have to use a mail-in ballot. 

By the way, if you haven't already made use of a mailed-in ballot to vote, let me encourage you to vote in person tomorrow. This particular election, coming up, seems particularly significant! 

The picture I have placed at the top of this blog posting comes from the online version of an article that ran in the September+October issue of Mother Jones. The article was titled, "The Art Of The Deal," but that is a headline you will find only if you are reading the hard copy version. Online (just click this link), the magazine has titled the article, "Steve Bannon Swaps His Podcast Studio for a Prison Cell." This article, by Tim Murphy, focuses on Bannon's podcast, "War Room." 

Since I began writing this daily blog - way back in 2010 - I have had many occasions to advise anyone reading my blog that politics is absolutely the opposite of a "spectator sport." Past pronouncements include the following (and this is definitely not a complete list): 


When we allow politics to become "entertainment," which really is a "spectator sport," we begin to think of politics as something we "look at," and "observe," rather than something that we "do." If and when we allow that to happen, we actually lose "politics" itself. The article in Mother Jones is about how Bannon has translated his very toxic political views into a "spectacle," and how his podcast is, perhaps more than anything else, a mechanism to sell merchandise.

One of the candidates on our ballot tomorrow is, actually, best known as a television "entertainer."

If we are serious about "politics," we won't reward an "entertainer" with our vote, because that would be a confession that we don't value our own power and agency, and are content to "watch," to make politics into a "spectacle," and into a "spectator sport." 

Tomorrow Is It!
Don't Forget To Vote!


Sunday, November 3, 2024

#308 / No Civil War (How About That?)



I have some pretty good friends who can boast a very "progressive" pedigree, politically speaking, but who have soured on the United States and its government. Of course, there is some real basis for doing that.

My friends think Russia has been badly mistreated by the world in general, and by the United States in particular. These friends believe that the war in Ukraine is "defensive" on the part of Russia, which they believe is facing a "Nazi" state (which is how they characterize Ukraine). They believe that Ukraine has been tricked into acting as a kind of "cat's paw" for the U.S. It's really the United States that is at war with Russia, not Ukraine, and we've just been clever enough to get other people to go out and be killed on our behalf, so no United States soldiers will have to die on the battlefield.

My friends have also said, and I think believe: 

  • President Biden is and has been "a joke," and is totally incompetent, mentally and in every other way. Further, that Vice President Harris is also a "joke," and is unworthy to lead our nation.
  • The attempt to assassinate former President Trump was completely orchestrated by and carried out by agents of the United States government. It was totally an "inside job." (If that were true - and this is my comment - it was certainly botched). 
  • The decision by President Biden not to run for reelection was not, actually, his own decision at all; it was a "coup," engineered by the "Deep State," which, my friends appear to believe, is in total control of everything of consequence that involves the United States Government. 
  • If former president Trump is  not elected to the presidency in our November election there will be a "Civil War" in the United States. Click right here for a video that explores that possibility (the video was prepared prior to President Biden's decision not to run for reelection). 
These are views that I do not share - not in the slightest. Our election is now upon us, and the stakes are pretty high. I am worried that a victory by the Trump/Vance ticket will lead to some pretty horrible consequences, along the lines spelled out in that 800+ page book on Project 2025. If we don't want the Republican Party and Trump/Vance, and if we don't want Project 2025, then we will need to vote for the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate. 

Many have already voted, as I have, but how should I deal with the friends I have just described? That is a kind of conundrum, given what now seems to be our extreme political differences. It strikes me that the political differences that have come to exist between me and my friends are exactly the kind of differences that are now found in our politics in general. Lots of us believe that our political system, despite its many flaws and failures, is still, overall, a rather decent way for us to figure out what the best thing to do is, and then to attempt to do it, recalculating, as necessary, as things proceed. Others don't believe that. They have come to believe that our political system is corrupt, sold out, decrepit, or whatever, and essentially needs to be completely replaced. That is what that Project 2025 effort is all about.

So, what do we do?


I have decided cordially to disagree with my friends, when they advance arguments in favor of the positions I have listed above. I really do believe that we are "all in this together," that we are all very much, and inevitably, "entangled," and I am not going to be someone who excludes anyone from the conversation, or who refuses to engage, no matter how much I may disagree. 

What if we all did that? Whoever wins, whatever happens, there is going to be a "day after" the election, and we really are still going to be "all in this together," no matter who wins. I don't want to validate the premise that if my party loses, and if my candidates lose, then a "Civil War" is the obvious next step. 

I don't think that is true, and I don't want ANYONE to think that, either - no matter what his, her, or their views may be, and no matter who wins.
 
Image Credit:

Saturday, November 2, 2024

#307 / The Aggressively Normal Dad

  

"The Political Appeal of the Aggressively Normal Dad" - that's the headline on a "Critic's Notebook" column by Amanda Hess, who writes on "Internet culture." The column appeared in the August 12, 2024, edition of The New York Times, and I only wish I could have presented you with the picture that accompanied that column, as I read the column in the hard copy edition of the newspaper. 

Somehow, the picture that immediately drew my attention to the article, when I opened up The Times on that Monday in August, just doesn't show up on the Internet. I am using a substitute photo, in which Walz is similing almost as broadly as he was smiling in that photo I couldn't find online. The photo I was hoping to show you depicted Minnesota Governor Tim Walz surrounded by smiling kids, hugging him after Walz signed a bill providing free school meals for all students in public schools in Minnesota. 

What is arguably the most important election of our lifetime is only three days away, and while Hess tells us in her column that "Walz and his online fans have elevated Midwestern vibes into nostalgic art," I'm thinking that "nostalgic" is not quite the right word. 

"Nostalgia" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to some past period or irrecoverable condition." That is not the way I am feeling about the Harris-Walz ticket, and my chance to vote on Tuesday. 

Harris and Walz are not making me "wistful" for the past. 

They are making me hopeful for the future!

That's what that picture of those kids, embracing Walz - the picture I couldn't find online - makes me feel, too: 

HOPEFUL FOR THE FUTURE

"Fear" about the future and "Hope" for the future are both motivating. As I say, I do favor "Hope," but whichever of those sentiments might motivate you....

Please don't forget to vote on Tuesday!


Friday, November 1, 2024

#306 / Former

 

Pictured is Donald J. Trump, our former president. There is a presidential election coming up, but I bet you already knew that! November 5th (it's just around the corner) will be our final chance to vote. 

Let me say it one more time. The picture above shows our former president.

"Former." 

Here's my thought: Let's keep it that way!

Thursday, October 31, 2024

#305 / Another Book On The French Revolution

  
 

It's Halloween. Therefore, I am presenting you with a "scary" Haloween-themed picture. This blog posting, however, is not about Halloween, but about a book on the French Revolution. That book, as it turns out, is rather scary, too - at least that has been my reaction. I found it "scary" because it made me think about our upcoming presidential election, and about what happens after that. That is really a "scary" subject.

I have been writing blog postings for a long time, and I publish one blog posting every day. I am deep into my fourteenth year, and that means I have published over 5,000 individual blog postings so far. Given that fact, it is not surprising that I have mentioned the French Revolution before. I mentioned it, specifically, on September 28, 2022, a little over two years ago. The title of that past blog posting was, "A New World Begins." You can still read that blog posting, if you'd like to. All you have to do is click that link.

The past blog posting to which I have just referred was a kind of "book review." I found a copy of A New World Now Begins in one of those "Little Free Libraries" that I like to visit, and I learned a lot when I read it - a lot more than I thought I would. You will have to visit the earlier blog posting to see the list I came up with. 

Today, I want to alert you to another worthwhile book on the French Revolution, It's by Robert Darnton, and it is titled, The Revolutionary Temper: Paris, 1748-1789. If you click that link, you'll be delivered to a book review in The Guardian

Let me be clear that I did not pick up the Darnton book from a Little Free Library - but I didn't pay for it, either, which is nice, since the price is listed at $45 on the dust jacket. A friend, who had read the book, gave it to me, gratis. And he said I could keep it (and underline it), which I did!

Here is how that book review from The Guardian begins: 

Histories of the period conventionally begin with the storming of the Bastille prison, hated symbol of royal tyranny, by Parisian commoners on 14 July 1789. Darnton, who built his reputation as an inventive, often iconoclastic historian in works such as The Great Cat Massacre, turns the conventional narrative upside down. Where other historians ask what made the revolution, looking to economics, ideology and outstanding personalities, The Revolutionary Temper asks what made the revolutionaries .... Going back 50 years before 1789, Darnton tracks the transformation in values that led ordinary Parisians to believe, in spite of everything they knew, that the will of the people could break the power of kings (emphasis added).

Please note, as a kind of aside, that Darnton (in what Wikipedia says is his most popular book) thinks that "cats" can provide important clues to the politics of the day. As you will remember, I am sure, J.D. Vance, the Republican Party candidate for vice-president, more or less surprised everyone when he launched a rhetorical attack on "childless cat ladies." It turns out, as I surmise from the Wikipedia article I linked above, that hatred of cats (among certain trade workers) played a part in the run-up to the French Revolution. Let me save a detailed discussion of that for another time - or not. If it turns out that the Trump-Vance ticket wins the election on November 5th, looking into that subject might be quite pertinent. Otherwise, I think I might let you do your own research. 

In The Revolutionary Temper, Darnton makes the following observation (in the "Introduction," on Page XVII):

Events do not come naked into the world. They come clothed - in attitudes, assumptions, values, memories of the past, anticipations of the future, hopes and fears, and many other emotions. To understand events, it is necessary do describe the perceptions that accompany them, for the two are inseparable....
"Event history" has been deprecated for decades by professional historians ... but it is undergoing a revival, and it can be reworked, I believe, not simply as a record of what happened but as a way to understand how people made sense of happenings.... (emphasis added)

In other words, Darnton says things like "the great cat massacre," one of those "events" that he claims are typically "deprecated" by historians, are important because they help us learn "how people make sense of what's happening." That's critically important because people's "sense of what's happening" is key in determining what actually does happen. A "revolutionary temper" leads to revolutionary acts, and then a "revolution" will follow from those acts.

So, what's so "scary" about this rather self-evident observation, in the context of our politics today? Well, with November 5th close at hand, please remember that some have predicted that there will be a "Civil War" if Donald Trump loses the upcoming election. Former president Trump has been masterful in convincing millions of people that a sense of resentment about the United States government is absolutely appropriate, that things are "terrible," and that "he alone can fix it." 

To the extent that people really believe this - that this politically-linked resentment of our own government is an accurate "sense of what's happening" in our nation today, a "sense" that resonates with millions of people - then Trump's loss of the election might well precipitate actions that will make January 6, 2021, seem minor in comparison. 

I think Trump's description of our national and international reality is best described as a "fever dream," but what if millions share that fever dream (and I am afraid that might well be true)? What if Trump supporters share his outraged and grievance-driven "sense of what is happening"?

Well, we will soon find out. It's Halloween today, but that "scary" image, above, is all too appropriate, I think, not only to our Halloween holiday, but to the upcoming election - and to what might happen after.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that our fever-dreaming former president loses the election - and the consequence is that the fever breaks for the nation at large.

I am scared about other possible outcomes, too (whatever happens with respect to a Trump win or loss)!


Wednesday, October 30, 2024

#304 / Your Voice And Your Vote

 

The Environmental Defense Fund is one of the largest environmental organizations in the United States. Pictured, above, is the cover of its Fall 2024 newsletter, "Solutions." As you will perhaps note, EDF appears to be equating your "Voice" with your "Vote." The cover says that "your voice matters." If you go to the article, inside, the headline is as follows: "Your vote matters." 

Both things are true! I am in agreement with EDF that our "voice" and our "vote" both matter. I don't think, however, that they are exactly the same thing. Your "voice" is quite different from your "vote." I don't want anyone to think that they can "get off easy" by "voting" for the environment (or anything else) without actually "talking" about it. 

Our "votes" are the individual increments of our personal political power. Our vote is precious, because it is not only a "symbol" of our political power; our vote is the actual power itself. Added up, our increment of political power joins with others to allocate governmental power to the candidates and causes we support. Let's never forget that (and to repeat myself) our vote is precious. 

Our "voice," though is something different. Our "voice" is a tool of persuasion, not power. In a system of self-government, a system in which all citizens have the ability, through their vote, to allocate their individual political power, our "voices" are used to try to persuade others who have, as we do, an individual increment of political power. Our "voice" is our effort to persuade others to use their increment of power, as we are using ours, for the candidates and causes we believe in. 

What's my big point, here? My big point is this: By all means, VOTE. Our last chance to cast our ballots is coming right up. But, "voting" is not enough, if you truly want to make our system of self-government work the way it is supposed to. 

We need to engage in conversation with others - those who are likely to agree and those who are likely to be on the other side. 

So, if you have already voted (or if you haven't), and if you have thoughts about the candidates and propositions upon which we will all be voting, please speak up. Let your "voice" be heard. Don't think that your "vote" is "all that counts."

Like the EDF says on the cover, shown above: "Your voice matters." Don't stand silent, please!

Please speak up and speak out, as we face some of the most consequential choices that we have ever faced, as a nation. Your "vote" matters. And so, independently, does your "voice." Tell your friends - and tell others - what you think (and why).

Let your voice he heard!

 
Image Credit:

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

#303 / Finishing Strong




David Brooks has written a column for The New York Time entitled, "How Harris Can Finish Strong." Here's a summary of Brooks' analysis and advice: 

Kamala Harris had a great first act. She established a buoyant tone for her 2024 presidential campaign and rode a wave of polling momentum. But now her campaign has stalled....
I thought it would be interesting to see what the experts say — to see how screenwriters, dramatists and novelists build momentum so that audiences are gripped by their work all the way through. Maybe these writers have some wisdom on how Harris can finish strong. 
The playwright David Mamet once wrote a memo to a group of fellow writers in which he reminded them that audiences “will not tune in to watch information.” They will “only tune in and stay tuned to watch drama.” What is drama? Mamet says it “is the quest of the hero to overcome those things which prevent him from achieving a specific, acute goal.”

I generally agree with what Brooks is saying in this recent column. However, I believe that what we read in the national press, and specifically in The New York Times, is not a reliable indicator of what ordinary men and women are thinking, and are likely to do. I am not at all convinced that the Harris campaign has "stalled," just because David Brooks claims that it has. 

Others have noted that The Times has chosen to "normalize" Donald Trump and his campaign, though Trump and his campaign represent an extraordinary departure from "normal" politics. It is hard to know, really, what ordinary voters are actually thinking, and what they will do when they cast their votes. Still, Brooks is probably on target when he says that a successful campaign should have a clear and dramatic "story" to tell, empowering the voters - the voters as "heroes," for such we all are - to visualize how we can triumph along with the candidate for whom we will vote.

I actually believe that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz do have such a dramatic "story" that lets voters know why voting for them is going to help us all, as voters, to achieve our goals. In fact, I have written a model "Op-Ed," expresing what I see as this story - and here it is. Our real "story," as Americans, is that we can, in fact, achieve our "aspirations," and make our "dreams come true," as long as we believe in those dreams, and work for them.

That, as I see it, is what Harris and Walz are saying to us, in asking for our votes. They are promising to help us all move forward, to deal with our challenges and to realize our dreams.


The Positive Case For Harris And Walz

 

Debate about the upcoming presidential election has emphasized “negative” arguments. We are told that the main reason to vote for one candidate, instead of the other candidate, is what’s wrong with the other candidate. Former president Trump has said that we are “doomed” if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are elected. Were that to happen, he claims, “you won’t have a country anymore.”

Candidly, supporters of Harris and Walz have been making this kind of argument, too. There have been a lot of claims that the reason to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz is simply that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are dangerous to the future of the country.

While an election is always a choice, so the relative pros and cons of the candidates are relevant, the most crucial reasons to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are completely and totally positive.

When President Biden decided he would not run for reelection, we saw Harris immediately reach out to people from all over the country, asking for their support. This included, of course, those who would be voting at the Democratic National Convention, and other possible candidates. She received, essentially, unanimous support from those political leaders. Her first major public statement was her in-person speech to Biden campaign workers. It was not just a salute to President Biden, but an appeal and outreach to everyone.

The same thing happened during the debate between Kamala Harris and former president Trump. The essential message from Kamala Harris is that we, together – across the divisions of race, gender, income level, education, geographic location and political party – will make progress when we come together.

We need a president who believes that, and who believes in unity, not division, and in “possibility,” not “doom.” We need a president who emphasizes what is positive and possible, not everything that might go wrong. That is how we will maximize our potential for greatness. I remember when my father introduced me to the “Power of Positive Thinking,” citing to Norman Vincent Peale. In fact, we can’t accomplish anything unless we are positive about trying. Their positive energy is absolutely the most important reason to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

Harris and Walz don’t hide the fact that there are difficult challenges ahead, but they do not describe them in tones of distress and dread. Remember the challenging and difficult period of the Civil Rights Movement? Harris and Walz are telling the American people today what we learned then. When we come together we can – we shall - “overcome.”

Again, this positive approach to government, and their emphasis on “possibility,” is absolutely the best and most important reason to vote for Harris and Walz.

We face the challenge of Global Warming. We need to act boldly. Our nation also needs to address, and overcome, the impacts caused by income inequality. Critically-needed health care and housing must be available to all. We need to provide education for our young people without saddling them with enormous debts. We need to make sure that everyone who wants a job will find a job and contribute to the building up of our nation. We can provide good things for everyone - and no person in this country should be sleeping on the streets. Not least, of course, we need to bring the world together to end the wars now underway – and to prevent future wars through international cooperation.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have made it clear that they want to help our nation achieve these goals and that they will lead our nation in a new and positive direction, to meet every challenge we face. They aren’t talking “doom.” They are preaching “possibility.” Their commitment to this is key. Let’s not cast our votes based on predictions of doom. Let’s elect two positive leaders to help us move forward – Kamala Harris and Tim Walz!

Image Credit:

Monday, October 28, 2024

#302 / [Fill In The Blank] Isn't The Enemy

 


The Wall Street Journal is not a paper whose editorial positions often reflect my own views. I read it anyway. In fact, in large part, I read it because of that fact. Business gurus worry about the "silo effect." We all ought to worry about it, and I specifically recommend watching out for the "silo effect" as we discuss "politics." 

Don Bacon, who is a Republican Member of Congress representing Nebraska's Second Congressional District, wrote a column in the September 10, 2024, edition of The Wall Street Journal that addressed the issue, although the term "silo effect" was not employed. The title on Bacon's column was this: "The Other Party Isn't The Enemy." 

Among other things, Bacon's column contained this statement:

Our politics have become toxic. Too many voters treat their political party as the most important thing in their lives. They consider the other side to be their enemy or, even worse, evil. This phenomenon spans both parties.

I am in agreement with this statement. Bacon also told the following story about a meeting he had with some of his constituents. In fact, he began his column with this story: 

At a March GOP meeting in my congressional district, I said, “I am a Christian first, an American second, and then a Republican.” Immediately, an older gentleman yelled out, “That is why we don’t like you!” I wondered what bothered him more, the Christian or the American part.

As I read Bacon's column, and generally agreed with Bacon's warning about the dangers of a "toxic" politics, two thoughts came to mind. I thought I'd share them here. 

First, Bacon begins his column by ennumerating the various "identities" which he believes best define who he is (you could call them "silos," if you wanted to). His identities are "ranked," so Bacon's identity as a "Christian" comes before his identify as an American, and his identity as an "American" comes before his identity as a "Republican." 

Please note that Bacon does not suggest that his identity as a "human being" is the same kind of category, and that this category (or identity) supersedes all other "identities." Bacon is also "White," and a "male," and is probably a "college graduate," etc. 

The attributes of our persons are manifold. Using them as ways to distinguish ourselves from others is perilous, because to decide that we know who or what we "are," and that who or what we "are" is an identity that excludes other human beings, and puts us in a separate category in which we are "better than," or even just "different from" others, leads to the kind of "toxic" politics to which Bacon properly objects. A common phrase is "Identity Politics." I have just described what that means. Such distinctions, based on the "identity" with which we feel most comfortable, will lead not only to a "toxic" politics. The use of such identity-based distinctions will lead to a "toxic" set of human relationships in general, "politics" aside. I have put it this way, in earlier blog postings: "Comparisons are odious." I can thank my mother for that one. And I do!

Bacon is totally correct that this "comparison" way of thinking about things is emphatically not restricted to "Republicans." For instance, I have a Facebook Friend who made a comment, sometime ago, in response to something I posted on my Facebook Profile Page. My friend ended a comment on politics with the thought that we need to "get rid of Republicans." The implications of that suggestion could be dramatic, and don't strike me as very good. As a Democrat, I get LOTS of comments from other Facebook "Friends" who suggest that the world would be better if it were only possible to get rid of me. I have written about this phenomenon before. "In-person," the kind of comments that Don Bacon is talking about often resolve themselves rather positively. Less so when the comments are delivered by way of online invective or are given credence by candidates for president who are currently past their "safe to use" date.

Here is my second comment about Bacon's column. I think Bacon's title is under-inclusive. The "Other Party" is, I agree, not "The Enemy." But who is? Who is "The Enemy"? Do we really want to decide that there are categories of "Friends," and catagories of "Enemies," and that we need to know which one is which, and then act accordingly - "getting rid" of those "Enemies" being the obvious task at hand?

I would like to suggest that a "fill in the blank" approach to the phrase that Bacon uses in his headline is, in fact, the correct approach. Whoever or whatever we might want to put in that "blank" space in the sentence I have used for my title, the sentence is correct. "Enemies" is not a category that we should be using to distinguish those who are different from ourselves, or with whom we disagree. 

Just by chance, as I looked for a photo for the top of today's blog posting, and thought some image associated with The Wall Street Journal would be appropriate, I came upon the photo you can see above, Putin and the Pope. Whatever your political or religious views might be, neither Putin nor the Pope are "The Enemy." Looking at the photo, it seems that they might both understand that, too!

There is a phrase that I often utilize (and I am always tickled to find that Joyce Vance uses it, too, in her daily postings to her Substack blog, "Civil Discourse"). Here it is, right at the end of this paragraph. This is the reason you can "fill in the blank" in that sentence I have used as a headline, and disscover that the sentence will absolutely be true (no matter what you put in the blank space). Whoever we put into the blank space "Isn't The Enemy." Why not? As Joyce Vance and I both say:

We are all in this together. 

Sunday, October 27, 2024

#301 / It's Sunday!




For those who are willing to think about the Bible from time to time (and this is Sunday, after all), the picture above is meant to illustrate Matthew 19:16-22:

A young man approached Jesus and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” The young man asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.


I think that this story, and the Bishop's commentary, has some relationship to what I call my "Two Worlds Hypothesis," although from a different perspective from the one in which I normally present it. 

My idea is that while we all live, most immediately, in a world that we construct for ourselves, we ultimately live in "The World of Nature," or what I sometimes call, "The World God Made." 

While we can do "anything" in our world, we do not have freedom to do anything we might think about, or want, in that "World That God Made," or in "The World of Nature." 

In the "World of Nature," we are not sovereign, but are subservient. The laws that govern the "World of Nature" cannot be broken. You just don't "break" the law of gravity! While we can do almost anything we want to do in "our" world, ignoring or violating the rules that apply in the "World of Nature" will bring us to certain destruction. The consequences that have come upon us because of human-created Global Warming is my normal, go-to example.

In the case of the rich young man, he was of the opinion that the riches that he had amassed for himself should, really, belong to him. And within that "Human World," no one could gainsay that. He kept all the commandments, but he was committed to retaining the benefits of what he had made. Jesus pretty much told him that holding on to our own creations was not going to work, at least not in the "World That God Made." 

Could we live with "Less"? Today's Sunday sermon suggests that this is exactly what we are being called upon to do! 

 

Saturday, October 26, 2024

#300 / Getting Darker

  
 

The hard copy version of the October 17, 2024, edition of The New York Times had a first page article that was headlined as follows: "War of Words In Campaign Gets Darker." 

Online, the headline is different. Click the link and you'll get an article with this headline: "Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the ‘Enemy.’

In fact, the political "enemies" that Trump is focused on ("Democrats" and those who are working to elect Kamala Harris) are named the "Enemy Within." Kamala Harris is properly directing our attention to the implications of what Trump is saying. Our former president is calling for military action against those "enemies." 

I'm one. Maybe you are, too. 

If all of us are, as I consistently say, "in this together," then those with whom we have political disagreements are not our "enemy." They are our "fellow citizens." 

That understanding removes Trump supporters - my fellow citizens with whom I do not agree, politically - from any "enemies list" that I might ever contemplate establishing. You may remember that a former president, Richard Nixon, seemed to have the same idea about politics that Mr. Trump has. President Nixon did have an "Enemies List," but he didn't suggest military action against those who happened to be populating that list. 

The way we have structured our politics and government, fellow citizens are most emphatically never properly identified as "The Enemy." 

So... if you don't want to vote for someone who has not understood this basic fact, I'm suggesting that you should be casting your vote for Kamala Harris for President. You might want to get even more actively involved, too!


Friday, October 25, 2024

#299 / A Three Factor Question




In these final campaign days, as the November 5th presidential election draws near, George Packer suggests that there are "three factors that will decide the election." Packer has written about them in a recent article in The Atlantic. Because non-subscribers are quite likely not going to be able to read the article online, let me list those "three factors" right here, and then give you a brief excerpt from Packer's rather extensive article:
 
The "Three Factors" are: #1 - Working-Class Decline; #2 - Corporate Greed; and #3 - Nativist Anger. Packer explains his thesis this way:

The convergence of working-class decline, corporate greed, and nativist anger will shape next month’s election in places like Charleroi and throughout the Rust Belt. Northwest of town, Pennsylvania’s Seventeenth Congressional District is represented by Congressman Chris Deluzio. He’s a first-term Democrat, having narrowly won in 2022 in a competitive district of farmland, Pittsburgh suburbs, and mill towns along the Ohio River. Deluzio is a 40-year-old Navy veteran and attorney, neatly groomed, polite, and analytical in a way that doesn’t scream “populist.” But he’s running for reelection on the bet that his pro-labor, anti-corporate positions will prevail over the hostility toward immigrants that Trump and other Republicans are stirring up. (The campaign of Deluzio’s opponent, State Representative Rob Mercuri, didn’t respond to my request for an interview.) 
“The Wall Street guys bankrolling Trump and my opponent are the guys who devastated these communities,” Deluzio told me as we drove between campaign events. “They tried to strip us for parts for decades. The mills didn’t just leave; they were taken away by an ideology and a set of policies that said cheaper and weaker labor rules and cheaper and weaker environmental rules is what they’re after. Your family’s hard work and sacrifice didn’t matter to these guys.” After a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic chemicals derailed last year in East Palestine, Ohio, just across the state line from Deluzio’s district, he drafted legislation to tighten the regulation of rail freight, which Ohio’s Senator J. D. Vance co-sponsored. The Railway Safety Act, opposed by the Koch political network, is currently stalled by Republicans in both houses of Congress. Even though few of Deluzio’s constituents were directly affected by the spill, it’s the kind of issue that he hopes will distinguish Democrats like him from pro-corporate, anti-regulation Republicans. 
Deluzio argued that Trump villainizes new immigrants to distract local people—themselves the descendants of immigrants and legitimately anxious about rapid change in their towns—from the true causes of their pain: monopolistic corporations and the politicians they fund. He acknowledged that the national Democratic Party failed for years to make this case and pursued trade policies that undermined it. An idea took hold that college-educated voters would soon outnumber the party’s old base of a moribund working class. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia,” Senator Chuck Schumer predicted in 2016, shortly before Trump won Pennsylvania, and with it the presidency. 
The Biden administration has tried to earn the loyalty of working-class voters with pro-union policies and legislation to create jobs in depressed regions. But people I spoke with in western Pennsylvania seemed to have only a vague idea how the Democratic Party is trying to woo them back. The rising cost of living mattered more to them than low unemployment and new manufacturing and Harris’s tax plans. When underinformed and undecided voters say that they want to hear more details about a candidate’s policies, it usually means they don’t believe that policies will make any difference in their lives. To overcome ingrained skepticism after decades of disinvestment, a politician has to show up, look voters in the eye, shake their hand, and then deliver help—or at least be seen to care enough to try.

As it happens, I have been tuning in to a continuing education course on "Reimagining Democracy," given by way of weekly Zoom sessions by professors who teach at Stanford University. The very day I read The Atlantic article, the course presentations focused on issues of "class," very much addressing the topics outlined in the excerpt from Packer's article that I have just presented.

The professors who are giving that "Reimagining Democracy" course would agree with what Packer has to say. Their analysis, as might be expected, was presented in a more "academic" way, but they, like Packer, believe that many of those living in, and voting in, the various "swing" states really do see that America, and American government, has discriminated against them, shutting down their opportunity to participate in the "American Dream," while making certain that things go well for those they see as "elites."

I asked a question during the online class session which didn't get addressed (since the class session was only one hour long and time ran out). Below is the question I posed to the professors. I think - no matter who wins our presidential election in November - that this question, a question about what I often call "income inequality," must be addressed immediately, as a top priority. 

My Question: 
 
Given that the immensely productive United States economy has produced fabulous wealth, but has left many, many Americans far behind economically, educationally, socially, and otherwise, don't we have to take what will probably be pretty dramatic actions to realize the kind of "equality" that has been our national aspiration since the beginning. Given current realities, what about insuring that the economic benefits from our economy are more effectively distributed, because every person in the nation through their work, their labor, and also through their consumption, have helped create the economy that has produced and is still producing such great wealth. 
Specifically, shouldn't every company be required to "pay" its workers not only with money, but with an ownership share in the business? Doesn't that make sense, since their work helps make it profitable? And similarly with respect to their consumption. Consider a fantastially successful business like Amazon. Shouldn't every worker and consumer be given an ownership share in the enterprise? Those Amazon workers, and those who are making purchases, are really the ones making that online marketplace so economically successful. It's not all Jeff Bezos!

I often say, "we are all in this together." That phrase is not original with me, but I do think that it "sounds good," and I also think that it happens to be true. Shouldn't our economic arrangements insure that all of us participate in the wealth that our amazingly productive economy creates?

Like I say, I didn't get an answer from the professors during the online class, but you can raise your hand if you think there's an idea there worth pursuing!