progressive involvement

Why Hillary?

Someone asked me not long ago, “Why are you for HIllary?”  Off the top of my head, I responded with this: “Because I think her husband did a good job, and she’s smarter and tougher than he is.”  As I’ve thought it over since, I’ll stick with that assessment.

One could tout the many accomplishments of Hillary on behalf of children and working families.  One could add her tenure as Secretary of State, advocating for the United States on the world stage, with in-depth knowledge of virtually every world issue.  One could also note that she’s on a first name basis with most of the leaders of the world. 

One could run down her stalwart history of moderate progressivism, her long history of support for and support from working people and minority communities, and her decades-long support of equal rights for every person. 

One could even toss in the history-making, and “establishment”-busting, effect of being the first woman president.  All that, and much more, could be fairly said about her, and any one of them is reason enough to vote for her.

What sets Hillary apart even further is the determination, energy, intelligence, consistency, and courage she’s shown over the years.  Nobody in modern political life has worked harder for progressive principles, and done more, and suffered more slings and arrows for it, than Hillary Clinton.

Yet, despite the 20 year-long smear campaign against her, she became, and remains, one of the most liked and admired people in the world, and is one of the most popular politicians in the United States.  (46% “favorability” sounds low, until you compare it to every other political figure in the country.  Do that and it’s right at the top.) 

 

Why not Bernie?

 

One.  He has no record of accomplishment.  He’s been in office for 25 years and can’t point to any achievement.

Two.  He’s not a Democrat, and has repeatedly said so over the years.  You have to admire the sheer gall of a person who regularly trashes the Democratic Party, yet would condescend to accept that party’s nomination.

For many of his followers, Bernie’s not being a Democrat is a plus, not a minus.  They don’t like the Democratic Party anyway, and Bernie’s not being a Democrat only makes him more “pure” in their eyes.

Some of us, however, are Democrats.  We recognize that the only thing standing in the way of President Cruz and a GOP Congress doing just about anything they want is the Democratic Party.  This is not a time for the indulging of fantasies, but cold-eyed realism.  Which leads to:

Three.  Bernie can’t win.  As John Kasich said, if Bernie were the nominee, the Republicans would win all 50 states.  Give Karl Rove two weeks and $100,000,000 and the American people will be convinced that Bernie Sanders is Leon Trotsky. 

Bernie would be made into a political leper.  Any Democrat on the ballot would run for cover.  When Bernie came to campaign, they’d be off somewhere doing whatever they could to avoid being photographed with him.  Only Congresspeople in the bluest districts would survive.  Democrats would be devastated.

The Bernie wing argues that they will bring in many new people, and these new people will overwhelm the Republicans.  The McGovern campaign said that very same thing, and he got shellacked.  Personally, I liked George McGovern, happily worked for him, and happily voted for him.  His candidacy, however, was a disaster at all levels.  Some of us have seen this movie and know that it doesn’t end well.

Four.  Bernie’s nomination would be a rejection of the presidency of Barack Obama.  Bernie doesn’t like the president much more than he likes the Democrats.  He pronounces rather grandly that he would be better at pretty much everything than President Obama has been.

Besides, the President took contributions from the financial sector and is “corrupt,” just like pretty much everybody who is not named Bernie Sanders.  Does the Democratic Party really want to sabotage the legacy of the first African-American president?

Five.  Even if, by some fluke, he should be elected, Bernie would be a powerless president who wouldn’t get anything done.  The GOP still controls Congress, and that fact is unlikely to change any time soon. 

Bernie’s answer to this is not to elect more Democrats and take control of Congress.  No, he expects to “have millions of people” descend on Congress and pressure them to pass his program. 

Suddenly, masses of people are going to take to the streets on behalf of socialism?  That’s not going to happen, and, even if it did, you can bet they would be met by an equal or greater number of well-armed teabaggers.  We already have a divided electorate.  Moving beyond our divisions will not be accomplished by dueling mobs pressuring Congress.

Six.  If, again by some fluke, Bernie’s program were actually enacted, it doesn’t have a prayer of working.  For one thing, the numbers are way off.  Economists of a liberal bent have said Bernie’s economic plan is somewhere between 1 and 3 trillion dollars short.  Austan Goulsbee says Bernie’s plan started with “puppies and rainbows” and “evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

 

Why Hillary again?

 

She understands that the first priority is defeating the Republicans.  You can’t take on the 1% until you defeat their “political action wing”.  So far, Hillary has raised $32,000,000 for Democrats and the Democratic Party.  (Bernie has raised $1000.)

Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton has been one of the most lied-about politicians in American history.  Her opponents gone through her entire life--every check she ever wrote, every phone call she ever made--and they have come up with precisely nothing every single time.  Bernie calls her “corrupt.”  Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton is one of the most ethical people in public life.

Yes, her husband did a good job--22 million jobs in the longest sustained period of prosperity in our nation’s history.  And Hillary is smarter and tougher than he is.

 

On income inequality

 

Why Iceland bounced back from the global recession quicker than everybody else

 

Leadership in Massachusetts

Gov. Duval Patrick of Massachusetts delivered these remarks on Friday.  Good to see Cardinal O'Malley with the Governor, and dressed as a parish priest to boot!  Best part at the 6 minute mark.

 

It was a very windy day

I don't care for his theology much, but, nevertheless, have always had considerable respect for Billy Graham, especially in his later years.  

True, Graham was late on civil rights and, at one time, was a rather vigorous anti-semite.  He waved the Nixon flag with gusto because he considered Nixon the most righteous of politicians, in his naivete not realizing that Nixon had suckered him from the beginning.

Toward the later years of his life, Graham became more ecumenical, and less divisive.  He sought common ground, and became more irenic in his attitude.

His son, Franklin, is more like the early Billy than the late one.  He loves him some Vladimir Putin because Putin knows how to bash gay people, unlike that wuss, Pres. Obama.

“Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue — protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda — Russia’s standard is higher than our own?”

Oh, that "homosexual agenda"!  It has been depressing enough to see our foreign policy revolve around questions of "showing strength" or "showing weakness," as if foreign policy were about the mental world of adolescent boys.  Now Putin is a moral guide as well as a bare-chested warrior?  The apple fell at least a little ways from the tree when Franklin was born.

Requiscat in pacem, Nelson Mandela

I'm honored to have seen the man in the flesh.  It was January 20, 1993, inauguration day for President Bill Clinton.

After the ceremony, we walked up the street from the Capitol where we would (eventually) eat lunch at Slick Willie's, also having its' opening day at the time.  

As we were standing at the intersection southeast of the capitol, waiting for the light to change, I saw someone who, at side glance, looked very familiar.  When I turned to look, it was Nelson Mandela, also leaving the Capitol for lunch.  

Being present for the inauguration was a thrill.  Seeing Mr. Mandela was another one.

Image:  New Yorker cover for next week's edition.

Not news, but welcome all the same

Evangelical culture warriors have enjoyed a some-time alliance with the Roman Catholic heirarchy on some social issues, but not economic ones.  Most recent popes have been socialists, or, at the least, very supportive of the rights of labor.  In his first lengthy missive as Pope, Francis takes a similar line:

"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.  This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."

He's absolutely right that "trickle down" has never been "confirmed by facts."  Just the opposite is true.  When the wealthy suck up the wealth, they are very careful not to let any "trickle down."  Plutocrats are not philanthropists.

His critique of unrestrained capitalism, which may be read here, is similar to the one offered by my late friend, Fr. Francisco Fahlman, who was a priest in Moquegua, Peru for 40 years.  

Fr. Fahlman was no friend of what he called "liberal economics."  (It isn't what you think.  "Liberal economics" is what they call free market-ism in Latin America.)  

In the 1990's, Peruvian President Fujimori was pushing it, and Fr. Fahlman voted for Fujimori when he first ran.  He did not vote for Fujimori when he ran for re-election because, as Fr. Fahlman acidly said it, "Liberal economics 'helps' poor people by getting rid of poor people." 

 

Works now

I went to healthcare.gov this morning and browsed around.  I know HHS has had problems with this website, but it worked just fine this morning.  

In fact, it seems pretty well laid out.  If you're a business you go one direction, if an individual you go another.  Simple enough.  For individuals, the next most important thing is what state you live in.  For Colorado, you are directed off the government site to the state site.

If you're in a state that doesn't participate in ACA, and has done everything it can to undermine it, like Texas, for example, you stay on the government website and then must open an account.  I would imagine that this is where the sand got in the gears.

What politics is all about

From the New Deal until Reagan, when labor unions were strong and the United States toyed briefly with the idea of a safety net, income inequality went down.  Wealth was still concentrated in the wealthy, but more of it was spread around.

This was an era when George Romney, Mitt's dad, paid about a third of his income in taxes and could have paid less tax than he did.  He didn't take legitimate deductions because he "wanted to give something back" to the country.

It was government that taxed progressively and guaranteed union and civil rights.  In order to turn things around, the 1% went on a campaign against government.  With government diminished, the fat cats could play!  They did and do!

 

 

 

"57 pages of abomination"

The North Carolina voter-ID will likely pass.  Here's what it will do:  shorten early voting by 1 week, eliminate same day registration, end  provisional voting, prevent counties from extending poll hours by one hour on election day in extraordinary circumstances (like long lines), and will purge voter rolls more often.  

Oh yes, and the actual voter-ID provision will disenfranchise 318,000 voters.

Just in case the black panthers try to storm the voting booth, the law also provides for "vigilante poll-watchers to challenge eligible voters."

State Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-N.C.), who fought for voting rights in the 1960s, told the GOP majority, "I want you to understand what this bill means to people. We have fought for, died for and struggled for our right to vote. You can take these 57 pages of abomination and confine them to the streets of hell for all eternity."