Senator Bernie Sanders

Have you ever watched Bernie Sanders on the podium? Well yes, I know you have, but have you ever really watched him closely? He has a characteristic hand signal that he uses constantly. Usually his right arm is extended, with his forefinger pointing toward the ground. And it stabs downward in rhythm with his talking points.

Any decent debate coach would tell him to knock it off. That gesture means “You’re going down, maybe straight to hell. We are all going down.” Of course it does fit his “angry old man” persona, hunched over with his face turning red, his eyes squinting with a mad glint, showing only his lower teeth in a snarl.

It makes my stomach turn to watch our “stable genius” in the White House going off in one of his demented rants, but if Bernie wins the nomination then his debates with Benito Trumpolini will fill emergency rooms with retching voters.

Happiness for All – The New Democratic Way

Democratic Socialist candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders has a new plan. And based on history I am guessing that his ideological companion, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, will go along as usual, perhaps with a wink about doing it better or smarter.

Bernie’s new plan is Housing for All. It institutes a national rent control system and guarantees everyone will have a roof over their head. This is added to previous proposals of Medicare for All, College for All, Long-Term Care for All, Child Care for All, and Pre-School for All. In addition, there are the retrospective policies of debt forgiveness covering student debt and medical debt. Estimates are all over the board on the net cost, from actual cost savings by the understandably optimistic Sanders camp to $35T over 10 years by an independent non-partisan evaluation. My money – quite literally – is on the latter estimate, though as with all such estimates that should be on the low side.

This cost doesn’t count collateral effects, like the consequential impacts of increased taxes  and debt service, plus the numerous businesses that will be pushed aside by government programs. For the employees of these businesses, I hope that there is some kind of Welfare for All in prospect.

It is still early days of course, and I am sure Bernie Claus hasn’t yet emptied his sack of goodies. In fact I am a bit surprised that we don’t have a Nourishing Food for All or a Guaranteed Income for All plan yet. Keep tuned.

This approach to “Government as Nanny” is fully consistent with Thomas Jefferson’s concept of our unalienable rights, one of which is “the pursuit of happiness”. After all, what good is life and liberty without this companion right? I am beginning to get enthused. How about a Clothing for All plan? Oh yes, and definitely we must have a Broadband Internet for All. No one can deny that the internet has become a necessity of life for everyone. And then we would obviously need an iPhone for All plan.

Let’s see. Have we covered all the essentials: housing, education, child care, health care, food, debt, pocket money, clothing, connectivity? Oops! I forgot transportation. Is an electric car for every household a step too far?

Of course getting Republican support for these proposals will not be easy. Perhaps an Assault Rifle for All plan might grease the skids. If you scoff at this, look to Switzerland which has long had something along those lines. All Swiss men between the ages of 18 and 34 and deemed fit for service are given a rifle or pistol and trained in their use. And in these modern times, who will argue that any healthy American woman isn’t the equal of a Swiss man, so there is no call for sex discrimination in this useful addition.

Why Would They?

It is evident by looking at political maps from recent elections that the people in small rural communities around the country vote Republican and supported Trump in 2016. I suspect that much of that support is basically anti-establishment anger rather than fervor for Republican ideas or for Trump himself. These voters have not been receptive to the Democratic message in recent times. Why would they?

If you live in or around a big city, try to put yourself in the shoes of someone living in these areas. Your town or farming community has been slowly dying for decades. Young people are moving to where opportunities are better. Shops on Main Street are shuttered. The last Democratic President who actually spoke meaningfully to you was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 30s. And what do the Democrats offer now to make life better and to restore a treasured way of life?

Universal, government-provided health care. This might be welcome, except that these people largely distrust the government’s ability to do “big things” for them and they have plenty of examples to justify this. Their resources (doctors, hospitals, etc.) are few and far between. So this is basically making something free that is unbelievable and unavailable.

Immigration reform. How exactly does this help rural America? I haven’t a clue, and neither do they. It’s certainly true that large agribusiness has needed and exploited a large reserve of undocumented immigrants, but big business is not the heart of rural America even though it is an important economic engine. And in any case, Democrats really don’t emphasize this aspect of immigration policy.

LGBT rights. Give me a break!

Legal system reform. This is largely remote from their concerns even though some crime issues definitely affect rural America. That is because the main issues discussed by Democrats (discrimination against minorities, the burgeoning prison population, etc.) don’t address rural problems. There is a drug problem that plagues rural America but I suspect that the majority would support draconian enforcement to remove both perpetrators and addicts from their midst. And this is hardly the Democratic message.

Gun control. They don’t see a need in their communities to regulate or restrict ownership of one of the tools of their way of life. Objectively they might agree with some of this for others, but not as it applies to themselves. This probably seems to be yet more big government interference.

Climate change mitigation. There is growing understanding that this is a real problem for them. Farming communities are being hurt and they know it. But some proposed “solutions” probably seem either unbelievable or absurd to them. Changing to all-electric farm vehicles? Reducing meat consumption? Say what??

Free college for all. College is not the obvious and required life path for many of these people. But they do pay taxes, and taking their money to let city kids “waste their time learning foolishness and partying” mustn’t seem like a sensible idea to many. [Editorial note: I have some sympathy for this viewpoint myself. A lot of what kids learn and do in many colleges is basically a waste of time.]

Forgiveness of college loan debt. These are communities where frequent business loans are their lifeblood, and they face the constant danger of losing everything if they are unable to pay in full and on time. How do you suppose they view simply forgiving the loans of college graduates?

Reparations to the descendants of slaves. I suppose those who might receive payment of some kind would be grateful, but what about the vast majority who wouldn’t? I am guessing here, but might not they think this is money transferred from the blameless to the undeserving? If you want to go back in history, many people were wronged, most not as evilly as slavery, but still redressing ancient wrongs is a slippery slope. Moreover, wasn’t the death of over 360,000 Americans fighting to end slavery during the Civil War reparation enough? How much was each of their lives worth?

$15 inflation-adjusted minimum wage. I am not sure how this idea is received in rural areas. There is probably some support but I surmise that it might seem a bit heavy-handed. These are the last remaining regions where youngsters still make pocket money or help out their families by performing low-end jobs. A high minimum wage would freeze them out.

Abortion and reproductive rights. These are relatively religious communities, at least compared to the big cities. Abortion is not popular, even though they have some of the same needs and circumstances that prompt widespread support for abortion rights throughout the country. At the very least, this whole topic probably just makes them uncomfortable.

This is not the totality of the Democratic program but it is certainly what you hear mostly in today’s campaign speeches. So, what is the bottom line? These are Americans and they have hopes and needs just like everyone else. But they don’t share much of them with the big cities and the coastal enclaves. If Democrats really wish to rule the nation, don’t they have to speak to “fly-over” country too?

A Political Epiphany

Yesterday, the surprising Congressional election result in Pennsylvania was all the talk on TV news outlets. Perhaps prematurely, there is a growing belief that this portends a wave election in November, quite possibly throwing the House back into Democratic hands. So their spokespersons in particular were all over the TV happily discussing their prospects. But as I watched, a bit skeptically I must admit, I had a bit of an epiphany.

I remember surfing to Hillary’s web site when she was the Presidential candidate to see what policies she was promoting. Adopting a progressive viewpoint, these seemed fairly sensible and the usual fare. There was a long list of ideas, policies and program proposals. Very long – and therein lies the epiphany.

Think about those having financial problems or fearful about the future for themselves and their families. They could scan down this list and find something to latch onto at, say, item 12 and perhaps items 31 and 32. But there was all this other “stuff” about things that seemed nice but not on point. Can you blame them from coming away from this feeling that their issues were just not that important to Hillary?

Having an abundance of great ideas is actually a failure to focus!

Candidates and their party leaders need to take a risk. They should identify perhaps 4-5 main issues and hit them hard, relentlessly and virtually exclusively. That will omit some things that are important to portions of their base, but that is essential to having discernible clarity and purpose. Failure to follow this rule afflicts both parties, but I think Democrats tend to be the greater transgressors.

If you think about it, isn’t that what Donald Trump did? I think this contributed mightily to putting him over the top.

Of course, all the other issues will come up from time to time in interviews and on the stump. There’s nothing at all wrong with promoting your campaign’s ideas when this happens. But everything can’t be a big deal. It’s possible to have a big tent without having a section marked off for every special interest in it.

The Third Presidential Debate

The big takeaway for the chattering classes seems to be Trump’s coy refusal to accept in advance the results of the coming election. Really this isn’t surprising but for some reason people never seem to take what he says at face value. He has said this before and it is entirely consistent with his general approach to life. Of course surrogates, like his campaign manager and his daughter, immediately came forward to disavow this unprecedented position. However as I write this, I am listening to Trump’s first post-debate rally. He just explained, “Of course I will accept the election results … if I am the winner!” The crowd roared its approval and broke into a familiar chant, “Lock her up! Lock her up!” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

However, I found something else in the debate to be far more significant. An initial topic was the Supreme Court. Hillary said forthrightly that she viewed the Court’s primary responsibility to be “to stand on the side of the American people, not corporations.” I take this to mean that she wants Justices who see their job as looking out for the welfare of the average person. Truthfully, my jaw dropped. Does she really mean that?

I do understand where she is coming from. Many people believe that this Court, marginally dominated by conservatives, has rendered decisions that go against “the little people”. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a prime example. But to say that the Court must take the opposite tack is equally wrong. That simply is not the purpose or mandate of our highest court. It is not designed to be Big Mommy for us all. Rather it has a quite specific role in adjudicating the consistency of laws with our Constitution and in rendering judgments in certain special areas of the law. Of course it should try to do this fairly and, since the Justices have human frailty, they will not always succeed. But the Court having agendas is a mistake even if we applaud them.

Of course Presidents will nominate candidates for Court vacancies who are philosophically compatible with their own viewpoint. And no one can doubt that Justices bring biasing perspectives to their decisions. However this is a far cry from setting a specific agenda to be followed independent of the cases involved. This is one instance where literal interpretation of our Constitution is most compelling, even if you disagree with this as the proper approach in general. If the writers of this marvelous and enduring document had intended the primary role of the Court to be a bulwark against threats to the public welfare they would indubitably have said so. No one who has examined their other writings and statements could possibly believe that this was their unwritten intent.

It is the duty of Congress to serve this role. If it fails on occasion, having another of the coequal branches of government take up the slack is perhaps attractive if what it does meets with our approval. But we will inevitably regret it if that ever becomes the norm as it will destroy the true essence of our form of government.

Political Lies: Strategy or Mental Defect?

I just read a riveting historical analysis of lying by Presidential candidates, and in particular by our two current ones. Both have been accused of fibbing and shading the truth, something hardly unusual for politicians, but not in my lifetime has this become such a key part of the political dialog.

The analysis is revealing. Trump appears to lie reflexively, saying whatever comes into his mind that appears to serve his current purpose. It is as though he really does live in Wonderland where anything can be true if you say it is so. Lies to him are strategies.

Hillary is far more selective. Almost all of her lies are about herself, not about others or about external events. She has constructed a self-image that protects her from inconvenient facts. Lies evolve from failed attempts to reconcile this self-image with objective reality.

Nicholas Kristof concocted this example that aptly illustrates this difference. “If Clinton declares that she didn’t chop down a cherry tree, that might mean that she actually used a chain saw to cut it down. Or that she ordered an aide to chop it down. As for Trump, he will insist, [that he] absolutely did not chop down that cherry tree, even as he clutches the ax with which he chopped it down moments earlier on Facebook Live.”

Both of them seem to truly believe at least some of their lies, and that belief is sometimes strong enough to withstand solid evidence to the contrary. The question then is the degree to which this characteristic might negatively impact their Presidency. An inability to appreciate the true situation is potentially very dangerous, particularly where great affairs of state are involved. That is so obviously true that arguing it is pointless.

The difference between the scope and extent of their propensity to lie is crucial. Hillary’s lies are relatively harmless, although they do clearly indicate a serious psychological issue. Trump’s strategic lies are far more problematic. Does he, like Lewis Carroll’s White Queen, think ‘six impossible things before breakfast’? Or is he simply a devious and compulsive liar? It is impossible to discern from afar and without expert diagnosis, but the potential consequences for someone wielding the power of the Presidency are frightening.

Is it a pay-to-play scheme?

Is it illegal? Is it even wrong? These questions are asked about the intermingling of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s official activities as Secretary of State. Each side has its own vastly different viewpoint. There is no doubt that people attempted to use their favored position as Foundation donors to make contacts with government officials. Their purposes are varied and somewhat unclear. But in general either they had a favor to ask or they wished an opportunity to express their opinion on some matter of importance to them. So far, there is no evidence that these contacts directly achieved anything of value. Hence the Clinton camp claims that there is no wrong doing.

But that misses a crucial point that can be best illustrated by this example. Let us suppose that a businessman is wooing potential investors for an important project. They are reluctant because he doesn’t have a successful track record and they don’t know if they can trust his claims. In the midst of a negotiating session, he says that he must leave because he has a meeting with the Secretary of State. They are impressed but wary that this might be just another flamboyant claim. Then he offers for one of them to accompany him to meet this high government official. Naturally they decline, viewing it as a likely imposition, but now they do see this businessman in a new light. Clearly he is a man of importance with high government contacts. Perhaps becoming his partner is a worthwhile investment after all.

Of course this example is contrived but it does illustrate how simply having access can be very valuable even if it produces nothing directly tangible. Both Hillary and Bill are well aware of this and they exploited it to gain Foundation donations and lucrative speaking engagements. In my opinion, the case is clear. This is wrong even though it might not violate the law. While it is true that such slimy influence peddling is common in Washington, that doesn’t change the fact that it is morally repulsive.

If Hillary has been doing this deliberately with full awareness of these issues, she is morally degenerate. If she has only overstepped bounds inadvertently and with the best of intentions, then she is too oblivious to be trusted with any serious responsibilities. Neither possibility speaks well for her ambition to become our next President.

Recently the Clintons announced that they will sever relations with their foundation if Hillary is elected President. They phrase this as an attempt to eliminate any possible perception of impropriety, not as an admission that there is something wrong to be remedied. That is obtuse. This is not an issue of mistaken perceptions. If their intentions are pure then they should terminate the foundation forthwith, not wait until they have achieved their political ambitions. The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good work and that should not be forgotten. One possibility is to turn over all of its activities to another active international charitable group, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Nothing would be lost except a money pit for the Clintons and a dangerous pothole in Hillary’s road to the Presidency.

Trump and Anti-Terrorism

Donald Trump just completed a major address on his anti-terrorism policy. He was uncharacteristically restrained in his delivery but his policies seemed to echo a distant unpleasant past. In 1798, President John Adams signed a set of four bills comprising the Alien and Sedition Acts. If you want a brief history lesson, there is a nice Wikipedia article here. In summary these acts, and most of Trump’s policies, strengthen national security through tight restrictions on immigration and naturalization and through deportation or imprisonment of dangerous or hostile non-citizens.

One of these acts, the Alien Enemies Act, remains on the books, although I don’t know if its constitutionality has ever been tested. These acts have been used for purposes we would abhor today, like jailing government critics and interning citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have no proper application in our present difficult times.

The major argument of the Clinton camp for why such draconian actions are unnecessary is that immigrants, and in particular refugees from the Middle East conflict, are being subjected to incredibly tight screening before being admitted. I believe that is a conscious and deliberate lie! Evidently, not every time is it groundless when Donald tosses out crude epithets like Lyin’ Hillary.

I don’t make that charge lightly. First, I doubt that we have allocated the resources, either funds or skilled manpower, necessary to accomplish this task. I did a crude calculation based on published security clearance procedures and costs that convinces me of this shortfall. I have been through that process myself. It can be difficult and costly in the best of circumstances, and it requires highly skilled investigators who are in short supply.

But more importantly, I am convinced that the needed information simply cannot be obtained. Records are missing or unavailable in the war zone blazing across the Middle East, and interviewing contacts is almost certainly impractical. Obama and Clinton are letting their charitable instincts drive their decisions. This speaks well of them, in a sense, but it is either dangerously naive or more likely disingenuous, since they undoubtedly understand the true situation.

What they actually mean by their claim of tight screening is that it takes a very long time, perhaps up to two or more years to process each application. They even say that specifically when challenged. But if you think about it, that is a meaningless statistic. It is a bit like Hillary’s claim that a million miles of diplomatic travel means useful experience. Moreover, I don’t think such a process is even contemplated for the flood of Syrian refugees, at least not if we are to meet the admission goals of Obama’s proposals.

Of course, this fatuous response by the Clinton campaign hardly justifies Trump’s policies. Probably the best answer lies in some middle ground, however compromise is beyond unlikely in our current political battleground.

Candidate Hillary and the Road Ahead

I am not a great fan of Hillary Clinton, but I came away from the Democratic Convention proceedings this week with a bit more enthusiasm. It was not so much from what she said in her acceptance address, but rather from what others said about her. She really is an uninspiring politician, as she has ruefully admitted. Even after so many years of toiling in the political vineyards, she simply hasn’t mastered the differences between debate, persuasion and oratory. Some of this is purely technical, some the tonal limitations of the female voice, and some simply seems to be a bit of a tin ear. I wonder why she has evidently never taken expert instruction?

You might argue that this is superficial, that policies and their implementation are what matter. Of course they do, but there are three key attributes of a successful president that overlay those concrete factors to make them feasible and effective. These are the ability to persuade, to inspire and to lead. They are related but different and they are absolutely key to an effective Presidency.

Presidents are not dictators, notwithstanding the ill-informed oratory of Donald Trump. In fact the limitations on their power are even greater than is commonly believed. Harry Truman had the right insight when he reflected about what his successor, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, would discover. Truman mused, “He’ll sit there all day saying do this, do that, and nothing will happen. Poor Ike, it wont be a bit like the military. He’ll find it very frustrating.” I might add that poor Donald would likewise find that he can’t exercise his customary power as CEO or say to virtually anyone who matters, “You’re fired!”

If you want to understand what it really takes to be a successful President, there is no better analysis than Richard Neustadt’s treatise “Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents.” it was written some time ago, but his insights remain true.

Of course it helps greatly if the President’s party controls Congress, although, given our sharp political divide, Senate control really means having a 60-vote super-majority. And this rarely happens. Also, even in this circumstance, the panjandrums of Congress have their own agendas and imperatives. They seldom just toe the line. If Hillary returns to her old residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she can expect to face a difficult and strong-minded Congress. Policies will be hostage to the administration’s powers of persuasion, both directly with Congress and in the bully pulpit at large. In this she will likely have to rely heavily upon key members of her team. I think Vice President Kaine will be a big help, as will her husband, and hopefully she will make better executive appointments than did President Obama, many of whom were disastrous interlocutors on the Hill. Unavoidably however, the onus will be on Hillary to carry the weight when needed. We can hope that she will consciously or otherwise sharpen her skills on the job.

I believe that one way to gain insight into the character and likely performance of someone is to hear a friend or associate speak of some small event involving them that really struck a bell. The big items, like policy and leadership, are fairly obvious and have whatever value you assign them based on your own principles and standards. One anecdote I heard was telling, but honestly I am ambivalent about its message. See what you think.

Michael Muzyk, a New York trucking executive, tells the story of one day in 2004 when he accompanied then-Senator Clinton on a mission to promote upstate farmers’ produce. At the state fairgrounds, Hillary got word that her husband had been hospitalized for emergency heart surgery. “I guess you had better go,” Muzyk said promptly, but Hillary surprisingly responded, “No. People have gathered to hear me speak and I mustn’t disappoint them.” We all now know more than we wish about the Clintons’ complicated marital relationship. But this likely was a dire circumstance affecting her life partner and the father of her only child. Was her response a sign of dedication and self-sacrifice, or perhaps was it a cold-hearted calculation of risk and reward?

This is probably not what you or I would have done in similar circumstances, but then we are not likely to serve as President of the United States, for whom events and decisions usually cannot wait upon personal needs and responsibilities. More than any other descriptor for this demanding position, the job comes first. Too much and too many depend upon it.

Nostalgia and Selective Memory

At the Republican convention, enterprising reporters asked a selection of delegates when exactly was America great before, i.e. what period were they yearning to reproduce? There were several decades mentioned. The Reagan and even the Bill Clinton eras got votes. But far and away, the post-WW2 period received the most votes, in particular the early years of the Eisenhower administration.

This particular nostalgia seems quite understandable to me. Those old enough to remember it were probably white, middle-class youngsters at the time. You might get a different answer from a black delegate – that is, if you could find one.

Still, it does seem a bit odd to yearn for the Cold War era, when children were being taught to “duck and cover” in an A-bomb attack, an era when crude and overt segregation reigned over the South, an era when Sen. McCarthy was trampling rights hither and yon, an era when dreaded polio struck thousands every summer. But then, selective memory isn’t confined just to early evidence of Alzheimer’s Disease.

 

Hmm? No intrusive social media, “I Love Lucy” and “The Honeymooners”, Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, Saturday night at the drive-in with your honey, Norman Rockwell images, schools where the worst offense was chewing gum in class, humming factories filled with WW2 veterans building new lives and families … I am starting to get a bit enthused myself!