The Real Reason to Support the Democratic Nominee

Most of the Hillary Clinton Supporters I’ve spoken with, would have no problem voting for Bernie Sanders, but the reverse isn’t quite as true, and that’s a sad statement.  As it seems virtually certain that Clinton will be the democratic nominee (Sanders won’t have enough delegates even if he were to take 60% of the remaining delegates and flip 40% of the superdelegates) this seems like the perfect time to underscore why Democratic Party unity is of utmost importance in the general election.   

There are three interesting quirks of the constitution that we need to underscore: presidential elections are every four years, congressional races are every two years, and a census is held every ten years.  This means, of course, that all censuses (censi?) correspond with a congressional election but only half of them correspond with a presidential election.  

It’s an unfortunate truth that presidential election years have higher voter turnout than mid-term election years.   I wish I could give a better explanation for this fact but I guess some people don’t consider local representation as important as the presidency, despite where the true constitutional power actually lies.  

Depressed voter turnout favors republican candidates since their constituents vote more consistently than their democratic counterparts.   When you figure that half of the censuses correspond to mid-term election years, this enables gerrymandering to favor the Republican Party at least half of the time.   This is how, for example, my home state of Pennsylvania, which has more registered democrats than republicans in the general population, skews heavily republican in terms of congressional representation (5 democrats vs 13 republicans).   The Wikipedia page on Pennsylvania’s congressional districts, at present, shows how the five democratic districts are all overwhelmingly “blue” but none of the republican ones are anywhere near as “red”.  

The other half of the time, the eventual victor of the presidential race will usually have a direct impact on down ticket races.   A democratic presidential victory generally means more success for the other democratic races, and a republican presidential victory generally means more success for the other republican races.  

But if you look at recent history, the gerrymandering has more consistently favored the GOP in all census years.   Look at this set of trends:

2010 — Barack Obama was the sitting president in a mid-term election year.  This favors the republicans. 

2000 — Bill Clinton was constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected and the presidency shifted from the democrats to the republicans.   This favors the republicans. 

1990 — George H W Bush was the sitting president in a mid-term election year.   This favors the republicans. 

1980 — Ronald Reagan swept into the presidency in a landslide.  This favors the republicans.  

1970 — Richard Nixon was the sitting president in a mid-term election year.  This favors the republicans. 

1960 — Dwight Eisenhower was constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected and the presidency shifted from the republicans to the democrats.   This favors the democrats.  

1950 — Harry Truman was the sitting president in a mid-term election year.  This favors the republicans.  

1940 — FDR was the sitting president and was re-elected to what was, at the time, an unprecedented third term in office.  This favors the democrats.  

Of course, any historian would be quick to point out that the republicans didn’t actually control both houses of congress for most of this time period until 1994 and I acknowledge this point.  It was a slow climb for the GOP as the odds favored them more consistently.   They knew that they could only test the waters and it was a gradual shift.   

But it’s still noteworthy that, if we assume a democratic victory in the 2016 elections, the 2020 census will be the first opportunity to shift the congressional representation away from the republicans in what will be, at the time, 60 years.  

Am I getting a little bit ahead of myself?  Sure.  But when you consider that the current electoral college map very strongly favors the democrats (and will for at least this year and 2020), isn’t this something worth recognizing?

The Greatness of America

It was April, 1988.  I was 16 years old.  I don’t recall the exact date but it’s a matter of public record if I wanted to research it.  Pennsylvania’s primary was approaching and Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis made a campaign stop in my high school.   I was in one of the classes chosen to attend his speech.  

It was a good speech: rousing and energetic.   I also appreciated that this was a politician who actually came out to speak to us, even though the majority of the people in attendance couldn’t actually vote for him because they weren’t yet 18.  

I don’t remember much of what he actually said, but he did make a comment aimed at the scandal-plagued administration of outgoing president Ronald Reagan: he said he would make America great again.  

With a two-party system, it’s certainly not uncommon to see presidential candidates for the party not currently occupying the White House argue that the sitting president is somehow taking away from America’s greatness and thus, if you vote for me, America will become great, like it was at some vaguely defined, and probably overly-romanticized point in the past.  

I want to make it clear before I proceed, that I do not subscribe to the notion of American exceptionalism.  We are human beings and no better or worse than anyone else on the planet, either as individuals or groups.  The accident of our birth in the USA is just that: an accident or a stroke of luck.   I can go through a laundry list of things about this country’s history and modern appearance that are worthy of criticism, if not outright disgust or shame.   (Easy example: why did it take a war to end slavery?)

But the USA is a product of the enlightenment.   As a social experiment, I think the general success of the idea of self-rule has proven more successful than the expectations even the most optimistic of the architects of our national identity.   We were, after all, the first such attempt anywhere in the world in modern times, and certainly at the largest scale ever.  (The Greek city-states before the Roman conquest were first…) 

And since then, authoritarianism, divine rights of kings, empires, and oppressive regimes have gradually fallen away, replaced by some of those very same ideas that were so new and novel 240 years ago.   Not everywhere.   Yet.  But in more and more places.  And in some cases, other places have simply implemented it better than we have.  

Yes.  That is something great.  Something to be proud of.   It hasn’t always been easy.  And the outcomes have been far from certain.   But it’s the promise of what America can be that is the source of her historical and current greatness.  

As always happens, though, some people might feel left by the wayside as things don’t go their way, and they tend to romanticize a time when the conditions might have been more favorable to them personally.  But I would ask them: when was this time?   Is greatness merely a time when you might or might not have gotten a better hand than you’ve got now?  How much of your problems are your own fault?

If there’s something going on in the country — culturally, economically, or politically — that you don’t like, it’s easy to see it as a decline in greatness.  But if you can step away from that, you should ask yourself what truly defines our greatness.   And it shouldn’t take much to realize that it’s the same thing that it was when we first wrote the constitution.   In fact, 27 amendments later, it’s even greater.   If all men (and women) were created equal, then we are more equal today than we were at a time when slaves were only 3/5 of a person.   

Make America great again?   Please.  I’d rather hear someone talk about how we can work to build on her already great promise.  

How about taking a song like this to heart:

Phil Ochs — Power and the Glory

Bathroom Bills

I’ve lost count (or more accurately, I’ve never bothered to keep a count) of the number of times I was at a public event — concerts, sporting events, conventions, etc — where the I was in the men’s room at a time when it was “liberated” by one or more women who didn’t want to wait in the noticeably longer lines for the ladies room. 

One particular event does stand out in my memory: a Tori Amos concert in the late 90s in New Brunswick, NJ.  It’s memorable for the sheer number of women who went into the men’s room.   I didn’t count, but it must’ve been at least ten.   

I didn’t engage them in any real capacity, other than to make sure I didn’t bump elbows with any of them while I was washing my hands and maybe holding the door for one of them behind me as I walked out of the bathroom. 

In other words, they were no different from any other fellow public restroom users to me.  

On the flip side, when I’m in a small place where the only difference between the two genders’ bathrooms is the sign outside the door, I honestly don’t know why they need to be gender segregated at all.   This is really noticeable when you need to use the bathroom, and one of them is going unused but you can’t use it because it’s not your gender.   

These bathroom bills that are being pushed by religious conservatives are a solution to a nonexistent problem.  They’re worried that sexual predators might target children in the bathroom and try to excuse it by saying they’re transgender and therefore entitled to use a bathroom despite different genitalia.   

I’m not trying to argue that pedophiles might look for different ways of targeting children if you’re not careful, but really?   If a stranger — regardless of gender or gender identity — tries to engage my children in the bathroom, they know to stay away from him or her.   It’s really that simple.  

But there is a real history of attacks on transgender people in bathrooms because they used the restroom suited to their identity and not to their genitalia.   Even murders.   If we want to have bathroom bills, how about protecting an already vulnerable and poorly understood subset of the community?   

I’ve previously written about how there are times when we might not want to play the roles that society might dictate to us for any reason, including gender roles.   I concede that  this is a gross oversimplification of the issues that transgender and genderfluid people have to deal with every day.   But I’d like to think it’s a good start.  

Also worth asking, is what the proponents of these bills are really worried about.   I think of the story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis.   After they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they become aware of their nakedness and are ashamed of it.  I think very few children are naturally ashamed to be naked, and the rest are quite comfortable being naked.   In other words, if we didn’t have that story, very few people would actually be ashamed of their bodies.  Maybe these bathroom bills are really just another way of shaming people for having to expose the lower halves of their bodies.  

Edukayshun in Pencilvainya

My parents bought a house in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, when I was five months old, and my mom still lives in that house. Langhorne is located in the Neshaminy School District and my entire undergraduate career was spent in the schools of that district.

Earlier this week, the Neshaminy School District School Board voted to close two of the schools in its district, including the elementary school that I attended from Kindergarten through 4th Grade, and then 6th Grade as well.

My interest in the fact of this closing is more sentimental. If I still lived in the district, I would probably oppose the closing on the grounds that the plans to replace the closed schools involve building a massive, sprawling school that would have far too many students in it. But as a resident of a different school district in the state of Pennsylvania, I’m simply watching it closely and hoping that something similar doesn’t happen where I live. But yeah, I’m sad that the school where I have so many memories soon will be no more.

The decision to do so is undoubtedly a cost-cutting measure. I would like to believe that, no matter what else might or might not be true about this vote, the long term results will be some degree of cost savings, regardless of the question of whether or not it would actually improve what the students actually learn.

On the same date as the vote to close those two schools, the Pennsylvania House Education Committee approved House Bill 1640 and sent it to the greater PA House of Representatives. I don’t know when they’ll vote on it, but I’ve already called my local representative to tell him to vote against it.

This bill, if passed, would compel the phrase “In God We Trust” to appear in every school in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I’ve written before about the phrase “In God We Trust” as our national motto and feel that it’s shameful that it is our motto.

I think it’s interesting that the text of the bill that’s coming up for a vote lays out in no uncertain terms that the person who first pushed for the usage of the phrase on our currency, Pennsylvania Governor James Pollock, was known as “The Great Christian Governor”.

Doesn’t this fact alone contradict the 1970 Federal Court Ruling in Aronow v. United States, which held that

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. …It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted ‘In God We Trust’ or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While ‘ceremonial’ and ‘patriotic’ may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has ‘spiritual and psychological value’ and ‘inspirational quality.'”

No. It’s not obvious that the national motto has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. In fact, it certainly seems to push for exactly that.

As I said above, I called my local representative and asked him to vote against the bill. I gave three reasons, actually.

I maintain that direct references to any deity in official government writings is absolutely an establishment of religion as not all religions worship the same deity. It effectively excludes any different religion as well as non-religion. It shouldn’t be our national motto but as long as it is, there’s no compelling need to post it everywhere unless you want to pander to Christians who are pushing for their religion in places where it doesn’t belong.

Second, it actually wouldn’t do anything to improve education in the state. At best, it would do nothing (positive or negative) in a given school. At worst, it could create two classes of students as officially recognized by the state: those to whom the statement applies in their day-to-day religious life and those to whom it doesn’t.

And finally — and probably most importantly — is the cost. I hardly think that the Neshaminy School District is unique in having budget issues. Why waste scarce educational resources on something like this?

If it’s a foregone conclusion that my elementary school will be little more than a pile of rubble in the near future, let’s at least not let the same thing happen to the concept of education itself.

If you live in Pennsylvania, call your representative and ask him or her to vote against it, just like I did.

Hillary Clinton for President

There’s a very interesting distinction between the democratic and republican parties in the year 2016.  

For the GOP, there are at least three unique factions that are loosely held together mainly by their common fear or disdain for liberal ideology.  The business wing mainly supports globalization and low business taxes, with minimal government interference.  The religious faction wants to impose some degree of theocracy despite the first amendment prohibition against it.   They’re mainly against abortion and civil rights.  They don’t really care about what the business wing cares about and vice versa.   And the Tea Party thinks that government is incapable of, well, anything and that all funding for it should be cut off completely.   

Those three factions are pulling the party apart as the relative disdain amongst each towards the other two, is starting to boil over.   Long gone are the adherents to Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow republicans. Instead, the PUMA’s are on the prowl (Party Unity, My Ass).

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is no longer the entity about which WC Fields once famously said “I don’t belong to an organized political party.  I’m a democrat!”  

That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be disagreement among democrats with regard to the best way to go on matters of policy.   But on the bigger pictures, there’s far more unity on the left than on the right.  

Which brings me to my personal leanings.  I like both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and would have no problem voting for either of them as our 45th president.  If you go to isidewith.com, you can take a quiz to see which candidates are most in-line with your views, and both Clinton and Sanders place above 90% for me personally.  

There are issues where I disagree with each of them.   Clinton would do relatively little about the influence of big money in politics save to nominate judges who could pare back or overturn the Citizens United decision.  Sanders appears to be a shill for “big organic” when GMO’s are almost definitely a less expensive, more productive means of feeding the planet as global warming and overpopulation will stretch its resources too thin.  

If they agree on most other issues of policy, I’m inclined to give some weight to the organic vs GMO issue and tip the scales towards Clinton when the primaries reach my home state of Pennsylvania in about a month.  

But even with that, there’s a real reason why I’m officially saying that I will vote for Hillary.  

For months I’ve been receiving emails from Bernie Sanders’s campaign.  I honestly don’t know how he got my email address.  I certainly didn’t offer it to him or his campaign.   In the past week or so, he’s stepped up the mailing; I honestly don’t know when the last time was, that I received fewer than two such emails in one day.  And I’m tired of them.  

So I will now state unequivocally: I’m voting for Hillary.  

A Moratorium on Godwin’s Law

Godwin’s Law is an internet concept that holds that in any disagreement in any online forum, eventually someone will end up making a reference to Hitler and, in the process, lose the debate.

I’m not the first person to argue that, in light of the current level of debate, specifically among the candidates currently seeking the Republican nomination for president this year, we need to place a moratorium on Godwin’s Law as it’s not uncommon to see rhetoric that is at least authoritarian, if not downright fascist in nature.

The candidate who seems to be the most authoritarian, the most fascist, the one who looks the most like the actual historical figure of Adolph Hitler, is Donald Trump. He has found a way to put his finger on the pulse of those who are most disaffected by changes to society today and plays to their basest fears.

This political cartoon, by syndicated cartoonist Mike Luckovich from about a week ago, illustrates this point beautifully:

Adolph drumpf

If there is any doubt that Trump and Hitler have a lot in common, I’d like to put forth a little quiz. Below are twenty quotes, some of which were said by Adolph Hitler and some of which have been said by Donald Trump. I have only amended the quotes to remove direct references to Germany or America (instead amending it to read something like “our country” or the similar).

I have to warn you about some of these quotes without regard to the correct answer: they are truly frightening.

Who said it? Hitler or Trump?

1. I think apologizing’s a great thing, but you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.

2. Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them.

3. The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.

4. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness.

5. Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

6. Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

7. Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people.

8. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts.

9. A single blow must destroy the enemy… without regard of losses… a gigantic all-destroying blow.

10. We need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around.

11. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

12. It’s always good to be underestimated.

13. What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the nation, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator.

14. Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.

15. When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

16. When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough.

17. In life you have to rely on the past, and that’s called history.

18. If you want to shine like sun first you have to burn like it.

19. What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

20. I don’t have to be a dictator. I say “This is a good idea” and people do it, if they’re intelligent.

Answers
1. Trump. source

2. Trump. source

3. Hitler. source

4. Hitler. source

5. Trump. source

6. Hitler. source

7. Hitler. source

8. Trump. source

9. Hitler. source

10. Trump. source

11. Trump. source

12. Trump. source

13. Hitler. source

14. Hitler. source

15. Hitler. source

16. Trump. source

17. Trump. source

18. Hitler. source

19. Hitler. source

20. Trump. source

A serious question for Bernie Sanders supporters

When the Civil War broke out following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it would have been reasonable to argue that the Republican Party was the “liberal” party and that the Democratic Party was the “conservative” political party.  

In the subsequent 60 years, the Republican Party took on the general notion that less government intervention in economic affairs was preferable; this attitude persists today, although the party as a whole has moved rightward.  

The Democratic Party began its social leftward movement under FDR, and excised itself of some of its racist demons in 1948 when Strom Thurmond formed the “Dixiecrats”.  Over the next twenty years, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party completely swapped labels, with the democrats being the party of the left and the republicans being the party of the right.  Between LBJ’s Great Society programs and Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the evolution of both parties became more or less what they are today, although the influence of the religious right on the GOP didn’t start to take hold until the 1980s.  

In every presidential election year since (and including) 1968 that didn’t involve an incumbent democratic president seeking re-election, there has been at least one candidate seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination who energized the very liberal base of the party.   In order, they were:

1968 — Eugene McCarthy

1972 — Edmund Muskie

1976 — Jerry Brown

1980 — N/A because Carter was the incumbent 

1984 — Gary Hart

1988 — Dick Gephardt

1992 — Jerry Brown again (or at least Tsongas)

1996 — N/A because Clinton was the incumbent

2000 — Bill Bradley

2004 — Howard Dean

2008 — Dennis Kucinich

2012 — N/A because Obama was the incumbent 

So I have a question for the hardcore Bernie Sanders supporters this year: what makes him different from all of the names above?  I like him and a lot of what he has to say; don’t get me wrong.  I just want to know what makes him different?