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

 

From Riggee To Rigger

 They said it could never happen in America …

 In 2016, Donald trump claimed that the republican primary campaign was “rigged” against him by the Party establishment.  (The first in a long line of claims unsubstantiated by any proof.) Yet he won that Party’s nomination. The charge of rigging suddenly disappeared. It “just went away, like a miracle.”

 In the general election of 2016, Trump was expected to guaranteed lose to Hillary Clinton. So once again Trump pulled out the “rigged election” card to provide a face-saving way to buffer himself from that loss. Except that he once again won. And with that, the charge of rigging suddenly disappeared once again.

 It would be later that the FBI, the Mueller investigation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee would each conclude that Trump had more than a little help from the Russians to achieve his victory (“Russia, if you are listening …”). The cry of “rigged” then moved to the never-ending mantra of “hoax,” with four continual years of Trump attempting to justify the legitimacy of his election in spite of losing the popular vote of the country.

 Now we come to Election 2020, with the full power of the presidency to support a “no holds barred/no tools unutilized” campaign for reelection. This effort is happening on two fronts: 1) foreign interference once again, and 2) domestic voting. Trump revealed his openness to foreign assistance in his well-documented attempt to solicit Ukraine’s negative involvement in Joe Biden’s campaign, along with his public call in a White House lawn press briefing encouraging China to do the same, plus his interview with George Stephanopoulos which he declared he would welcome negative campaign information from foreign powers (despite the illegality of such an action). And by using Russian operators from his buddy Vladimir Putin to once again spread misinformation through U.S. social media outlets.

Meanwhile, domestically Trump is pushing the election levers to try to prevent voters from voting – specifically targeting likely Democratic voters. At the moment, this is predominately focused on blocking increased turnout through the expanded use of mail-in voting during this critical pandemic period, turnout which is expected to work against Trump and Republican candidates in general.

First, Trump mounted a propaganda campaign that expanded voting by mail would expand the likelihood of voter fraud – once again without offering any proof whatsoever and disputed by bi-partisan state Secretaries of State who conduct these elections. In fact, sates have been using voting-by-mail for years – for military personnel, U.S. citizens living abroad, and ill and disabled voters – without significant (non-existent) fraud issues. Even Trump, and several of his White House team, have voted by mail, and Trump has already requested a mail-in ballot for his Florida residency. Nevertheless, his “fraud” campaign continues on unrelentingly.

All of this propaganda campaign is on the front end of the mail-in voting battlefield. On the back end is an insidious effort to disrupt the mailing process itself, and thereby raise doubt about the reliability of the United States Postal Service to potentially deliver the ballots. Toward this end, Trump installed yet another unqualified loyalist minion and mega-donor named Louis DeJoy to be the new Postmaster General. Among DeJoy’s first executive acts – under the guide of cost-cutting needs – was to cut the USPS budget, overtime scheduling, and staffing levels, which immediately began to slow down delivery service. This was followed by the “Friday night dismissal” of nearly two dozen senior USPS executives and department heads, with no replacements made, thereby leaving himself in one-man charge. Next has come the unannounced removal of public mail drops, the dismantling and removal (and destruction) of million-dollar mail sorting machines, and new scheduling procedures which has mail trucks departing while unsorted mail is left behind. Then the announcement that all political mail, including ballot mailings, would henceforth be reclassified from automatic “1st class mail” (a priority) to “bulk mail” (low priority). Ultimately, in his usual arrogance that he can get away with anything he does, Trump declared publicly that this scenario is in fact intended to block expanded mail-in voting.

The Constitutionally-mandated USPS is a critical component of our economic, communications, product delivery, financial transaction infrastructure and way of life which Trump is willing to ignore in his self-focused drive to be reelected. The specter of a diminished USPS, during this Election 2020 is blatantly visible. And who is standing up to defend us against these near-criminal acts? Lawsuits from coalitions of state Attorneys General and/or Secretaries of State? Do we need to request that the Carter Center, which specializes in monitoring elections in 3^rd-world countries, gear up to do the same here?  Certainly not our ineffectual Congress, who just left town on recess.

We have open, full-scale visible attempts by Donald Trump to rig the election. Incapable of articulating a persuasive political argument; a disastrous absence of leadership in defending America against a pandemic; an approval poll rating falling each week – the man who claimed to have been “rigged” has now become “the rigger.” We must therefore be prepared for more Trump maneuvers to come. When they do, we must be prepared to resist such challenges, be flexible in our personal responses, and find our own creative ways to ensure that our ballots are received and our votes counted. Regardless of our political party affiliation, our passion for any particular candidate or policy, this action by Trump is a substantive threat to the ideas and principles of democracy itself who should be resisted by all Americans.

They said it could never happen in America … But it is happening. Here. Now. In America.

11 weeks to Election Day, November 3^rd.

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

 

Democratic Primary Strategies

The American constitutional ritual of voting has begun. Five months of primary campaigning and voting will lead to a presidential nominee for each of the major parties. The Republican nominee is presumed already known. Yet in the crazy political world of Donald Trump’s daily turns and surprises, who continually snatches defeat by stepping on his own victories, anything is possible. (Future essays will discuss separately the Trump candidacy.) On the Democratic side, the ultimate victor is far from clear. Who the Party’s voters will choose, who the Party’s convention will select, can still go a number of different directions – and will be subject to the same currently-unforeseen twisting and turning events as Trump’s campaign.

Unlike the few Republican challengers against Trump, the Democrats started this campaign season with over two dozen candidates. By any criteria, it was as diverse a pool as could be imagined: age, race, gender, background, political / governmental experience, issue priorities, name recognition. By the start of primary season in February 2020, that number has narrowed to approximately six viable candidates: Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren (with Tom Steyer in the wings).

From the initial pool of diversity, the survivors include:
-4 are aged 70+, 1 in her 50s, and 1 only slightly above the minimum age of 35
-4 are males, 2 are females
-all 6 are white, with no minority candidate
-4 are married, 1 is in a gay marriage, 1 has a long-term life partner
-3 are former mayors, 4 are current or former U.S. senators, 1 is a former Vice-President
-2 are from New England, 2 are from the Middle Atlantic states, 2 are Midwesterners
-2 are former Republicans, 1 an Independent (making his 2^nd try), 3 are long-term Democrats
-all but 1 are millionaires through mega-billionaires
It is diverse, but hardly the expected resulting profile from the original candidate pool.

All candidates agree that priority #1 is to beat Trump in November. But who is best qualified to accomplish that goal is not clear among the candidates, the Party, and the voters, as each candidate has different strengths and weaknesses to match up against Trump. Huge turnout is accepted as the key to victory (as proven in the 2018 midterms). The ability to get that turnout will likely depend on several strategy considerations:

1. Hillary lost some key traditionally-Democratic states (e.g. PA, MI, WI) by narrow margins. Those states were key to Trump’s win. Some of that loss reflected Hillary’s neglect of those states and taking them for granted in her campaign. Some loss was simply Trump’s appeal to a portion of those voters. Then there was a large number of voters who were deeply opposed to Hillary personally and voted against her. How do Democrats get these voters back?

2. “Bread and butter / dining room table” issues won for the Democrats in 2018. While anti-Trump opinions were high, in the important Midwest it was moderate candidates stressing these close-to-home issues who won in previous Republican districts. They won enough to flip the House to Democratic control, and in 2020 they need to win those seats again to keep control.

3. Some Democratic voters are passionate about achieving a “radical change / big ideas” agenda on a quick timeline for America. The changes include economic restructuring, income redistribution, social justice and equality goals. Moderate Democrats also seek economic and social changes, but on more of a building-block basis of accumulating changes. Revolution versus evolution. Nether camp has sufficient numbers alone to win the November election outright. How will these two camps reconcile their differences and unify for November? In truth, all candidates agree on virtually all programmatic OUTCOMES, but simply differ in their methods. For example, Democrats share a desire for all children to receive needed healthcare, and there are multiple good ways to accomplish that. Quibbling now over mechanics and details is not helpful, versus demonstrating the leadership that will be needed to bring America together to accomplish these things later.

4. Each candidate has pledged to support the ultimate nominee, whomever wins. But which nominee(s) can unite the party, bridge the Left-vs-Moderate agenda divide, while still energizing an across-the-board turnout? Will Sanders’ and Warren’s supporters follow a moderate nominee? Will supporters of the four moderates follow a radical change nominee?

5. All candidates acknowledge defeating Trump is Priority #1. There are certainly many line-item reasons to do so. Who can most skillfully make the case AGAINST Trump’s actions and words over the past four years? Who can make the case to America FOR a Democratic alternative – a clear, clean, simple, succinct , but cogent case?

These are some of the overall strategy considerations for the candidates, their advisors, and the political consultants to consider. However, there are two overall dominating factors that loom over this election, and what can then be accomplished over the next decade.

First, the American public is tired. They are worn out and exhausted from the endless national political arguing and chaos. The constant Tweets, political maneuvering, personal attacks in lieu of serving constituents. The negative changes in the essence, ethics, and conduct of the Presidency. The dropping of yet one more bombshell shoe after another. The headline-dominating daily conversations about “what did the President do or say today?”

The vast majority of Americans are not looking to be so consumed by political or governmental conversations. They are looking to live lives focused on nurturing and providing for their families. Engaging with friends and their communities. Pursuing their personal, professional, and recreational goals. The “Washington Drama” is not where they want to put their attention. They long for the politicians to take care of the necessary political business, the government to provide the services promised, while the rest of us get on with our lives. The “Theater of the Absurd” has simply gone on too long. And Americans have always had a short attention span.

Second, as important as such topics as healthcare, climate change, immigration reform, economic fairness, and a host of other issues are, they are necessarily secondary to an even greater priority. Before taking on these notable issues, Trump’s replacement is necessarily going to have to face the need to first rebuild the foundations and structures of our government after all the change and damage that has been inflicted upon them. Trust in our governing institutions, respect for the rule of law versus person, and the everyday functioning of our governmental bodies and agencies – all carefully developed over 230 years – have all been strangled or ripped apart in just four years. We are now looking at a federal government hollowed out and decimated of knowledgeable professionals, and the breaking or elimination of orderly processes.

Before any grand agenda of new policies and programs can be put into place – no matter how seemingly desirable on their face – this destruction must be reversed and rebuilt. It will be slow, unglamorous, detailed, and painful work, requiring a steady hand. This work will likely consume the entire next presidential term – a significant factor for Biden and Sanders who would likely be a one-term president due to their age. (It is a transitional role similar to that admirably performed by Gerald Ford following the “long national nightmare” of Richard Nixon.) But until that reversal is done, and pride and integrity are restored, and American confidence and leadership are renewed, and our many competing groups find a way to respectfully talk and actually WORK together – we will be stuck where we are. One cannot build policy and program castles on a foundation of sand using broken tools with no workers on hand to operate them.

Until we restore America’s faith and trust in each other, along with the mechanics needed to accomplish the next extraordinary dreams of America’s story, talking about specific ideas and detailed programs is a fool’s journey aiming at a brick wall. Measured against that true priority, which one of those speakers on the Democratic debate stage can best lead us to our future? Which one has best demonstrated an ability to be truly inclusive and join people in working together? That is the important question for each of us to thoughtfully answer.

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

2020 Vision

A new year is upon us. Not just a new year, but also a new decade. As it turns out, a decade as important and significant as was anticipated, a decade that will be defined by its first year. The events and the language are going to set our table, and define our future, more so than any year since 1945. Faced with a variety of choices, directions and alternatives, this is the year that will call the questions of who we are as a people and a country, and ask us to clarify what kind of country we want to live in, based upon what values and principles are truly most important.

We have been entrenched in uncivil conflict for 20 years, conflict now coming into open headlong collision. As a country, we have been arguing among ourselves about America’s purpose and promise since the very beginning of the Republic. We have been through and survived even worse times and fissures in our relationships. But not since our American Civil War has there been such a concerted attack on the institutions and principles that have held this country together in spite of our arguments. We argue about government programs, policies and priorities. We file endless lawsuits to try to clarify our laws, many of which are in fact clear in their intention. We elect leaders who do not lead – and do not even follow – but rather pursue their own personal agenda (or enrichment) with little regard for “the greater good.” Our conversations with each other have become superficial and outright mean, making societal progress and solutions to problems nearly impossible. Our Constitution – that marvelous expression of social and governmental creativity built upon our population’s better nature – is being chewed up by our population’s worse nature. We are drowning in fighting each other while we ignore the opportunities that are possible if we instead worked together. This dysfunction is funded by outlandish amounts of money spent to benefit self-interests in governmental, non-profit, cultural, religious, and corporate realms. And there seems no end in sight to this toxic and counterproductive environment.

Right out of the chute in 2020 will be the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Will this process be a political sham? Or will one hundred senators ignore the Politics of Power and, instead, act in an ethical exercise responsible to their special oath as “impartial impeachment jurors?” Separate from the ultimate verdict, will our citizens (and the world) watch our democracy in action, or will they see only political grandstanding and theater. Depending upon the outcome of the Senate vote, what actions will then follow, what forces will be unleashed?

Immediately thereafter (or even concurrently), the citizenry will begin to speak through the sacred voice of their vote. They will pick their candidates, and then their final choice, for president, but also for thousands of other federal, state, and local representatives. How will we conduct this election process, given that our experience suggests that this will be a very hard fought and ugly process, filled with exaggerated mistruths? Who will we choose, based upon what criteria: proposed policies; demonstrated competency; evidence of Character? Will this election be governed by fair rules that welcome all eligible voters, or corrupted by partisan misdeeds, perhaps even sabotaged by foreign adversaries intent on disrupting our faith in the results – if not the results themselves?

Alongside this internal journey, there will be incidents, threats, opportunities and conflicts happening across the globe. Ones we may be able to anticipate through today’s eyes; others not yet even a blip on our radar. Who will we entrust to navigate these events in the deeply interconnected world we now live – a world where isolation is no longer an option and cooperation is mandatory. Who will make friends and build partnerships, who will confront enemies appropriately, and who will be unable to distinguish between “friend and foe”?

Running in and out of these major narratives will be a continuing parade of investigations – federal and state prosecutions, judicial rulings, congressional oversight, and media reporting. There seems no end to the list of questionable actions and falsehoods still being continually uncovered. In 2020, some of these investigations will be concluded, some will continue to slowly unfold drop by drop, and (amazingly) some new ones will arise. For many Americans, it is nearly impossible to keep track of all of the separate cases now in process, much less the details embedded in each. But we have to try if we are to be informed voters trying to make good and rational decisions for our country.

Meanwhile, our many divisions continue to get bigger and deeper. We are building barriers over just about every facet of our society with an intention to dominate each other and establish one single “what’s right” for everyone. We are split between two political parties, and split even further within each. Many of our religions are dividing into more narrow denominations and branches over issues of faith, dogma and operational control. Economic goals conflict with social aspirations amid wide-spread debate about the role of government. Divisions over social, religious, gender and immigration questions are “negotiated” in seemingly daily barrages of bullets and violence. Meanwhile, “truth” and “facts” are strewn alongside the highway, roadkill casualties to our efforts to win at all costs. Potential progress is lost because it is “the other guy’s” fault.

Depressing? Yes, quite so. But it does not have to be this way. Our future is our choice – a choice to continue as we are or to make it different. What kind of America do we truly want? What American message do we wish to speak – to ourselves and to the world? When will we get tired of the fighting, and move to a renewed spirit of reconciliation and cooperation? What are we willing to give, and to give up, to achieve a renewed America?

In 2020, we will answer these fundamental, critical questions not by our words, but by our participatory engagement and our actions. It starts with our taking responsibility for the political and cultural environment we find ourselves in. It is not the other guy’s fault; it is our collective fault. The way out requires us to commit to truly staying informed, as difficult as it may be in these times when major events and headlines arrive on a seemingly daily basis. It requires us to reintroduce ourselves to our “opponents” and remember that these are our neighbors whose needs and aspirations should be our concern. It requires us to change the nature of our conversations from throwing bricks and hurling insults at each other, to listening to one another so as to understand why our worldviews differ. It requires us to reject lies, to speak from reasonable facts, to demand truth, and to insist on ethical behavior. It requires us to sit together, work together, and find the many middle grounds that are necessary to make living together possible. It requires us to move away from “my way” and to find “our way” by Compromising with each other – the very foundational and essential principle that our Founders had to draw upon to create this Republic in the first place.

Change does not start in the White House or Congress. Nor in governors’ mansions or state legislatures. It starts in each of our living rooms. Around our dinner tables. It is, as it was designed to be in the beginning, upon us – “We, the People.” What will we do with what we have been given?

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