Listen To The Wave

Listen. Listen fully and deeply. Hear the deafening silence. The near-total silence of the Big Red Wave. The Big Red Wave that did not happen. Instead, listen to what else we can hear. The excuses. The finger-pointing. The sounds of the blame game.

The voters listened well. To the lies. To the hypocrisies. To the threats of violence. And the majority of those voters – whether labelled as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents – said “No Thanks. Let us not go down that road.” But are the politicians listening?

Democracy won on November 8^th, even as it took a week to confirm that victory. It thankfully survived another battle, gained another day in pursuit of its unmatched gift to the human race. It remains fragile in the face of those who would do it harm. But (so far) it bends, yet remains proudly unbreakable. This is what a vote counts for. No extra, unneeded drama. Block out the distractions. Just mark an “X” (or fill in an empty bubble) on a sheet of paper. Along with millions other citizens. That is the true weapon of choice against those who would subvert our Democracy, distort our proud though imperfect Heritage, disregard our Rule of Law.

The Big Red Wave proved to be the trickle of a small pink stream. Label our recent past as an aberration in the course of our 600 year journey that began in the tiny hamlet of Jamestown. Past is past. Move forward. But who is listening? And to whom are they Listening? 

©   2022   Randy Bell                         https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Election 2022 Priorities

 Another election is once again upon us: the non-presidential midterm election of 2022. Historically, lacking the “star power” of a presidential contest, midterm elections do not draw the attention or participation of many voters. Hopefully, that will not be the case with this midterm. This election is probably the most consequential midterm of my lifetime, a needed referendum on the current state and future direction of the country.

In a typical election, men and women run for office by identifying various programs and priorities they promise to deliver – even though the many levers of government preclude any one representative from accomplishing much on his/her own. They are also likely to demonize their opponent as the devil incarnate, while they alone can save the country from total collapse. Buzz words (“socialism”) and sounds bites (“save social security”) will dominate the political rhetoric; true debate or meaningful, constructive dialog will be banished.

Election 2022 has a different call to citizens than picking a list of political actions and programs. While these are important, there is a more pressing need to (re-)affirm who our country is, what it stands for, and what it values. Because we, as a country, have lost our best sense of ourselves, and who we are about. There are two overriding issues we, the voters, need to address in this election: 1) reaffirming our Constitution and its foundation of the rule of Law that guides us; and 2) protecting, in fact enhancing, the accessibility to, and power of, our vote.

In 2022, we need to clarify whether we will return to a respect for Truth, Honesty, and the Law as fundamental to retain our Constitutional Republic. We accept that politicians will stretch the truth in order to benefit themselves. But over the last six years, outright lying, obfuscation, and endless delays in accountability have become the standard. “The Big Lie(s)” of unsubstantiated “facts” and opinion has made the most implausible seemingly plausible; political posturing has replaced Integrity within many of our American institutions. The bedrock principle that “no man or woman is above the Law” has been shuffled out the door in favor of rampant, unchecked illegality. The stability of Judicial Precedent has been shattered. “For the good of the individual” is replacing “For the good of the Country” as the basis for public service. The equal ability to partake in the country’s economic, religious, and personal opportunities has become questionable. The baffling, increasing violence that surrounds us daily is testament to our division and frustrations. The discord reflects our continual difficulty in trying to balance our Individual Rights versus our Community Responsibility.

As a result of our discord, Trust in our governmental institutions and public servants is at an all-time low; Trust in each other is too often non-existent. This lack of trust makes finding solutions to our many problems near-impossible. We argue incessantly; we do not listen to each other. We do not converse; we yell at each other. Hardened partisan speeches promote our separation and a one-sided view of our Constitutional principles. Yet the strong-minded men who wrote that Constitution realized that they were dependent upon the practical tool of Compromise. Their lesson to each of us is that without Compromise, there would not have been a Constitution. Without that Constitution, there would have been no United States of America.

The right to vote, through which the right to have a say in our government actions and the individuals selected to deliver the will of the people, is one of the primary gifts of American citizenship. For nearly 250 years that right has been expanding to include increasing groups within our electorate. Yet over the last four years we have seen one of the greatest assaults on voting rights since Reconstruction. At times, the right to vote was limited by law: e.g. restricting voting to property owners, or only to men. In other times, it was restricted by actions: e.g. paying poll taxes, requiring literacy tests, subjected to violence and intimidation. With the 1965 Voting Rights Act, most of the overt legal limitations were ended; thereafter, we chipped away at ending the action-based limitations. What we see today are limitations that are “tactically” based. These are the tricks misused to benefit one political party/candidate over another. We see polling stations set up in intentionally inconvenient locations with inconvenient hours; reduced time frames and/or sites for early voting; more technical requirements for obtaining an absentee ballot; restrictions on providing food or drink to people in long lines waiting to vote; dubious challenges to voter rolls. These and other tactics are specifically designed to discourage targeted groups from being able to make their voting intention count. They are all justified as “needed steps to prevent voter fraud” – would-be solutions to a problem we do not have in any meaningful or consequential quantity.

Preserving our democratic foundation, and protecting – and expanding – our right to vote. These are reasons that Election 2022 is so important. We should not be unduly fighting over specific policies and programs; these will continue to come and go as they always have. Rather, we should put our focus – and vote – on the character and integrity of our candidates. Who among them consistently tells us the hard truths; speaks and acts in the positive; is capable of playing well with others; is informed and knowledgeable about the issues facing us; is consistent in their opinions yet able to adapt to new information. Versus those who spout knee-jerk reactions; speaks in the negative; does not play well with others; accepts and/or promotes lies.

These are the overriding issues that we face. Over the last decade, the American Ship of State has taken quite a beating attempting to navigate its way through many stormy waters. The story is told that shortly after the last session of the Constitutional Convention concluded, Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Pennsylvania State House when he encountered one Elizabeth Powel.  Ms. Powel asked Dr. Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a republic or a monarchy?”  Franklin is said to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Can we keep it, as Dr. Franklin challenges us to do? We need to vote accordingly, as if our future as a country depends upon it. Because it does.

 

©   2022   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Supply And Demand Upended

As we drive around in our cars these days, one cannot avoid seeing the large gasoline station signs that tell us – usually in large, bold, brightly-colored numbers – what today’s gas price is per gallon. Inevitably, it is a bigger number than the day or so before. We drive past, likely shaking our heads in disbelief, discouragement, and a host of other thoughts and emotions at yet another thing taking control away from our daily life.

Yet you know what we do not see? Plastic shopping bags wrapped around the nozzles of the fuel hoses, accompanied by a cardboard sign that proclaims “No Gas.” We are used to this scene because on various occasions (e.g. hurricane destruction of refineries, Russian hackers blocking a major gasoline distribution line), demand for gas temporarily exceeds supply. The typical results are long lines at filling stations, different strategies for locating which stations have gas available, refilling the car at every opportunity, all while paying increases in price, And then, seemingly miraculously, everything goes back to “normal” within a couple of weeks. The refineries are back in production, the delivery trucks are making their rounds, and truck and automobile drivers are back to their old driving patterns. All is well.

This time it is inexplicably different. We have plenty of gas for everyone. Big Oil says these double-digit price increases are due to breaks in the gas supply because of the war in Ukraine and sanctions levied against buying Russian oil. But the amount of our imports from Ukraine and Russia is near-negligible, and we are drawing down significant quantities from our Strategic Oil Reserves to help offset those losses. And the backdrop to our story is that the U.S. has been a net exporter of oil the past two years, and over half of our imports come from Canada – not Russia.

Do I over-simplify our current situation? Admittedly, yes. But it seems that one must over-simplify to begin to understand the current rules of the road we are driving under. We all understand the principle of “supply and demand” in a free marketplace environment. When demand exceeds supply, something is deemed “more valuable” and the price is raised to take advantage of that scarcity. (I am not exactly sure why scarcity should drive price, but I accept that that has been accepted marketplace practice for near-eons.) Yet some societies have made exceptions to this principle by passing anti-gouging and/or price control laws effective in times of crisis, thereby not allowing profiteers to take undue advantage of the citizenry during short-term disasters. Problematically, price gouging creates a “bandwagon” effect: one store, one vendor, starts raising prices when there is panic in the streets, and so another sees an opening to increase his/her profits, and so on and so on. Pretty soon prices are exploding everywhere.

In the case of Big Oil, we have an extended supply chain of links engaged in bringing gasoline to the pump. The original driller; ongoing pumping at the wellhead; transport to the refinery; refining of the oil into its varying products; transport of gasoline to a regional distributor; distributor transport to the local filling station; sale of the gas to the ultimate consumer – the automobile drivers. That is a lot of links in the chain of transactions, starting from under the ground and ending in a car’s gas tank. EACH link in that chain has its own cost and profit demands to meet. Each link raises its prices on top of the prior link’s raise, thereby creating a compounding effect on prices. Add up all these increases, throw in price manipulations by commodities brokers and other financial hangers-on, layer the cake with the demands of national economies who are dependent on oil revenue (e.g. OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela), and you have a marketplace that has little to do with the actual oil on hand. The current record-breaking revenues for the oil giants, and all these other integrated inks, confirm that their hunger is being fed quite well.

Against this formidable, multi-pronged and ravenous beast, the individual car owner has little chance in affecting a resolution to this current inflation crisis. Ditto the farmer, the school system, the emergency responders, the truckers, the American family, etc. – all trying to survive these new economic demands affecting their personal and professional lives. Lives built upon a foundation of gasoline. But let us be clear. There is plenty of gasoline in barrels to meet our fuel needs. Whether we are paying $2.50 or $6.50, there is gasoline available to keep us moving. But if we are not careful, fulfilling the price gouging pump will be at the bigger cost of losing our potential to bring our economy back to a more normal, post-pandemic time. We do not have a supply problem. We do not have a demand problem. We have a price and profit problem. 

©  2022   Randy Bell              https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Blog On Hold

Thank you for visiting this Thoughts From The Mountain blog site.

Please note that, after 14 years of continuous writing, I am temporarily not posting new essays to this site. Given the national and international events of these past couple of years – cultural, political, medical, and spiritual – I find myself in need of a break from my writing commitment. For me, this is a time for reflection and renewal, a time to pause and better absorb the words and actions that have gone down since 2016, better understand their implication, and extract the underlying themes of what we have witnessed. Only after this needed reflective time do I feel I will be adequately prepared and qualified to resume the discussions to which this blog is dedicated.

My Thanks to all of you for your generous support and quality feedback over these years. Stay tuned – I will be in touch when appropriate!

Randy Bell

Generational Hate

“Unreasoning prejudices are bred out of the continual living in the past.”  

—Prentice Mulford, author and philosopher

 Around 30CE, a council of Jewish high priests found Jesus of Nazareth guilty of religious crimes and blasphemy, accusing him of claiming to be the “Son of God” and “King of the Jews”; thereby, a threat to their religious authority over the Jewish community. At the council’s request, Jesus was crucified by the occupying Romans as a potential disrupter and threat to the authority of the Roman Empire. Over the 2000 years since, some people continue to saddle all Jewish people and their descendants with permanent guilt for this act, subjecting them to unending punishments of prejudice, discrimination, and cruelty. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.

Muhammad ibn Abdallah was the founder of Islam. He defined the teachings; defeated the powerful religious and secular leaders seeking to eradicate his followers; ultimately, brought religious peace to both Moslems and non-Moslems. Upon his death in 632CE, a contest arose over the selection of his successor. Moslem elders picked Abu Bakr to lead the movement by election; Ali ibn Abi Talib – Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin – claimed the position by family succession. Unable to resolve their differences, Moslems split into two camps: Sunni (Bakr) and Shia (Talib). 1400 years later, the division, and the arguments for supremacy, continue – oftentimes violently. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.

In 1533, England’s King Henry VIII sought to divorce his first wife Catherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn, but Pope Clement VII refused to grant the annulment required by Catholic law. Henry married Anne anyway, triggering his excommunication by Clement. In retaliation, Henry named himself as head of the Church in England. He appropriated the property and wealth of the Catholic hierarchy into his new Protestant church (Anglican), while the population divided itself into Catholic minority and Anglican majority constituencies. 500 years later, division and certain prejudicial limitations toward Catholic continue (particularly as regards the monarchy), with tensions remaining very high in Northern Ireland. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.

In 1619, the first African slaves were brought to the English colonies. As a slave, one’s conditions were totally controlled: inescapably tied to their owner; no say in their future; no privileges of ownership, wealth, income, or economic opportunity; no bond of family; no legal standing; considered “property” to be used, bought, and sold at the sole discretion of one’s owner. It was a control held in place through violence, both threatened and all too real, as well as by the legal systems. 150 years ago, America’s most deadly war supposedly ended slavery, yet it also created years of White Americans – overtly and/or covertly – continually blaming and punishing Black Americans for the war’s outcomes. 400 years after that first slave arrived, Americans are still grappling with how to permanently end racial discrimination and violence. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.

This is a consistent pattern being repeated in our modern times. In 1947, British India was partitioned into two parts: “India” became an independent Hindu-majority nation, while a newly-created “Pakistan” was made home for Moslems.  Millions of people were moved – some forcibly – to enforce this religious demarcation. Political disputes, often marked by violence, have continued ever since. A similar story occurred in 1948 when the United Nations carved out an area in Palestine and designated it as “Israel,” a new Jewish-majority state. Israel, and the Palestinians/Moslems who surround it, have since been in perpetual animosity – often erupting in violence. After 75 years of continuous dispute, will we still be talking about these (and other such) fracturings 200 years from now? Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.

What these examples demonstrate is how the development of human cultures and relationships is often bound up within, and shaped by, long-term historical moments. Decisions are made; events follow; perspectives are shaped; human relationships are resultantly defined – often as “winners” versus “losers”; institutions are created to give substance to those definitions. Over time, that substance (including hate and prejudice) takes on a life energy of its own – “The Culture.” It defends itself, enlarges its scope, exercises its power, entrenches itself into the very fabric of the community. It becomes the community. This culture is reinforced and perpetuated by passing itself down generation thru generations. Over hundreds of years, a society functions as it does based upon old decisions and actions often long since forgotten. We observe the established rules simply because they are “the rules,” whose reasons are very likely irrelevant to current times.

Continuing to fight old battles long past cannot change our present. We merely change the setting or the players, perhaps temporarily drive the conflict under the radar, or hold the stage for never-ending violence and upheaval. It creates back and forth winners and losers, carried out by deliberate acts of prejudice and discrimination, economic supremacy, or at times, outright warfare. Insane? Yes. Yet even against such intransigent hurdles, Civilization surprisingly continues to make incremental progress toward a more just and connected world.

It is important to know the histories, both our own and others. There is much to learn about what worked, what did not, and how we got to where we are. But when we seek to avenge history long gone, we are living backwards, perpetuating other people’s fights, living lives of people long dead rather than our own. We do so at the cost of giving away life’s opportunities, no matter how noble we may enshrine “our cause.” We give away the opportunity to simply start fresh today with what is, what can be, what makes true sense, what is “right” in simple human terms, without the old baggage. We need to know our past, but not (re-)live our past. A conversation based upon a centuries-old foundation will most likely lead to maintaining the status quo, reinforced by hundreds/thousands of years of self-righteous finger-pointing and repetition. A conversation that instead begins with today has the potential to lead to lives generously and properly fulfilled. It begs the question: Whose life do we seek to live?

“While seeking revenge, dig two graves – one for yourself.”    —Douglas Horton, clergyman and ecumenicalist

 

©   2021   Randy Bell               https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Confronting Our Secrets

“Great nations don’t run away [from their past]. We come to terms with the mistakes we have made. And in remembering those moments, we begin to heal and grow stronger.” —Joe Biden, 46^th President of United States

My hometown was a small border city in western Arkansas. At the western end of the main downtown avenue is a bridge over the Arkansas River that lands you in Oklahoma. From there, you could visit family friends on Oklahoma lakes; purchase fresh-grown produce from the many farms located about; or most importantly, make your way to a liquor store located at the base of the bridge where –fake ID in hand – an underage teenager could illegally purchase beer,

The biggest treat was making the few hours journey to nearby Tulsa. It was the oasis for sophistication and upscale living.  Great shopping for clothes and household items; fine restaurants; entertainment that was beyond our hometown local venues. When I left my hometown to spend my adult years in Boston/New England, the memories and impressions of Tulsa were good ones, even as they gradually faded over the years.

Fast forward approximately 40 years. I was enjoying reading a book consisting of stories of various lesser-known events from our past. One story was about Tulsa, but it was not about the Tulsa I had known in my youth. Rather, it was a new journey into a hidden, secret place.

This story goes back one hundred years, to May 31/June 1, 1921. It is an episode of racial violence unequaled in America’s continuing struggle over our aspiration that “all [men] are created equal.” It begins with yet another accusation that a Black man (19 years old) assaulted a White woman (17 years old) – a scenario virtually guaranteed to lead to racial violence. Following his arrest, hundreds of White Tulsans gathered at the jail, threatening to lynch the accused. In turn, approximately 75 Black Tulsans surrounded the jail to protect the accused. A shot(s) was fired, and (according to the sheriff), “all hell broke loose.” Ten Whites and two Blacks were dead. Word of the killings quickly spread throughout the city, unleashing an armed mob of White rioters. The accused Black man was no longer the priority. Instead, in their racial anger, the rioters were now intent on destroying the prosperous commercial and residential Black community of Greenwood (nicknamed “Black Wall Street”), one of the most prosperous, developed and stable Black communities in the country. And destroy it they did. Over the course of the night and next morning, the armed mob indiscriminately killed innocent Blacks that they encountered, and looted and burned the homes and stores of Greenwood. It was a violent massacre of destruction that ended only when the Oklahoma National Guard declared martial law the next morning.

But the damage was done. Given space limitations, this synopsis cannot do proper justice to this story of Tulsa. But the numbers help. It has been estimated that 75 to 300 Greenwood residents were dead; 800 were admitted to those hospitals that would take them in (given segregation restrictions); 6000 Blacks were interred in large holding facilities; 10,000 were now homeless; property damaged was over $30 million (2020 dollars). Next-day photos confirmed the scorched-earth destruction was complete: 35 square blocks of a thriving community had disappeared into smoldering ruins.

In the aftermath, the Governor called for forming a grand jury. The all-White grand jury attributed the riot to Black mobs. 85 people were indicted, but not a single person was convicted or held accountable for the deaths and violence. A group of city leaders was formed to rebuild Greenwood, but promised funding never materialized. The area was instead rezoned to impede rebuilding, and the Black community was forced further out to the edges of the city.

President Warren Harding said of the event, “Despite the demagogues, the idea of our oneness as Americans has risen superior to every appeal to mere class and group. And so, I wish it might be in this national problem of races ... God grant that, in the soberness, the fairness, and the justice of this country, we never see another spectacle like it.” Yet soon the wall of silence came down. Harding spoke often in promoting Black equality, but died just two years into his term. National newspaper coverage of the initial story faded away and disappeared. Local newspapers refused to talk about it for generations afterwards. It never made it into the history books. It disappeared from public, civic, and private conversation. Hidden behind the silent curtain, it never happened.

When I finished reading the narrative held in my hands, I was angry. Very angry. One, at the event itself, a reminder of the destruction and indiscriminate cruelty human beings are still capable of towards their neighbors. Two, angry at “the powers that be” that deliberately hid these episodes from recognition, discussion, and accountability. It was a betrayal from so many teachers I had trusted.  Third, angry that I had allowed myself be deceived about, and been blinded to, these realities for so many years. All of those times spent in Tulsa, unknowingly looking at a false façade. What else was I never told?

Walls of silence are intrinsic to many cultures – for the individual, among family, and within the community. Do not speak “ugly” words, words of bad things and bad times, unless you can remold it into a positive story (e.g. “The Lost Cause” of Southern secession). By not speaking of it, it never happened, and our life goes on undisturbed. Except that which is secret did happen, and the conditions that caused it simply lie in wait to happen again. Nothing has truly changed except on the surface in a pretend world.

These walls of silence we live behind are one of the major reasons our national dialogs makes limited progress. We each live, think and act from our individual frames of reference built upon our past experiences and knowledge; frames that led us to this moment of time, place and thinking. Silence creates great holes in that frame. But discussion can only become productive when each of us can speak from a common reference. How can one have a meaningful conversation with a White American without knowing their stories of religious and economic persecution (“Irish need not apply”) under the rule of myriad kings and the most very rich? Or with a Black American without knowing their stories of enslavement, lynchings, economic discrimination and legal injustice? Or with a Japanese American without knowing their stories of forced removal to resettlement camps during World War II? Or with a Mexican American without knowing their stories of invalidated property rights and land seizures across the southwest? Or the stories from each of these groups of voting and other discriminations since our founding? Too many of our individual stories live within, unshared with others

America is a great country. Both the idea of it, and the actualization of it, unique across the millennia. There are endless good stories of accomplishment, innovation, creativity and community across virtually every field of human endeavor. There are also many instances where we have come up short in our human interactions. Those shortcomings potentially can weigh us down and devolve into hatred and strife.  Alternately, they can challenge us to face them directly, change our direction and expectations, and do better in the future. We certainly have many past accomplishments of change for which pride is justified. But those changes only come from full disclosure of our past, airing our dirty laundry in order to clean it. Unfortunately, there are those today who claim that discussions of past troubles divide us, promote separation, and denigrate the country. Therefore laws are needed to prohibit such airings in our nation’s classrooms. Certainly a balance must be taught – the good stories along with the not-so-good.  But these initiatives to continue to distort and silence selected pieces of our past realities should be resisted.

There are so many stories waiting and needing to be told, stories needing to be heard. It is in the light of day that things grow, including societies. We cannot change what we cannot see. But what we can see is our future.

©   2021   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Images Of Covid-19

It was 2500 years ago that a Chinese spiritual philosopher famously observed that, “one picture is worth a thousand words.” The truth of that insight has been re-proven countless times over the ensuing centuries. Beginning with simple prehistoric cave drawings and basic stick figures, visual art has evolved through changing styles, new tools, and emerging technique. The images created by the painter, the sculptor, the woodworker, the photographer can provide us with factual information, evoke a range of personal emotions, and serve to document the life and times of moments of human experience.

Nowhere is that more true than with the work of the creative photojournalist meeting the right moment in time, particularly in instances of great national or historical significance. In the last hundred years, there was Dorthea Lange’s portrait of the “Migrant Mother” that told the story of the 1930s Great Depression and the Dust Bowl infused in the tired, beaten-down, exhausted face of Florence Owens Thompson surrounded by two of her seven children. During World War II, there were the Marines hoisting the American flag over Iwo Jima; the Soldiers fighting their way onto the beaches of Normandy in history’s greatest coastal landing, surrounded by the deafening sounds of war and smell of death; the emaciated bodies, walking skeletons, of the few survivors of the untold millions killed in the Nazi death ovens. But there were also the images of Rosie the Riveter working in the factories to support the war effort, and citizens holding paper and metal drives, and living within rationing controls, all illustrating the united cooperative spirit of the home front. Finally, Alfred Eisenstaedt’s image of “V-J Day in Times Square” showing the spontaneous kiss between an unknown sailor and a nurse conveying the joy over war’s end.

In subsequent years would come Viet Nam. Photographer Nick Ut’s “Napalm Girl” showed young Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down the war-torn street, screaming in pain and terror, her clothes entirely burned away by the weapons of war. The image of the young college student, her arms extended as she crouched over one of the four bodies killed in 1970 at Kent State University while protesting the war, her tortured face begging the question “Why?” – her pain in that moment echoing the pain of a country being torn apart within. The true horror of that war was brought home into our living rooms.

Today, America – indeed the world – has been thrust into a different kind of threat: a previously unknown, fast moving, highly contagious, deadly respiratory virus. It is an extensive disruption of global society for which the world has shown it was not prepared. Despite our recent progress, the death toll has been horrendous, and many potential new victims are still to come. A variety of forms of suffering inflict millions of our citizens, from “long termers” recovering from the aftereffects of the illness, to  those made homeless and/or jobless, to those trying to hold families together against most difficult circumstances.

Twenty years from now, what will be the images that will define this historical moment and tell its stories? Will it be:

-A picture of doctors and nurses draped head-to-toe in protective gear, hands in gloves, face hidden behind masks and plastic shields, protecting themselves from the virus, but also attempting to cover the personal frustration and emotional drain of losing too many fights against this virus?

-Or a picture of citizens gathered at government buildings, some armed with military-grade weapons, protesting against the social, economic and health rules instituted by public health officials to combat the virus and protect the population?

-Or of close-up portraits of faces, masked versus uncovered – one a statement of public health and personal compliance, the other a political statement or a statement of indifference?

-Or of unmasked / un-distanced patrons crowded into bar gatherings, and large beach parties?

-Or of lines of people, “social distancing” 6’ apart, as they wait in long lines to cast their ballot in spite of new health rules and voting requirement obstacles?

-Or of coffins stacked in refrigerator trucks, because there was no more room at funeral homes?

-Or of older persons, alone, often isolated in nursing homes, sitting by a window in order to see and wave to families separated outside?

-Or of a near-empty Times Square in New York City on New Year’s Eve, sans celebrators?

-Or of a barber shop with a defiant “Open” sign out front, a restaurant with a “Closed” sign on the front door, or a small business with a “Mask Required” sign in the window?

-Or of college kids volunteering ad hoc help to farmers seeking to donate their food that would otherwise rot in the unattended fields?

-Or of long car lines at food banks, and at mass vaccination stations, as citizens respond to both needs and opportunities?

-Or of teachers sitting in front of computer screens, teaching their students online through Zoom connections, using technologies and teaching methods created “on the fly”?

-Or, of the simple image of a vaccination needle inserted into an arm?

-Or, that best sight of all, of a Covic-19 survivor being wheeled through hospital halls, heading home, accompanied by congratulatory applause from health care workers.

-Or …

We have made good progress in this health fight. Yet we could take a backward turn in a seeming split-second if we fail to see this thing through. No one yet knows what havoc this pandemic will ultimately have wreaked, what economic / social / political structures will have been permanently transformed into some unknown New. Will we have been consumed by our arguments, our differences, our personal self-concerns without regard for our impact on others? Or will we have found new strength in our ability to work together and share burdens, unity in our willingness to look out for and protect one another? What images will we put into our history books for future generations – our children and grandchildren – to look at as they ask us, “When called on, what did you do in 2020-2021 to help protect yourself, your community, and the Nation during that virus?” To what picture will we point? 

©   2021   Randy Bell             https//:ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Filibustering The Filibuster

 Recently, Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a threat to his Democratic colleagues. I.e if you eliminate the filibuster (in which a 60% vote is needed to shut off debate and move a bill forward to a vote), the Republican minority will pursue a “scorched earth” posture towards  all future Senate business. McConnell went on to say that they would use all available Senate rules and procedures to tie up legislation and drag out any proposed legislation as long as possible, thereby rendering the Senate ineffective and unable to accomplish any business or Democratic agenda priorities. (Unsurprisingly, the public’s view of the Senate’s accomplishments and effectiveness is already low, at best.) Further, when the time comes that Senate control flips back to the Republicans (which it inevitably will at some point in the political ebb and flow over time), Democrats will be shut out of any participation or consultation in matters coming before the Senate. To further emphasize his point, McConnell subsequently referred to the filibuster as “Kentucky’s veto.”

It all seems like a pretty scary and intimidating threat, and typical for McConnell as a means for maintaining some level of control over Senate business for his Party. Scary, at least until one looks at the intimidation more closely and sees it to be essentially a hollow threat. In reality, McConnell has already made good on that promise over the past six years since Republicans gained control of the Senate in 2014. Since then, McConnell has de facto exercised his own personal filibuster against virtually any Democratic-sponsored legislation by personally refusing to allow any such proposals even to come to the floor for a vote. Nor has there been any meaningful “consultation” or input solicited, allowed, or accepted from Democrats on Republican-sponsored legislation. To listen to Mitch McConnell (and several other particularly egregious senators) protest about a “lack of partisanship” in the Senate is at best irony, at worse just another example of hypocrisy in the extreme that marks much of the political debate today.

The much-maligned tool of the filibuster was introduced in its present form around one hundred years ago during the debate over the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I. Ironically, the procedure (“Rule 22”) was originally instituted as a means to END senate debate, which had heretofore allowed unlimited speaking time for Senators. Rule 22 was therefore adopted to end unlimited debate (and allow business to move forward) by a 2/3rds vote (now 3/5ths / 60 votes). In today’s time, the Rule has morphed into being a method to CONTINUE debate, since it is virtually impossible to get 60 votes on any measure – whether procedure or legislation. Additionally, an individual choosing to execute a filibuster used to be required to stand on the floor and speak continuously until they exhausted themselves or were voted down (think the iconic Jimmy Stewart scene in the 1930s movie “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”). No other business could be conducted while the filibuster was occurring  and the senator was speaking. Today, a senator only has to state off-camera his/her intention to filibuster and the mechanism is initiated – the issue at hand is thereby tabled for an unlimited time. No “closure” vote is publicly taken; no non-stop speeches are given. Meanwhile, other Senate business moves on unabated and unaffected. No muss, no fuss, all virtually invisible to the public.

It should be noted, however, that Rule 22 is not carved in stone. Harry Reid, the previous Democratic Majority Leader, became frustrated at Republican filibustering of Obama’s Executive Office and Judicial appointments. So he changed the Rule to exempt Executive branch appointments, and federal judges other than to the Supreme Court, to be exempt from the 60-vote requirement. Predictably, Mitch McConnell went ballistic over this change and the loss of his leverage. Hell hath no fury like a political leader scorned. Nevertheless, when McConnell became Majority Leader, he was perfectly happy to not only continue the policy for President Trump’s nominees, but to even expand the exemption to include Supreme Court nominees.

We are now two months in with Joe Biden’s presidency. Biden has spoken of a “big agenda” of change: the Covid relief package just passed; renewed voting rights protection; immigration overhaul; climate change; major infrastructure investment; etc. However, he is supported legislatively with only a narrow Democratic Party majority in the House, and a 50/50 split in the Senate. 60 votes in the Senate on anything looks every bit like wishful thinking – stalemate for stalemate’s sake itself. Past history during Obama’s presidency shows that Republican requests for “input and negotiation” in the end have no meaningful substance. McConnell has demonstrated numerous times over that his word is unreliable and not his bond. In the face of these realities, what’s a President to do?

There are numerous calls from supporters of the Biden agenda to eliminate the filibuster option. Or to exempt voting rights legislation (or other categories to be identified) from its purview. Or to reinstitute the requirement for speeches on the floor, and full-Senate votes for closure (or not), so that voters can track the actions of their senators. Or contrarily, to leave everything in place as is. Plus perhaps other ideas not yet identified. What is true is that when you are in the minority, the filibuster is a precious tool for blocking the potential extremes of the other Party. When you are in the majority, it is the devil’s curse and a tool that prevents America’s progress. And at some point in the fickle cycle of shifting political opinion, today’s majority is destined to become tomorrow’s minority. Each side gets its turn at the helm. That turn could easily happen only two years hence.

It will be interesting to see what procedural route(s) Democratic senators take. Move cautiously? Or damn the torpedoes and move forward while you can? As usual, easy answers can have hard, unintended consequences. So think it through. In the meantime, political theater and rhetoric seem to continue to be the drivers, while real solutions to our needs await their turn.

©   2021   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Expectations Of A Biden Presidency

“Joe Biden is as good a man as God ever created.”   —U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC

 Shortly after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President in January 2017, I posted an essay entitled “Expectations of a Trump Presidency”. The intent was to imagine Trump’s four years in office, based upon what we had seen and learned from two years of his campaigning. When I recently \reread that essay, I was surprised at how prescient the conclusions proved to be. Four years later, we have now inaugurated a new President – Joe Biden. It therefore seems appropriate to similarly speculate on what we might anticipate from his next four years.

 Given the events, conduct and outcomes of Trump’s four years in office, one must necessarily insert a context to properly determine expectations of a Biden presidency. Donald Trump drastically changed the landscape of the Presidency and Executive Branch – indeed, all parts of the federal government – as well as the interactions and perspectives of the citizens that government serves. Therefore Joe Biden’s presidency will initially be defined and driven largely by reacting to Donald Trump’s legacy, rather than starting from Biden’s own aspirations and political platform. That reaction will need to focus on four key areas:

 TRUTH: We all know that politicians will at times stretch the truth or a perspective in ways that will cast them in the best light. But not until the last four years has lying become the given, the reflexive response, with truth hidden away unseen in the dense forest of obfuscation. No thoughtful decisions, no effective actions, are achievable in such a distorted climate. The most fundamental priority for the Biden presidency is to restore the telling of the Truth into the national dialog. Certainly there are times when multiple truths can legitimately collide against each other. But only by facing those truths can we successfully plot our course with a reasonable expectation of achieving our objectives. Credibility is an essential foundation for leadership.

 RULE OF LAW: Since the adoption of our Constitution in 1788, our allegiance has been to that Constitution, not to an imperial king or queen. Our government is subservient to that Constitution.  Its elected and appointed officials are subservient to the citizenry. The Rule of Law took a setback over the past four years, as our president flagrantly ignored Constitutional principles, legal requirements, and historical precedent and conventions. He exposed holes in our operating structures that had never been seen or anticipated before, and defied “legal process,” in an effort to convert the Executive Branch into a political extension  of his own making. Restoring the Rule of Law as our guiding principle, strengthening the structures that execute the Law, and rebuilding the trust of the citizenry in impartial execution, is paramount.

 REBUILDING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: The various departments, bureaus, agencies that make our government function were decimated over the past four years. Internationally respected offices were decimated by budget cuts; staffing cuts and/or leaving posts vacant; wholesale closing of offices; constant turnover in leadership positions, replaced by “acting” agency heads; muzzling and/or blocking personnel from executing their job description. This decimation was extended through politicizing agency missions by subjugating them to a reelection agenda; appointing incompetent and untrained people – with fealty only to the president – to leadership positions; obviating accountability requirements by firing various Inspectors General and inflicting retribution on (supposedly) protected whistleblowers. There is much for our government to do in the days ahead. None of those things can get done until the workforce is rebuilt – in quantitative as well as competency terms – and their missions are reestablished, performed under an ethical apolitical umbrella. Government does not function when the People do not trust that well-qualified people are doing the jobs expected of them.

 WORLD LEADERSHIP: For most of its young life, America adopted an isolationist stance, happy to go about its business with minimal interaction and interference from Europe and with other countries of the world. That changed when Pearl Harbor committed America to a new role of principal leadership in global affairs, working in partnership with other countries in formal treaties and ad hoc engagements, articulating the case for democracy. Our leadership has not eliminated wars, but the world has become more mutually intertwined, culturally and economically, to the mutual benefit of all. America – by word, by deed, by its steadfastness – has been the linchpin for this current stability. These relationships have been turned upside down and severely tested over the past four years. Our adversaries have seemingly become new-found “friends”; long-standing true friends have been pushed aside as new adversaries. The America countries have depended upon for years has walked away from its global opportunities and obligations; our word, and our participation, is now suspect. At a time when the countries of the world are more connected and interdependent than ever, America has become a minor player in world affairs. These relationships demand to be rebuilt for the benefit of all.

 Today, there is a laundry list of specific issues that demand our attention. Most critical are the inter-joined issues of the Covid pandemic and our crippled economy that have upended our daily lives. After that come issues of climate change and the environment; of health care reform and access; immigration reform / DACA / caged children; racial justice; the continuing assault on voting rights; policing reform; livable wage / economic disparity; etc. It would be great to attack all of these issues immediately and concurrently. But that is not possible given the status our government has been brought to. We first have to rebuild the infrastructure and capacity of our government in order to address our national laundry list, else we will flounder in the sea of good intentions not realized. We need to rebuild with the right people, policies, clarity of mission. This rebuilding will require patience from a citizenry whose patience runs very thin these days. But it is the first priority for America before much else can be done.

 Can Joe Biden accomplish this rebuilding task, especially in these hyper-partisan times? I honestly do not know. I do know he will need wide support to get it done. Support from people whose first concern is for the Country, not their personal agenda nor their reelection prospects. Joe Biden is not intuitively a big-picture thinker. A political moderate, he sees things in much more of a “task to do” working-class mentality: here’s a problem, let’s solve it, and use a hefty dose of common sense in the solution. We have witnessed the damage an inexperienced “outsider” president can do through four years of a pretend President who failed to understand and neglected the institution of the Presidency. In contrast, Joe Biden’s 30+ years of experience in the federal government gives us a president who should know his way across the playing field of governance, operating with a genuine understanding of people’s needs and with minimal malice in his heart.

 Getting things done. That is what we need right now. The big visionary dreams can perhaps come later. Made possible by a well-functioning government in which we can have confidence and pride. Joe Biden likely will not be a candidate for a future likeness on Mount Rushmore. But will he get this very important core job done? If so, he could just be one of those right people who shows up at the right moment for the right need. We shall see.

 ©   2021   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

  

Constitutional High And Low

A written Constitution. Allegiance pledged to Constitutional Law rather than a monarch. Governance decision-making by a Vote from the governed. Adopted by a new, presumptuous little country strung out along the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in a distant and isolated “New World,” these were radical concepts in 1788 with no precedence among world governments. But they became the principal gifts from the United States of America to the advancement of human civilization. All too often, we take these special gifts for granted, as though they always were and always will be. As a result, we fail to protect them by stepping up to our responsibility to engage and exercise these gifts that so many have given so much effort to ensure. Yet what we take for granted – the power of the Vote – was on full display over 48 recent hours. A display that showed the high point, and the low point, of the awesome privilege and responsibility of the right to Vote as guaranteed by our Constitution.

HIGH POINT – TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2021: In a rare convergence of circumstances, the State of Georgia found itself voting for both of its U.S. senators in a special runoff election. To virtually everyone’s surprise, Democratic Party candidates won both seats against the two incumbent Republican senators (albeit by extremely narrow margins) – this in what has been a deeply reliable Republican state. Simply winning these two election races against the odds was significant unto itself. But the significance was magnified by its immediate multiple domino effects:

-the U.S. Senate became equally divided at 50/50 senators from each Party, changing from Republican to Democratic majority control due to the incoming Democratic Vice President having the tie-breaking vote;

- all Senate committees will be now chaired and controlled by Democrats, significantly improving (but not guaranteeing) the prospect for Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, executive branch appointments, and federal court nominees;

-Mitch McConnell, who has heretofore controlled the Senate’s legislative agenda with a proverbial iron fist, will become the Senate Minority Leader, with Chuck Schumer becoming Majority Leader.

Why does all of this constitute a Constitutional “high point”? It is not because the Democrats won, or now take charge. Depending on one’s own personal politics and partisan affiliation, “Democratic control” can be a thrilling prospect or a cause for alarm in anticipating the next two-to-four years of national governance and initiatives. Rather, it is a “high” because it demonstrated the full power of the act of voting. Citizen turnout set a record for a “special election,” and within the slim 1%+/- margin of victory for those two senatorial elections, the national political landscape was transformed. That is the power of the Vote: the power to make a statement and effect a difference. It is why the right to Vote is so powerful and precious.

LOW POINT – WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2021: Yet less than 24 hours later, we descended into the low point of our Constitutional governance and heritage. In the November election, the incumbent President lost his bid for reelection. In the two months since, he has claimed on a daily basis that the election was stolen from him by widespread voter fraud and illegal election processes. He has sought to directly (and illegally?) intervene with election officials and state legislators to overturn the results of the vote of the citizens. Thousands of local Boards of Election, and various combinations of 50 state Boards of election, &/or 50 state Secretaries of State, &/or 50 state Governors, &/or 50 state legislatures said there was no fraud, and certified the voting results. Over 60 federal and state lawsuits filed echoing the fraud claim were summarily dismissed – including rulings by federal judges appointed by the President. At no time during these certification and lawsuit steps was one shred of proof of voter fraud offered. Yet the drumbeat from the incumbent loser and his supporters incessantly carried on this “big lie."

The protest of the election result culminated in a call by the President for a public rally in Washington on January 6^th (“It is going to be wild”) – the day that the votes of the Electoral College would be ceremonially counted and formally accepted, as specified by the Constitution. Thousands of supporters showed up and listened to several speakers exhort them to march to the Capital building to protest the counting and certification of the true election results. So march to the Capital they did, and we all saw in real time what happened next. It was a scene unmatched in our entire American history. A sitting President personally and publicly convened a mob of insurrectionists, and exhorted them to attack the Capital building of our federal legislature. And so this armed, lawbreaking mob did – forcibly breaking into the building and preventing the duly elected Congress of the United States from conducting their Constitutionally mandated business. They overwhelmed Capital Police charged with protecting the integrity of the building and its occupants. They broke into offices, into legislative chambers, vandalizing and stealing property, putting the safety of its occupants at genuine risk, resulting in deaths and injuries. Only after hours passed and law enforcement reinforcements arrived at the scene were the insurrectionists finally pushed out of the building.

There will be months to come of investigations and hearings into what happened on this day, and how such an extreme security failure happened. It is therefore not the intent of this essay to try to preempt such inquiries. Rather, it is to note why this is a Constitutional Low in our nation’s history. An incumbent President calls for a violent attack by his followers to prevent the ongoing functioning of the Congress of the United States, based on a lie about an election result. Yet in its own way, that is another demonstration and affirmation of the power of the Vote. It is a power to fear if you are on the wrong side of democracy by attempting to overturn that vote. And when you find yourself on that wrong side, you are guilty of the high crime of Insurrection against our government and the democracy it stands for.

©   2021   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

The Never-Ending Election Ends

 So, at last, it is finally over. At least officially. Six weeks after Election Day; five weeks after the election was “called” and a victor was proclaimed; through five continuous weeks of rejected lawsuits and unproven claims of massive voter fraud; the United States of America finally and officially has a new President-elect. A legally constituted Electoral College did its job as prescribed in our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court tersely ended any and all attempts to have the judiciary overturn the Law and the Voters. It is now on to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021 to make the job of our democratic election complete, and peacefully turn over the power and office of the President. It is as the Constitution and the citizenry demands.

Donald Trump would most certainly have it otherwise. Over the past six weeks, he and his band of unprincipled henchmen have pulled out all stops to deny the electoral reality; attempted to interfere with standard voting processes; spread false information about the voting  process and the result; disrupted voting-by-mail by dismantling USPS equipment and operating  policies; filed and  lost over 50 lawsuits to overturn the vote; and directly ordered (with mixed success) state election officials, executive officers and legislators to upend and reverse the vote. These actions culminated with the Attorney General from Texas (himself under state and federal investigations and an intra-office staff uprising over ethics and corruption issues) petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against four swing states over their election processes and results.  The petition was joined by approximately 20 other Republican AGs, and endorsed by over 120 Republican Congresspersons. To which the Supreme Court rightly said simply, “petition denied,” prompting the Texas GOP Chairman to propose that Texas secede from the Union! The Donald J. Trump political circus, led by his ringmaster Rudy Giuliani, has proven to be a national (and international) embarrassment for America – we the country that has previously defined what “democratic government” means. Senator Mitt Romney had it right when he called the whole affair “madness.”

Undoubtedly, in spite of the legal and political finality of this election, the noise from Trump will continue. The cries of a “stolen election” will be embedded in continuing subsequent Tweets and press releases. The question will be how much air time will be given to these self-pitying laments by the news media (other than Fox News and various right-wing talk radio hosts). Ultimately, Americans do not tolerate whiners and sore losers.

Certainly every political candidate has a right to pursue legal remediation when the accuracy or integrity of a vote is in question. Richard Nixon likely had legitimate reasons to question the vote from Mayor Richard Daley’s political machine in Chicago that gave Illinois to John Kennedy in the close election of 1960; Nixon instead chose to forgo pursuing it “for the good of the country.” Al Gore had a legitimate question about the vote in Florida in 2000; the Supreme Court’s decision giving the election to George W. Bush is still questionable in the minds of many.

If Donald Trump had EVIDENCE of impropriety in the 2020 voting, he certainly has had a right to pursue it accordingly. Except that after multiple election recounts have been completed, and virtually every lawsuit filed has been rejected, there is no such evidence. His continual lie of voter fraud accomplished no change in the outcome of the vote. Instead, it has served only to undermine the confidence, faith and trust of many Americans in our national government. It also has provided Trump with a misleading fundraising campaign resulting in a $200,000,000 haul for a personal slush fund donated by his aggrieved supporters. (As with all things Trump, self-enrichment, not public service, is the dominating motivation.) It is one more brick added to the wall of shame that is Donald Trump, further proof (if needed) that his first/last/always priority is Donald Trump – not his supporters, not the Country, not Democracy itself.

Meanwhile, the country will be left to pick up the pieces from this most unique of elections. It will now fall to Joe Biden to try to restore American government to its rightful place. Its place of decency in how we treat one another. Of bringing competent, professional people back into government to rebuild the hollowed-out shell Trump is leaving it in. Of fact-based decision-making and deliberate planning instead of self-rewarding, whimsical Tweets. Of acting within the legality and spirit of the Law, historical precedent, and respect for the historical purpose and the many achievements of America. The rebuilding of American government will take time and effort after suffering the wrecking ball attack on it by Trump. It will most certainly require installing the right new people into key, critical leadership positions. It will also likely take longer than just one presidential term to accomplish.

Unfortunately, there will be resistance from those politicians who believe that Trump’s way is the new way, a key to their political success. Out of fear of Trump’s retribution and for their own political careers, they will continue to voice support for the fantasy world Trump has invented to try to escape the historical label of “1-term, impeached, loser.” Trump will not go quietly into the night like previous ex-presidents. His continuous need for being the center of attention will not allow himself to be ignored. It will still be about being in the spotlight, making money, and demeaning and bullying his way through anyone who gets in his way.

In the end, the institutions of American democracy have thankfully held firm against Donald Trump’s assault. Now, the rest of us have a job to do. To get through the pandemic decimation of the country. To rebuild those sectors of our economy that have been hard hit. To help the many victims of the past year recover their lives. This will not be accomplished on the golf course. It will happen in a newly committed and staffed government focused on We, the People. Let us get on with the real job at hand.

5 weeks to Inauguration Day.

©   2020  Randy Bell              https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

The Trumpublican Party

My father was a life-long Republican. Pragmatically, it was not a particularly effective affiliation. We lived in the “solid South” wing of the Democratic Party. For a hundred years, that party was home for moderate working-class voters, as well as for post-Civil War Southerners enforcing Jim Crowe segregation – the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party. The Democratic hold on southern political power was so complete that through the 1960s my father’s Republican vote never elected a Republican to office.

The national Republican Party was founded just before the Civil War. Anti-slavery was its main cause; Abraham Lincoln was its first President. After the North won that war, the wealthy of the country took hold of the Republican Party and never turned loose of it. Through the 1950s/1960s, political and financial control of the Republican Party was predominately located in the northeast, with a moderate Eisenhower its first president since The Great Depression. But the times were changing. Party control was moving westward; a new breed of conservative Republicans was emerging. Their political leader was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater; their intellectual leader was Willian F. Buckley, founder of the National Review; their soul was given voice by author Ayn Rand; its spokesperson was actor/California Governor Ronald Reagan. Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential election by a landslide; the movement succeeded with Reagan’s election in 1980.

Meanwhile, the party’s voter base shifted underneath its leaders. Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, thereby tearing down the Jim Crowe voting barriers in the South. For the Dixiecrats, it was the ultimate betrayal by their Party. In 1968, some found a new home in Alabama Governor George Wallace’s segregationist 3rd- party presidential run; others found it in Republican Richard Nixon’s “law and order” candidacy in the throes of the Viet Nam War and civil rights protests. Over approximately 20 years, the Democratic South migrated to become the new (and dependable) Republican South. The weeds of anger and distrust of the American federal government – planted in the post-Civil War Reconstruction period – were now rebirthed as the southern wing of the Republican Party.

Following Presidents Reagan and Bush, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 after 40 years in the minority. Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was his declaration of war on the old politics. No more bi-partisan government solutions. It was now “our way or the highway,” either/or, me versus you. Republicans would now run the show on a “conservative” (i.e. not “Democratic liberal”) agenda. Where the Party had been built on a business-friendly / government-hands-off agenda, it would now rebuild itself on the new base of Republican voters by adopting a “social conservative” agenda tied to conservative Christian groups. Gingrich also changed the political vocabulary, breaking the norms of respectful debate by substituting personal insult and attacking opponents’ patriotism. Forced to resign due to personal and political ethical issues, the legacy of his impact on partisanship and negative speech in Washington remains today.

Gingrich left behind a new voter base firmly in residence in the Republican Party. It was a base that felt left out of government’s largess and political support, an unheard voice in the national conversation. The new agenda was driven by a desire to return American culture to the perceived way of life of the 1950s, which had been battered by the “progressive changes” instituted over the ensuing decades. Changes from the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, abortion, same-gender relationships, equal-pay and affirmative action in the workplace, environmental regulation. In response, a conservative agenda – and the politicians who would support it – emerged focused on issues such as religious priorities (e.g. prayer in schools and public places; favoritism on Christian religious observances); abortion; “traditional values” (including traditional gender relationships); issues of moral conduct; hyper-patriotism; 2nd Amendment gun rights. As always, there was the undercurrent of racial segregation and bias, now pursued through “back door” legal or policy mechanisms. Over time, this agenda expanded into two main themes: 1) a claimed right to do as one pleases (a decidedly un-Christian view), regardless of law and regulation promoting the common good, and 2) a paradoxical belief that all Americans should conform to one cultural and legal point of view – this conservative point of view.

This new conservative agenda was essentially held in check during the George W. Bush presidency. But after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, who personified the progressive political force, the new conservatives hit their stride. In 2010 the Tea Party Movement burst onto the scene, focusing their efforts first on purging the Republican party of its “old guard” members and replacing them with disciples of the new movement. These new-style Republicans once again took back the House (which they had lost in 2006), and subsequently the Senate in 2014. All that remained was to install one of their own in the White House, to accomplish control of both the Legislative and Executive branches.

Enter one Donald John Trump.  Compared to his 44 predecessors, never has one individual been less qualified to be President. But Trump has several skills useful in the 2016 election campaign: an ability to make himself as the center of attention; an absence of any core beliefs and principles; an ability to read people and play to their self-interests. Once he decided to run for President – the biggest center of attention of all – the new Republican base was just the vehicle he needed. And they likewise needed him.

It was, and is, a marriage of convenience. Trump is willing to present himself as whatever his voting base wants him to be in exchange for their votes. In turn, that base is willing to turn a blind eye and tolerate his personal and political life hypocrisies, his political incompetence, and his untruths in exchange for giving voice to their frustrations and agenda. Trump has their allegiance because no one else is speaking for them. In fact, it is not so much that the base is devoted to Trump, they simply have nowhere else to turn. Hence the intractable and almost inexplicable support given to him. Neither does Trump have any other voter base open to him. Trump and his base are thereby permanently wedded to one another.

So the Religious Right ignores Trump’s amorality in exchange for his advocacy of their morality agenda. Business owners ignore his business failures in exchange for his deregulation of economic controls and budget-busting tax reductions. U.S. senators overlook and rationalize his illegality in exchange for filling judicial vacancies with conservative jurists. Hate groups walk through the open door of “respectability” offered by Trump in exchange for their support. It is all about “making the deal”; each side gives and gets. Apparent fealty to Trump is actually fealty to the agenda – the marriage lasts only as long as Trump toes the line. If the line breaks, the fealty breaks.  Each party is the oxygen for the other.

Today, the “Republican Party” is now unrecognizable from its former self; the label “Republican” no longer has precise definition. It is now the Trumpublican Party, defined by one man. The existing Party structure provides the vehicle for Trump and his voters to carry out their political operation. Traditional institutional Republicans have been forced to the sidelines, or out of the Party altogether.  On the playing field sits the Trump Truly Faithful, reveling in the euphoria of their new power, convinced that their campaign against “government intrusion and failure” has finally come. In the cheering section are those who cannot endorse Trump the man, yet see personal or political benefit to going along for the ride. Then come the various hate and domestic terrorist groups basking their newly-found “respectability.”  This election will not only elect a President, it will also define the fate of this Republican Party.  If Trump wins, Trumpism and his coalition will stand for years. If Trump loses, Trump will be a temporary blip in the Party’s history. The Party will collapse into an inevitable blame game as a new power struggle ensues. Who will win, who will constitute the Republican Party in 2024, is a mystery waiting to unfold.

Early in the 2016 campaign, I said, “The real story here is not Donald Trump, even though that is where the attention is going. He is merely the mouthpiece, The real story that should be pursued is the Trump voter.” That is still where today’s discussion should be focused. What are they after? And why are they after it?” Four years later, we are still focused on the man. We should be focused on his voters. What drives them to their agenda? What is it that fuels their antagonism towards their government(s)? What happened to my father’s Republican Party?

4 weeks to Election Day, November 3.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Trump's Campaign Strategy Revealed

 September 23, 2020. A reporter asks the President of the United States, “Mr. President, real quickly, win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” The President responded … “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens, you know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. Get rid of the ballots [my emphasis] and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it and you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.”

This statement followed a statement made earlier in the day …“I think this [election] will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important we have nine justices. But I think it’s better if you go [and confirm the Justice nominee] before the election because I think this — this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam, the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court.”

There you have it: Donald Trump’s strategy for “winning” the election. Spoken and filmed from the lectern of the White House pressroom, for the record, for all to hear and see. For months, Trump has set the table for this strategy by consistently claiming that the upcoming election is a fraud. He has blamed the fraud principally on the expanded use of mail-in ballots (which is how Trump will be voting in Florida). If he does not win by the ballot counts of the 50 states, then tie up the election by burying it in endless legal challenges. Move the legal challenges to the Supreme Court, which will have a brand-new justice nominated and confirmed. With three Trump-appointed justices on the bench (quid pro quo expected?), and a 6-3 “conservative majority,” they will declare Trump the winner. Election done.

Will the strategy succeed? Who knows at this time. Given the unimaginable events of the past four years, anything remains possible. Apparently, even in America. The first line of defense against this gameplan? Go Vote. As soon as you can.

5 weeks until Election Day, Nov 3.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Eligible, But Unable To Vote

 Voting is essentially a simple concept. Yet in the evolutionary journey of human civilization, it is one of the overriding reason America came into being. It is also a relatively new concept in the timeline of human civilization. In its basic form, there is a decision to be made that affects a Community of impacted people. It may be a decision regarding future direction, problem-solving, or ground rules of social order. Or it may be the selection of an individual(s) to take on a responsibility, or an ongoing job, on behalf of that Community. In either case, the mechanism is to bring the Community together en masse; discuss the background and pros/cons/options pertinent to the issue or selectee; then ask each person what they want to do about it (i.e. “vote”) – each person having an equal say with one another. The decision is determined by who gets the most affirmative votes. Done. Move on.

It is a straight forward basis for group decision-making, albeit not always an efficient one. Dictatorial decision-making, where one person decides for all, is certainly a far quicker process. In the right hands, at the right moment, in the right circumstance, it can actually be preferable. (E.g. in a foxhole while bombs are enveloping you is not a good time for voting.) But in the everyday management of or lives, group-think leading to group-decide usually works out best over time.

In a world history dominated by the rule of kings (and occasional queens), voting had a few trial runs. The Senates of ancient Greece and Rome gave a start at voting. They were somewhat successful, but the voters were limited to just a few wealthy men. A thousand-plus years later, the English took another step towards voting, adopting a Magna Charter which for the first time limited the absolute authority of the King, out of which gradually emerged a “Parliament.” Parliament consisted of a self-appointed rich Nobles class, and the King was still the unambiguous authority-in-charge, but Parliamentary consensus gradually grew in importance for the general governance of the realm.

Ultimately, it would take the fledgling new nation of America, drawing predominately from that English heritage, to make a “voting public” into a reality. Building on its precedence of colonial legislatures, voting in a decision-making body, and voting to select the members of that body, became the basis of American governance. Though not everyone in the Community was initially allowed to vote, the range of the population that was allowed – including everyday workers and tradespeople side-by-side with the rich landed gentry – was remarkable (and unprecedented  across the globe) for its time.

In the ensuing 232 years since our Constitutional founding, the right to vote has been enshrined as a fundamental definition, privilege and responsibility of American citizenship. It is the right to have an equal say in the decisions that affect us and the individuals who will carry out those decisions. In these same 232 years we have gradually moved to include those who were initially denied that right of citizenship, i.e. African-American former slaves, women, Native Americans, naturalized citizens. That correction has been long and painfully difficult. It took a civil war to free Black Americans from slavery and then Constitutional amendments expressly giving them citizenship and eligibility to vote. Yet it took another 100 years to pass the Voting Rights Act to remove the twisted legalistic and violent actions that served as barriers that continued to deny that vote. Barriers that included threats, murders and lynching of would-be voters; poll taxes, requiring one to pay for voting; literacy tests to keep supposedly “uneducated” voters (i.e. Blacks) off the roles. It took another Constitutional amendment 132 years after our founding to give women the right to vote; it would take another 50 years for women to actually run for elective office in substantial numbers.

Notwithstanding the long and too-often painful road to voter equality, the idea of the right of citizens to vote on the decisions that govern them, and to have proven the case for that idea by 232 years of experiential example, have been America’s gift to world civilization. Which is why current threats to that Noble Principle is all the more alarming: the overt attempt not to deny citizens their RIGHT to vote (as was our previous history), but an insidious surreptitious effort to deny citizens the ABILITY to vote that right.

In 2018, we saw numerous “dirty tricks” carried out to deny citizens’ access to voting. (See “Barricades Blocking the Ballot Box,” November 11, 2018, on this blog.) For example, we saw last-minute rule changes for voter registrations; moving of polling locations; redefining precinct boundaries to split voter turnout. Already in 2020 – complicated by the demands of the Covid-19 pandemic – we are seeing major reductions in the number of poll sites; attempted restrictions on access to mail-in ballots; deliberate acts by the President and USPS leadership to slow down and undermine mail-in ballot processing; interfering with people’s attempts to register to vote.

This is why vigilance will be required of all of us in Election 2020, regardless of our differing political views. Voting should be a non-partisan function of government; the rules governing our voting should not be made up as we go along to fit political party ambitions. We must be prepared to respond with lawsuits in the courts, protests on the ground, and showing up to vote in spite of the hurdles presented. And when we vote, we need to vote out those who seek to take away this most precious of our Constitutional Rights. We vote to affirm and protect our Constitution that so many have given so much to bequeath to us. VOTE.

6 weeks to Election Day, November 3.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

Headlines, Not Conversation

This first week of election activity proved to be a series of individual headline stories:

At a rally in North Carolina, Trump asked his voters to do a mail-in ballot AND then go vote at the polls. It is illegal in NC to vote twice. It is also illegal in NC to induce others to vote twice. He repeated the request at subsequent venues.

The latest addition to Trump’s Covid health team is a Fox News commentator who is a radiologist with no immunotherapy experience whatsoever. He is recommending that we stop testing everyone who is not in a “vulnerable group” (who isn’t in a vulnerable group?), so that “everyone else gets it and thereby becomes immune.” Trump has endorsed the idea. Pandemic solved?

Trump claimed that “94% of the deaths reported from Covid were actually caused by “other reasons.” Not true – per Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CDC.

Two public relations officials were fired from their positions at the Food and Drug Administration following Commissioner Stephen Hahn’s decision to walk back his recent claims about convalescent plasma being a treatment for Covid-19. The statement is medically unproven, per the vast opposing outcry from the national health community.

The CDC announced a change in their position on Covid testing. They said that healthy and asymptomatic people “can choose” whether to be tested after Covid exposure, but it is not necessary. After outrage from the national health community, the CDC walked it back.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, weren’t included on sample ballots provided by South Carolina’s Election Commission. The sample ballots were intended to “prepare voters for the coming November election.” An online version of the ballot has since been corrected.

Last March, Trump made an unpublicized visit to Walter Reed military hospital, explained as a “delayed part of his annual physical exam.” It was recently revealed that Vice President Mike Pence was told to be on standby to assume presidential powers if Trump underwent anesthesia. Anesthesia is rarely given during routine physicals.  In reaction to questions about this, Trump tweeted he “did NOT have a series of mini-strokes.” Who said anything about mini-strokes until Trump himself brought it up?

Trump has directed the Office of Management and Budget to crack down on federal agencies' anti-racism training sessions, calling them “divisive, anti-American propaganda.”

The Justice Department is preparing to charge Trump 2016 inaugural Vice Chair Elliot Broidy with illegal foreign lobbying. As an inaugural fundraiser, he sold to foreign clients his supposed influence with future presidential decisions. Broidy is already under investigation for payoffs he had made to silence his former Playboy mistress. Another portrait added to the burgeoning rogue’s gallery of ne’er-do-wells.

Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell Jr., a strong vocal supporter of Trump on the Religious Right, resigned as President of Liberty University due to 3-way sex scandal including his wife and her lover.

Donald Trump paid a visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, scene of street protests due to a Black American being shot seven times in the back at point-blank range, now in the hospital paralyzed from the waist down. The Governor and Mayor both asked Trump not to come – “like pouring gas on a fire.” Trump came anyway, posed for a photo op in front of a burned-out store, denounced street violence, and pledged to support “law and order.” The current owner of the store refused to appear in the photo op. Joe Biden subsequently visited Kenosha, visited with the victim’s family, and spoke to the victim on the phone. He subsequently publicly denounced the street violence, while also making the case for racial justice and police reform.

A litany of schools (K-12 and college) began opening for the fall in response to political pressure. Just as quickly, they began shutting down again due to rapid outbreaks of the Covid virus due to campus gatherings (colleges), or the lack of planning and adequate resources to keep teachers, staff and students safe (K-12). Parents are caught in the middle.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden began to come out of his Delaware basement to criticize Trump on the street violence (“This is Trump’s America, happening on his watch”), try to move conversation away from Trump’s “law and order” theme and back to the pandemic failures, and link the failing economy to Trump’s failure to first contain the Covid virus.

Michael Cohen’s book is being released, joining the recent parade of insider tell-all books including one on Melania by her once-best-friend, and niece Mary Trump’s insider family stories. There is at least full employment these days for lawyers and book publishers.

Perhaps most significantly, a news article in Atlantic Magazine quoted multiple unnamed sources accusing Trump on numerous occasions calling military personnel, and specifically those who have died or been wounded in service to this country, “losers” and “suckers”. Trump and the White House strongly denied saying that. The story, however, has been corroborated by multiple witnesses and news organizations.

What is wrong with this essay’s narrative? It is 90% about Donald Trump and his cohorts. And what is the theme that emerges from this litany of news headlines? That this is, and will be, the reality of the 2020 campaign. It will be a series of events, not a competition of ideas. The focus of the events will be driven by Trump; Joe Biden, whether he wants it or not, will be put into reactive mode, not proactive mode. Because that is the way Trump wants it. Good publicity; bad publicity; it is all about PUBLICITY. (“I don’t care what people say about me as long as they say something.” P.T. Barnum.) It is about being the center of attention, illuminated by the spotlights of the headlines, dominating the news cycle in any way possible. Grab a headline, good or bad, and the next day move on to a new headline so nothing sticks. It is all about controlling the narrative.

This analysis is not about political partisanship, it is about campaign strategy. A strategy by which 15+ Republican opponents were steamrolled by Trump in 2016. The question is whether it will work again, whether it will last with the American public, in 2020.

These are the times that we  live in. All these headlines happened in one week. A month of news in one week. And it was only just the first week of the campaign’s home stretch.

8 weeks until Election Day, Nov 3.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain@blogspot.com

  

Election 2020 Begins

 The two major political conventions have ended. The candidates and their running mates have been selected. The Party platforms have been adopted. (Well, at least for the Democratic Party. The Republican platform literally consists of three paragraphs, and says “RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” Fealty to the man, versus ideas and specifics for the benefit of the people.) Now is the time for the Election 2020 campaign to begin in earnest.

In spite of our ridiculous four year election season in America, in the end it all boils down to the final two months of electioneering. Goals, promises and ideas will emerge to cover the political landscape like wildflowers blooming in the spring. Charges, insults, and out-of-context – if not absolute – falsehoods will travel high speed over the various communication highways like the moonshiner driver predecessors of the NASCAR circuit.

The one truth that stands out? Notwithstanding the seeming hyperbole, this truly will be one of the most consequential and critical presidential elections in modern memory. In Donald Trump and Joe Biden, we have two radically different candidates for the office. One came into the job as the only historical candidate with no governmental, military, or non-profit experience; his only business experience was (is?) running a small family business. The other aspires to the job after over 30 years of government experience, including being the proverbial heartbeat away from actually holding the position. In Trump, we have four years of actual observation in how he views the Presidency, and his manner of executing that job. In Biden, we have his record as a U.S. senator and his performance as Vice President as the basis for imagining how he would perform. Donald Trump brings his lifetime background as a one-man “decider” and a self-proclaimed “fighter” into his version of the job, with little concern for American law, history, or governmental norms. Joe Biden was steeped in the old-school politics of collegiality in political debate – a collegiality seemingly long gone out of fashion – and respect for the traditions of government service, ceremony, and collective decision-making. We have seen the personal character of each man, character meaning “those things that we do when no one is watching.” Character is those things we choose to say about others; those ways we treat others; those ways we are truth tellers whose word is our bond; those ways we practice the human values and principles we have been taught for centuries.

There is much that could be said about these men, their goals, ideas and ideals over these next weeks of Election 2020. There is much that could be said about the kind of country America aspires to be. There is much that could be said about the world in which we will live our future. But as I have thought about all the potential topics for upcoming essays for this blog, and look at the multiple drafts-in-process essays sitting uncompleted (atypical), I wonder – does it really matter? At this point in our bitterly divided country, is anyone still listening to one another? Does anyone have even a minimum of genuine understanding what “the other side” thinks (“what is the matter with those people?”)?  Are we even capable of explaining WHY we believe what we do, versus just echoing the popular headlines and bumper stickers of our time? Are we only capable of arguing about which one of us is “right” versus which way we – and our country – will move forward?

At this point, I do not know if there are many truly “undecided” voters left. What remains to be said or seen in order to make up our minds? After being bombarded with all the words, mailings, TV ads, and social media histrionics to come, will that many minds be changed over the next two months? There will certainly be nothing pretty to see, little informative learning from the upcoming non-discussions. So the sooner it ends will perhaps be for the better. Perhaps the only real remaining unknown will be the question of engagement: how many, and who, will show up to make the judgment, the decision, about our collective future? And what will they ask for that future to be? We may choose to tune out the noise. But we still need to show up. Vote.

9 weeks to Election Day, November 3.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com