Trump's Team

After a presidential election is completed, the singular job of a President-elect is to create “the Team” of people who will be sources of advice and/or managers of Executive Branch departments. (It is not his/her job to try to run or speak for the country until after the inauguration.) So what are we to surmise of Donald Trump’s appointments to date?

Of the 16 cabinet-level positons appointed thus far, 3 nominees are retired generals – a concern given our tradition of civilian control of government. 5 have no government experience; 4 have no expertise in their department’s mission – a potentially steep learning curve. More of a concern is that 6 appear openly hostile to the Mission of their department – expect many contentious intradepartmental and public battles to be fought. (The Environmental Protection Agency, and the environment itself, are bracing for a full frontal attack, including from its nominated Director.) 5 have previous federal/state government or military leadership experience – which should help provide some balance to the inexperience.

5 nominees are successful mega-rich business people, including 3 with background at Goldman Sachs – which Trump criticized heavily, and faulted Hillary about. 5 were active campaigners for Trump – suggesting Trump does pay his political IOUs. 3 are female (19%); 1 is African-American (6%); 1 is Indian-American (6%); 1 is Asian-American (6%). 4 are generally considered downright scary by a cross-section of politicians and commentators (Bannon; Flynn; Price; Pompeo).

It is certainly a mixed group, with some glaring inexperience. It also includes some “anti-government” individuals more dedicated to crippling their departments rather than enhancing them, with just as much a disturbing propensity for “making up truths” that Trump evidences. For a campaign directed to “the working people,” the Cabinet seems awash in dollar signs. The CEO community is well-represented; the worker community is conspicuously absent. There are many unknowns as to what to expect from this group. Much will depend on whether they will be left to run freely on their own. A key question is how much Trump – a non-detail and delegate-oriented manager – will give them more specific directions and expectations as to their targeted outcomes, and in what direction he specifies. Trump ran on changing the political and diplomatic status quo; this Team seems aligned with a change agenda. A fresh look at old ideas and programs is always worthwhile to do, but unthoughtful change for its own sake ultimately benefits no one. The next four years will be all about arguing over the specifics of those changes.

It is always dangerous to predict how someone will respond once they find themselves in a powerful government position. I will not do so here, regardless of some very real concerns. Except for “the four scaries” noted above, it seems a futile waste of time and energy to fight battles that have not (yet) presented themselves in substance, especially given a Republican majority Senate set to confirm most nominees pro forma. We can encourage the asking of substantive and revealing confirmation questions, remain vigilant and informed about new policy proposals, be objective and supportive of worthwhile and reasonable changes as they arise, and react responsibly where and when needed.

Meanwhile, you might want to note the following: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004; www.aclu.org. I suspect that our state and federal court systems are going to be very busy during the next four years trying to rebalance an unbalanced political structure. I am sure the ACLU would appreciate your assistance.

*****

OPTION: For some of you interested in reading more details on these nominees, short bios follow.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

State: Rex Tillerson, retiring ExxonMobil CEO. No government experience. No diplomatic experience. Extensive business dealings internationally; has close ties with Russian government. Reportedly holds conservative political views, but not an ideologue.

United Nations Ambassador: Nikki Haley, Governor, South Carolina.  No diplomatic experience. A strong critic of Trump during the primary, especially his call to ban Muslims from the U.S. Indian-American.

Defense: James Mattis, Marine General (Ret.). “A Marine’s marine.” Very thoughtful and well read, slow to push for warfare, but once in goes all in. Independently minded on international issues, not a knee-jerk hawk. Appears highly respected by Pentagon, State Department and Intelligence personnel.

CIA Director: Mike Pompeo, Representative, Kansas. On House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA. Committee investigated Benghazi, "found no new evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration or Clinton"; Pompeo was convinced there was a cover-up. Favors use of torture and surveillance programs.

National Security Adviser: Michael Flynn, Army General (Ret.) Ardent Trump supporter. Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Fired in 2014; began campaign against Washington elite and dangers of radical Islam. Accused of being loose with his facts. Very connected to alt-right movement and conspiracy theorists. Senate approval not required.

Veterans Affairs: no selection yet.

DOMESTIC SECURITY:

Homeland Security: John Kelly (Ret.). Oversaw American military operations in South America and Central America; commanded American forces in Iraq; was aide to defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Attorney General: Jeff Sessions, Senator, Alabama. Early Trump supporter. Will play a critical role regarding civil/voting rights issues, policing, and prison reform. Has been accused of “Old South”-styled past racial comments and insensitivities, opposition to civil rights groups, and is an ardent foe of illegal immigration. Former federal prosecutor; Senate rejected him for federal judgeship in 1980s.

ECONOMIC TEAM:

Treasury: Steven Mnuchin. No government experience. Billionaire. National finance chairman for Trump campaign. Former partner at Goldman Sachs. During 2008 financial crisis, chair of a mortgage company accused of improperly foreclosing on homeowners.

Commerce: Wilbur Ross. No government experience. Private-equity investor with estimated wealth of $2.9 billion. Business niche has been buying troubled companies cheap, restructuring them, and then selling them for billions in profit. Some of those businesses had a poor track record of treatment of workers, particularly with coal companies.

Labor: Andy Puzder. No government experience. Millionaire. Trump supporter. Chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc, operates Carl's Jr. and Hardee's fast-food chains. Critic of government intervention in labor markets and increasing minimum wage.

Agriculture: No selection yet.

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS:

Health and Human Services: Tom Price, Representative, Georgia. Formerly orthopedic surgeon. Leading proponent for repealing the Obamacare, deeply pro-life. Opposes funding for Planned Parenthood, free birth control, and same-sex marriage. Wants to privatize Medicare.

Housing and Urban Development: Ben Carson, pediatric neurosurgeon. No government administrative experience. No experience in housing and urban development. Former Trump rival for nomination. Previously opted out for any cabinet position because he said he was not qualified. Has said "It's not the government's job" to take care of the indigent in our society"; has opposed Obama’s effort to improve housing integration. 

Education: Betsy DeVos, billionaire businesswoman. No government administrative experience. No experience in public education, which neither she nor her children have attended. Extensive nonprofit work in education; big supporter of moving money from public schools to charter, private and parochial schools. High-profile Republican fundraiser.

Interior: Ryan Zinke, Montana Rep. Priorities include increasing coal mining and oil and gas exploration, protecting public lands, providing more resources for American Indian tribes. Raised doubts about climate change as "unsettled science," but said that "something's going on" and an energy strategy including renewable sources such as wind and solar would be prudent.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Energy: Rick Perry, former Governor, Texas. No experience in energy other than governor of “big oil” state. A previous dance contestant on DWTS; his two predecessors were scientists in physics. As 2012 presidential candidate, sought to eliminate Energy Department he will now head (“Oops”). Director, Energy Transfer Partners, developing Dakota Access Pipeline.

Transportation: Elaine Chao. Secretary of Labor under George W. Bush; deputy transportation secretary under George H.W. Bush. Born in Taiwan, married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Little controversy regarding her appointment.

EXECUTIVE STAFF (non-Cabinet level):

Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus, Chairman, Republican National Committee.  Stood by Trump when other party officials criticized him. Experienced with “staff role”; lack of experience running government could limit effectiveness of counsel to inexperienced Trump. Has strong ties to Speaker Ryan and Vice-President Pence. Senate approval not required.

Chief Strategist and Senior Adviser: Steve Bannon. No government experience. CEO of the Trump campaign in later stages. Former Goldman Sachs employee. Former chairman of Breitbart News, far-right-wing website appealing to extreme views such as white supremacy, anti-immigration, and anti-feminism. Has promoted conspiracy theories, his own questionable “facts,” and National Inquirer-style sensationalist headlines. Has vowed to bring down the Republican political establishment. Senate approval not required.

©   2017   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

 

The Fat Lady Has Sung

Donald Trump was not my preference to be the next President of the United States. Nor did I vote for him. I cannot make these two statements strongly enough. I am still trying to get my head around how someone that angry, thin-skinned, disrespectful, and ill-prepared could be elected President after such a divisive and untruthful campaign.

That said, Donald Trump will be my President come January 20th. That decision has been made, because that is how our American democracy works. Candidates present themselves; an election is held; a winner is determined. Sometimes our preference wins; sometimes our preference loses. My track record for results over my adult life is mixed, as should be expected. This time, by rules well-known in advance, my choice between the two major-party candidates lost.

Hillary Clinton was an imperfect campaigner at best, regardless of what kind of president she would have made. Given much of the public’s negative opinion of her – for whatever nonsensical or justifiable reasons – she needed to be the best. Hilary did not lose because of FBI Director James Comey’s atrocious handling of her email investigation concurrently with the campaign. Nor did she lose because of Russian hacking into the DNC and Clinton campaign’s computers, and their interference on behalf of Trump – which clearly happened and is a significant intrusion into our sovereignty demanding a response. Nor did she lose because the Electoral College is an antiquated device that supposedly thwarts the will of the people. (See the 11/30/2016 posting to this blog site – “Defending the Electoral College.”) She lost because the American electorate demanded a substantial change in the status quo. It was a revolt by a powerless middle-class America against being left out and behind a changing global economy and social landscape that has favored a few insiders. A manifestation of years of less-than-20% approval ratings of ineffective Congresses and their self-interested leaders more focused on gaining power for themselves rather than serving the people’s needs. A two-party political system that provides no home and no candidates for the majority political demographic of Independent voters. Hillary was not seen as the needed response to that dissatisfaction.

Early in 2016, in response to questions then being asked about the Trump phenomenon, I said that the real story was not about Trump himself, but about the Trump voter – and why they were so willing to overlook his outrageous (and untruthful) statements and actions. It was a story Clinton never read, lulled into the faith that traditional voters would show up, even though Bernie Sanders showed that story to her within the Democratic Party itself. Clinton, the ultimate and best-prepared policy wonk, had all the papers prepared for a message not enough voters were looking to hear. Papers that she was never able to reduce to simple, comprehensible themes about what she would do to respond to these voters. She was the wrong person at the wrong time, in spite of all her years of commendable public service.

It was a hard loss, yes. And a missed opportunity to show that even the presidency is finally now gender-neutral. But when you are worried about holding onto your job (with few alternatives in view), providing for your family’s well-being and security, and maintaining a way of life you have firmly believed in, then you are able to make some choices that may look questionable on their face (e.g. Evangelical support for a faux-religious Trump). Instead of reaching out to that discouraged and disaffected audience, Clinton wrote them off as racist and deplorables. Some Trump voters no doubt are, just as some Clinton supporters have behaved inexcusably to their fellow Americans. Writing off those Trump supporters was the biggest blunder of her campaign. The “Trump voter” was not only Republican, but also Democrat and Independent. The Democratic base progressively shrunk; Republicans won votes but no new party loyalists.

So Clinton won the votes but lost the country. Trump lost the vote but won the country. He won fairly, even if perhaps not so square, and in spite of his claims that the election was “rigged” – which it most certainly was not. When you lose, you lose. Among America’s many problems, we have been suffering nationally from an inability to accept defeat graciously, whether it is Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, or the passing of Obamacare, or judicial decisions on gay marriage, or continuing wars overseas. We demand our way or not at all; we accept no defeat, but keep fighting rear-guard battles unendingly. As a consequence, we have had few new ideas put forth on our political agenda, and made little progress on many unresolved problems. We are too busy refighting old issues over and over again – a political equivalent of “Groundhog Day.”

It is time to quit litigating and replaying this election, however unhappy one may be. Al Gore had a legitimate basis for challenging the Florida election results in 2000. Jill Stein’s Green Party has wasted millions of good dollars asking for multiple recounts with no reasonable basis for doing so. The Clinton campaign team’s support in those efforts was not helpful, if not unseemly. Ditto the efforts to change the Electoral College vote, which was destined to fail, just as was Ted Cruise’s efforts to undo Trump’s nomination victory after-the fact at the Republican Convention.

It is past time to close the book on this 2016 election, as painful and legitimately frightening as it may feel. Starting on January 21^st, changes of direction and issues of real substance will begin arising very quickly. In some instances, people may be surprised to find some unexpected agreement with these new directions. In other instances, not. I certainly have concerns about where Donald Trump’s character, personality, and thinking may try to take this country. When it is what we may consider a “wrong” direction, he and his Team should be resisted. Not by name-calling, or speculation, or knee-jerk negative responses such as we saw misdirected at Obama for eight years. But rather by arguments of reason that seek accommodation and mutual benefit. Regardless of the side of the aisle on which our beliefs sit, there will be many battles to be fought over our country’s future. Battles with surprising alternating winners and losers on each side. Right now everyone needs to take a holiday break, conserve their energies, prepare to pick high-value battles worthy of fighting, and substantiate their arguments in the ensuing debates.

We can choose once again to divide up and yell at each hunkered down in our separate end zones, or we can try to march upfield and meet one another at the 50-yarrd line and find some mutual accommodation. The choice is up to us. But the election is over. “The fat lady has sung.” It is not about what was or could have been. It is all about what comes next.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Defending The Electoral College

In my book “The Myths of the Founding Fathers and Their Constitution” (www.MckeeLearningFoundation.com) I describe six key issues that those Founders struggled with in pursuit of a new form of government for the United States. Among them were the questions of the basis of representation, and the manner in which power should be shared and distributed. How the power of thirteen individual, unique, and here-to-fore autonomous and equal states should be subsumed to a new central government proved contentious from the outset of the Constitutional Convention. Should representation be based on geographic size, wealth, or population? How should the mighty Commonwealth of Virginia sit next to the small state of Delaware and pretend “fairness” to each other? The wealthy powerhouse states sought recognition of their strength; the small states fought to protect their viability from being overrun and swallowed up. The division over this issue threatened to sabotage the entire Constitutional effort before it barely got underway. Yet the unity of all thirteen was the understood targeted outcome.

In the end, after hours of deliberation, many written drafts, and seemingly unending changes of mind, the conflicting positions were finally reconciled. The result was the creation of two separate bodies within the Congress: a House of Representatives based upon population (a concession to the large states); a Senate based upon equal two votes for each state (a concession to the small states). It was a compromise balancing size with maintaining the integrity of each unique state.

When the discussion subsequently moved to the question of the President, the same issue of “who gets to decide” arose. It was the “big states / little states” yet again, combined with a broad distrust among the convention’s Delegates as to the capability of the general population to make such a critical choice. (It was already presupposed that such capability could only be entrusted to a select subgroup within white adult males.) To get out of this philosophical bind, the Delegates ultimately returned to the solution that they had used to resolve the representation argument regarding the Congress. That is, voters in each state would elect representatives to a similar body, but one with the sole and temporary charge to elect a president. Representation to that electoral body would be equal to each state’s combined representation to the Congress – i.e. two Senators plus their number of apportioned Representatives – a combination of an equal vote yet weighted by population. Those electors would thereby vote on the people’s behalf for the person they felt to be most qualified for President, with a majority rule. Having fulfilled this singular Charge, the electors would then adjourn and go home, their business completed with no subsequent role to potentially complicate their decision. It was a solution the Founders loved – a compromise, with something for everyone.

And thusly was born the Electoral College. A compromise mechanism for: effecting the delicate balance between the powerful versus the weak; confirming majority rule while protecting the important role of the minority; ensuring that a stampede of the masses does not overwhelm the concerns of the few, while conversely preventing the few from unduly blocking the national will. It is an imperfect system because we are an imperfect, diverse country of competing interests and divergent beliefs that we attempt to accommodate, not ignore or defeat.

Given this objective of balance, over the years the Electoral College has worked pretty well for us overall. It failed to choose a winner in 1800 between Jefferson and Burr, and forced the election into the House of Representatives. It failed in 1876 when disputes in three states over the voting results resulted in Hayes defeating Tilden is spite of Hayes losing both the original Electoral College vote AND the popular vote. In the last sixteen years, we have now had two occurrences of the Electoral College winner losing the national popular vote – “a losing-winner.” These two losing-winner elections have raised voices calling for the end of the Electoral College system in favor of one nationwide direct popular vote – such voices perhaps understandably coming from the losing side of the decision. It is a call with which I could not disagree more.

We need to remind ourselves that we are a federal system of governments. A national government that reflects shared values and principles applicable to all Americans, and able to act on their collective behalf. We are also a collection of individual, dissimilar states with little in common, thereby providing opportunities to do some things differently that reflect local needs and more appropriate solutions. The federal government is our commonality; the state governments are our separateness and individuality. Both are good ideals engaged in an always difficult and evolving dance to jointly serve the citizenry.

The reality is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has very little in common with the State of Texas. As Florida has little in common with Idaho. As California has with South Carolina. Meanwhile, Hawaii sits alone in the Pacific no doubt very happy to have its distance from the mainland. These are differences – sometimes extreme ones – of geography, weather, culture, heritage, immigrant background, population, wealth, education, recreation, and natural wonders. Differences not at all unlike those among the original thirteen states that formed this Union, differences as true today as then. Respecting these differences, not steamrolling over them, is the challenge to the federal government vis-à-vis the states.

Actually, the same arguments over power sharing happen within individual state boundaries, among state, county and local governments. Major population centers frequently claim the “weighted right” of population that risks overwhelming their more scattered, rural neighbors. There is sprawling Atlanta and the whole rest of Georgia. Northern and western New York constantly fight to not be overwhelmed by New York City. Northern California and southern California regularly threaten to secede from each other. In North Carolina, we have the rural and coastal economies of the east, the high-tech Triangle and the high-population areas of the Triad in the center, and the Appalachian heritage of the western mountains. Balancing all of these varied needs, goals and perspectives means exercising due diligence while proceeding cautiously. (Clearly, we in North Carolina are not doing this well at all!)

The President is elected to serve all Americans, as varied as we are. The Electoral College ensures that candidates for that office campaign in most, if not all, of America. S/he is obligated to connect with, and be cognizant of, the vast diversity of this nation s/he seeks to lead. One cannot, and should not, just concentrate on the big population states/centers to win an election. A candidate needs to eat county fair food in Iowa, barnstorm the back roads of New Hampshire, conduct town meetings in New Mexico, and fill stadiums in California. That was made imminently clear in this most recent election when rural/small-town voters demanded to be heard, not ignored.

In this high-tech 21^st Century, the Electoral College can seem like an old, unnecessary throwback to an earlier, simpler time. But electorally, we are only slightly different now than in those simpler times. This system was designed from the beginning to remind us of the diverse complexity of our country and its citizenry. We are more than just one aggregate number; we are more than just the loudest voice. Rather, we are many versions of shifting pluralities deeply interconnected to, and dependent upon, each other for our overall well-being. Our political representatives need to understand and navigate among these pluralities to build coalitions for action while also respecting those who stand outside those coalitions. We are all the dairy farmer in Vermont, the factory worker in Michigan, the struggling single parent in Baltimore, the cubicle worker in Silicon Valley, the aging fixed-income grandparent in Oklahoma, the forgotten Native-American on the North Dakota reservation. All of these voices need to be heard and responded to. The value of the Electoral College is not measured by whether our choice wins or loses. Rather, it exists to help ensure that each of our voices matters.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Bodies Alongside The Campaign Highway

Election 2016 has come and gone. Decisions have been made. Winners and losers in each race have been anointed. Over the course of this too-long and nightmarish election season, many casualties were left behind long before November 8^th arrived. Casualties of people, institutions, and concepts. It is important to not forget those who the campaign defamed, and the meaning of their dispatch, for therein lies much for reflection and learning in the coming times.

In the presidential campaign, many people had their reputations and character unduly damaged by the campaign rhetoric and tactics employed, rather than by debates of issues. The field started with 17 Republicans and five Democrats. The Democratic field was quickly winnowed to three, and then two, by the lack of qualifications and substance of three wanna-be’s. What proceeded as genuine debates of ideas went to assaults of personality when the race became competitive. The wounds were lasting when it came time for the general election.

On the Republican side, the large field included several wanna-be’s, several stale old faces trying to reclaim relevance, leaving around half the field with substantive candidacies but of mixed qualifications. They were, each in turn, chewed up and banished to the sidelines not because of their ideas or their potential strengths and weaknesses as a political leader, but by unrelenting assaults on their character, being painted with insulting nicknames, or by simply being outshouted for media attention due to a swirl of outrageous and negative statements that defied a response. Negative statements were directed to vast segments of American society, without apology or defense. All of these actions continued through to the general election, creating an unworkable environment for conducting an effective political discourse. Most all of it came from one source – the eventual winner of the nomination and election. Some good people were left deeply scarred from it all, and the American public learned little about alternatives for their future.

But it was not just candidates for office that were casualties of this campaign. Institutions and their leaders were wounded in the crossfires. The chairperson and staff of the Democratic National Committee was caught “guilty as suspected” of favoritism to one candidate over another, a cardinal sin for people charged with guiding the party nominating process. There is much party rebuilding work to do, but what trustable person is available to lead that process?

While the race among Republican candidates proceeded forward, the Party itself was engaged in virtual civil war. After much emotional handwringing, “What is a Republican / What is a Conservative” emerged as principal unanswered questions – still unanswered as of Election Day. Large numbers of voters turned out in Republican primaries, but were these really “the Republican base,” or a wholly new contingent of voters unwedded to any political party? Republican party leadership, elected Republican officials, conservative political philosophers, special-issue promotors, business leaders, Republican voters, and the Republican presidential winner are all out of sync. Candidates with “Republican” labels won big, which can temporarily mask deep divisions. But the fight for control, direction and identity of the Party is not over and will likely prove to be brutal.

The FBI, having spent years successfully rebuilding its reputation for neutral objectivity versus past periods of excesses, became political fodder with its conduct of the Democratic nominee’s email handling. The Director’s public statements, the unprecedented revealing of evidence and notes from a non-prosecuted case, and acknowledged “leaks” of investigations and negotiations by agents from various field offices, clearly made the agency an inappropriate and significant campaign player – a concern for those who still believe in a nonpartisan legal process. It will take years for the public and the agency to recover from this. Even the Supreme Court became an inadvertent player in this campaign, though not of its own making, as the failure to replace the current vacancy due to political and campaign reasons created an abrogation of the Senate’s Constitutional responsibility. The entire federal court system was forced to be drawn heavily into the election process just to deal with all of the voter’s rights / voter suppression cases brought before it. Even our vaunted military institution, which has performed admirably for the past 25 years, took a big hit by unconscionable criticisms of our military leaders, the strategies for defending our country, and veterans and POWs.

The national media once again was a major player in the voting outcome. The most blatant example was its handling of the early Republican primary debates by unilaterally deciding who was a valid candidate and who was not, leading to a “kid’s table / 2^nd tier” debate group. There may have been candidates who did not deserve much attention, but that is for the voters to decide from a level playing field that gives exposure to all. Decisions about who to give air time to, which issues to over- / under-focus on, who to give how much air time, chasing the sensationalized headlines of the most outrageous comments, and the incessant drumbeat of poll standings which reduced the campaign to seemingly a running score of a sporting event, seemed very poorly made. “The national media” is an easy campaign target, and often an intended distraction from poor campaigning, but at times it is a target well deserved.

Then there were the “values” casualties. Truth probably took the biggest hit. We are used to the normal suspension of reality for campaign rhetoric – out of context TV ads, sound bites over substance, painting the opposition’s bad character as formed by his/her supposed misdeeds. This campaign took mistruth to a whole new level through inventing “facts” out of completely thin air, drawing from unproven conspiracy theories, and using the fantasies of the National Inquirer as research material. In turn, debates –the give and take of ideas to arrive at better conclusions – disappeared, replaced by a series of televised insults and noise-making, won not by the strength of intelligent argument but by who succeeded more in talking over the other. Values of interpersonal respect evaporated in “a basket of deplorables,” social media fights with Gold Star parents and a beauty contest winner, and audio tapes made on a bus ride. Integrity fled when violence to candidates and voters was encouraged while taking no responsibility for frightening outcomes – both real and potential. Unproven accusations of dishonesty (“Lying Ted,” “Lock her up”) and non-impartial federal judges insulted our dearly-held principles of justice.  Respect for America itself was defaced when voting itself, and the elected outcomes, were cast in suspicion as “rigged systems” and probable cesspools of “voter fraud” – accusations which quickly disappeared when the accuser won! (These accusations often put Republican voting officials in the awkward position of defending their voting systems as “safe, secure and sound” after spending several years, and much time and money, on Voter ID Card proposals because supposedly our election systems were so rife with potential abuse!)

Before we get on with the necessary job of planning for governance, why is this recapping of the litany of campaign horrors needed? We were all there. We lived through it all. We saw it all go down, albeit perhaps through very different eyes and interpretations. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we also acknowledge that many of We the Voters did not perform very nobly either, descending into the profanity and violence of character modeled by too many of the candidates. Therefore we recap these events not to emotionally dwell on the past, or to relive our personal disappointment or elation.  Rather, we do so to remind ourselves how bad this campaign really was, involving so many players – both principals and sidelineders, and ourselves. How much this embarrassment cost this country, financially and emotionally, as well as in our principles of character. How the image of the world’s leading aspirational democratic country, the in fact leader of the globe’s developed nations (a leadership now called into question by much of the world), descended into a 3^rd-world image of the democratic process. We recap these events to energize ourselves to never let this form and degree of negative experience happen again regardless of our political opinions and preferred directions.

I have many concerns, if not fears, about where our country will be driven over the next four years. One of those concerns is that there are many aspiring politicians out there right now thinking about running for office in the future. “How to win” is one of the things they are thinking hard about, perhaps more than they are thinking about their positions or about actually serving the public. Will they conclude that 2016 is now the model for how one runs a campaign, how one wins an election in America? A model not based on our best American Character of optimism, respect and good will but of negativism and division.  Is what we just saw to be the “new normal” for us? We passed up the opportunity to say “No” to this form of campaigning in 2016 by in fact endorsing it. How will we – Republican, Democrat, Independent of all differing political views – stop it from coming back around again in 2018/2020? Sometimes, the past is our future. We have unleashed a Pandora’s box of electoral demons. Whether we can return those demons to their container is highly questionable. It will be for all of us to decide.

©   2016   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Sanctity Of The Vote

Voting. It is one of the remarkably small number of things (like jury duty) that we are asked to do in order to enjoy the many benefits of U.S. citizenship. Voting is a pretty painless obligation, one of government’s more well-performed functions. It is a shame that one of our presidential candidates is unjustifiably seeking to undermine the sanctity of this most basic pillar of democratic government. When confidence in the value and meaning of one’s vote is shaken, it leaves the resulting government open to questions of legitimacy. Too many of those questions can, in turn, lead to Constitutional collapse. Trifling with that confidence for one’s personal political advantage stands on treacherous ground.

America’s commitment to voting has been absolute and resolute. As with anything, there will always be some margin of unintended error, errors that, in the end, likely do not change the overwhelming outcome. That said, getting to the voting booth has been under attack for some years now. It is an attack fueled by a push to try to make voting rules inherently favor a particular candidate or political party. We have pushed for voter IDs to solve a voter ID problem that is acknowledged to be virtually non-existent, with “approved ID cards” slanted to particular groups. We have adopted more restrictive rules for registering to vote. We have cut back on the hours, days, number of locations for early voting, and their proximity to their neighborhood voters. This is happening at the very time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage people to vote. Many of these maneuvers are winding up in court, mostly being overturned, but at a significant cost of time, energy, money, and endless confusion.

The Candidate claims – with no proof offered – that the election is “rigged.” Against him, of course. But if there is any rigging going on, it is We the People who are doing the rigging to ourselves. We do it by not voting, and by accepting questionable new voting rules. A few examples may illustrate this.

In the 2008 presidential election, roughly 230M people were eligible to vote. Only around 130M did – a 57% turnout. In 2012, 235M were eligible, but again only around 130M did – a 55% turnout. We claim to be the shining example and promotor of democracy around the world – government by Law rather than by person – and almost half of our citizens do not show up when needed. Many of these no-shows will nevertheless be happy to subsequently complain about government services and decisions, write insulting postings in social media, all while staying minimally informed about issues of the day. That sideline seat is far too comfortable to hide on.

In 2015, Kentucky held an election for governor. Up-and-comer Democrat Jack Conway was far and away the polling favorite over Tea Party Republican Mast Bevin. To everyone’s great surprise, Mr. Bevin won with 52.5% of the votes cast. Why? Because only 30% of Kentucky’s eligible voters showed up for this off-year election. Put another way … in a country founded on “the majority wins,” all Mr. Bevin needed in order to win was to take just 15.1% of the eligible voters in his state – i.e. 50.1% of the small (30%) turnout. It was the same strategy Donald Trump used to vanquish his 16 other Republican primary competitors: split the field and get a simple plurality of the only 20+% of America’s voters who are registered as Republicans. (In the early going of the primary, Trump rarely got more than 30% of the votes, versus 70% to other candidates.) Today, to lead the pack, to win the vote, you do not need a majority of the citizens. You only need one more vote than anyone else from the reduced numbers of people who enter the polling booth. It is a very different way of strategizing a political campaign.

Take another example. In June, North Carolina had to hold a special primary election solely for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. This was necessary due to a federal court ruling overturning the Legislature’s redistricting plan. In that election, less than 10% of voters in my county turned out to vote, with a similar pattern in other counties. The resulting vote was so small, so close, that it generated more indecision. Yet another round of candidate protests had to be resolved in order to finally bring that election to conclusion.

Speaking of legislative redistricting raises the discussion of gerrymandering – drawing congressional and legislative districts is such a way as to deliberately tilt future elections to a particular party or group. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a “1 man / 1 vote” (now “1 person / 1 vote”!) basis for drawing electoral districts, requiring that all districts should have roughly equal populations. In 2016, the Court rejected a suit by conservative Republicans in Texas who argued that the “equal count” should rather be based upon the number of “eligible voters,” which (just coincidentally, of course) would thereby favor smaller, rural (i.e. more conservative – read Republican) communities over large, urban areas. The Court instead reaffirmed that the comparative count for redistricting will continue to be based upon the TOTAL population of would-be districts. End of this attempted subterfuge. For now.

Other than this rule mandated by the Court, the criteria for creating districts are vague, if not non-existent. When gerrymandering comes into play, things can go haywire to substantively defeat the people’s will. For example, North Carolina’s Congressional districts look like an abstract Picasso painting superimposed over a state map. District lines weave in and out and around population centers, and inexplicably snake their way into narrow tributaries of individual streets and neighborhoods. The result is not comic relief, but profound impact. In the 2014 Congressional election, Republican candidates received 1,555,364 combined votes (56%); Democratic candidates received  1,234,027 combined votes (44%). Yet due to gerrymandered districts, Republicans won 10 Congressional seats (77%); Democrats won 3 (23%). So much for the “will of the people.”

Voting is the one process that reaffirms what democracy is: governance by the People. When we forgo our responsibility to speak up – not in social media or conversations among friends, but at the ballot box – we hurt both our neighbors and ourselves. When we play with the voting rules and processes, we turn the democratic process into just another political game of sport. We rig the voting process against ourselves by accepting phony excuses that disguise anti-voting maneuvers – just as my southern ancestors did for a hundred years after the Civil War. We rig it against ourselves by fighting about personalities instead of exploring and debating ideas. Going to the polling place may not be as fun and quick as sending out an ill-thought Tweet, but it has a lot more tangible impact than those 140 characters ever will. We need to reject institutional voter rigging as odious to our democracy. Vote. Our country needs our civic service.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Perspective On Sexual Assault

“If you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, like you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position." —Donald Trump, Jr., 2013, in radio interview discussing his view of women who make charges of sexual harassment.

The roll call begins. At the last Presidential debate, Donald Trump said that the audio recording of him on the bus was “just locker room talk.” When Andersen Cooper asked Trump whether he had actually done the things (i.e. assault) he had talked about, Trump replied, “No, I did not.” We knew instantly that that “No” would spell the death knell for his campaign because, given Trump’s virtual dare, victims would begin coming out one after another. It only took three days to start. It is the sound of the final shoes dropping. Yet as this depressing political campaign descends even further from the gutter into the lowest sewer, it is important to keep something in perspective.

Joe Scarborough (“Morning Joe”) cautioned everyone to keep a reasonable skepticism about the victims’ stories. Not regarding their content, but about their timing. After a year and a half of campaigning, he asked, why are these women just coming out now, 30 days before the election? That might be a question many men might ask, but very few women would. And the answer is no evil doings or grand political conspiracy. It is far more basic than that.

We need to put ourselves in these women’s place. You are a young, single female out on her own, perhaps for the first time in your life. Probably fresh at the beginnings of your career. In an isolated, unguarded moment, some famous, powerful man makes a move on you against your will. It is probably for only a short moment. But it leaves you shaking, embarrassed, confused, and fearful that your personal vulnerability has been irrevocably exposed. But who do you tell? Who is going to believe the “little nobody” against the word of the famous, powerful one? You have no proof. He has an army of defenders (and protectors) at his disposal. Who is going to believe you? You have seen the attacks and public humiliation that other women have gone through, innocent or otherwise. So you just bury it, and hide it, and keep quiet. For years, even. Because you assume it happened just to you. But you never forget it.

Then, all of a sudden, the dam burst. Some woman not so powerless spoke up. She got heard and she got results. Finally, you are not alone anymore. Then the famous man in question was unexpectedly caught bragging that he does these things, but now he denies actually doing them. Suddenly your believability goes up; maybe now people may listen to you. His lies are just another form of a renewed assault on you. So you set aside all the hurt, all the buried and numbed feelings, and muster up your courage to finally tell your story. To finally release the demons that have long haunted you.

Certainly these accusations should be investigated thoroughly and fairly. But we should not politicize these events, regardless of our political party affiliation or candidate choice. Will there be some fakers in the midst of these courageous women? Likely, but probably only a few. The ones who have come forth, and the ones inevitably still to come, did not control this timing. Donald Trump’s arrogance ultimately caused this timing and opened the door for them. Telling these stories requires great personal courage, however tentative one may feel; witness the very personal attacks against them that have already begun. As adults, we men rarely have encounters of being sexually assaulted. We rarely even think about the possibility of it, and find it hard to relate to a possibility women think about, and have to guard against, continually. So it requires us to have to make a deliberate effort to understand and relate to these terrible scenarios and their outcomes. I suggest we make that effort. Now.

©   2016   Randy Bell               www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

The 7-No-Trump Bid

In the card game of Bridge, “7-No-Trump” is considered the ultimate bid. In the current presidential campaign, we need to make that same ultimate bid: 7 NO Trump to Donald Trump.

1-NO-Trump: Lack of Preparation. Donald Trump has spent ZERO time in public service preparing to be President. No military, no social service, no political experience to prepare himself to take on the ultimate public service job. He claims that his business CEO experience qualifies him to be a government leader. But government leadership is a totally different profession than being a real estate developer. To aspire to suddenly be President with no transitory preparatory step is too big a learning curve in too critical a position. Would I choose to go to a surgeon who had just decided to switch over from being an insurance salesman, but who couldn’t be bothered going to medical school or serving a hospital residency?

2-NO-Trump: Living in a Bubble. Donald Trump has spent his entire adult life as CEO of some form of a private, closely held family business. Trump has never worked for another as a salaried employee. Never known the pressure of being accountable to someone else judging his job performance and employment. It has always been his show to do as he pleases. Living in this insulated bubble for 70 years, his instincts know nothing else. He cannot possibly have any real understanding of what it means to be an “average Joe/Josephine,” living paycheck to paycheck, having your house foreclosed, being unemployed for a length of time, trying to ensure that your children have better opportunities than you did. The continual stream of insensitive statements Trump makes about people demonstrates this myopia and shallowness of his professed concern for others. If Mitt Romney dug himself a hole for not being able to truly relate to the average man/woman, Donald Trump has dug himself a Grand Canyon.

3-NO-Trump: The Fake Businessman. Donald Trump’s claim for qualifications is his supposed business success and acumen. But it is all a façade. Like any good flim-flam man – think P.T. Barnum, the Wizard of Oz, and Bernie Madoff – it is all about duping desperate wannabes into believing your (fake) aura of success, so they will willingly hand over to you their legitimately-earned money. When the hollow promises inevitably fail, you walk away unscathed with their money; they walk away holding your empty bag. The man who promises to rebuild our economy has left a trail of bankruptcies in his wake. The man who will bring back jobs to America has his products imported from overseas factories. The man who would “help out the little guy” built his fortune stiffing small contractors by non-payment, and overpowering them by threats to sue from his legion of lawyers. The man who promised hope to financially desperate people took their tuition money for an unaccredited and content-empty “Trump University”; they walked away with no education and no real business insights, dreams of their financial future in ruins. Even his phony “Trump Foundation” received no donations from Trump, but willingly (and illegally) spent its money on his personal expenses. The “business genius” who lost almost a billion dollars in his personal business (versus corporate) has run the most amateurish political campaign seen in recent memory, belying any claim to organizational competency.

4-NO-Trump: The Insulting Bully. The President of the United States is the most criticized person in the country, if not the world. It comes daily from across the political spectrum, a no-win / dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. Donald Trump has shown no ability to handle criticism of any sort, large or small, on any topic. There is more concern about being the center of attention than reconciling or creating effective change. There is no “discussion” with Trump; all disagreement is personal. The mildest criticism is deemed “vicious,” requiring extreme and unending retaliation (e.g. Rosie O’Donnell; Gold Star mother; John McCain POW; Federal judge of Mexican ancestry.) If you disagree with Trump, he brands you “a loser,” your track record is “a disaster,” your company “a failure.” Then it gets personal with insults: “Lying Ted,” “Low-energy Jeb,” Crooked Hillary,” “Look at that face Carly.” There are few groups left in America that Trump has not insulted in one way or another: women; Mexican/Latinos; African-Americans; Muslims; veterans; Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Republican Party and its leadership; virtually the entire federal government workforce. All people with whom he would need to work as President. There is a never a debate about the substance of the disagreement, never an apology nor an admission of error. Just insults hurled towards the disagreer. Make no mistake: what we see in the campaign is what we will see in the White House for four years. No change.

5-NO-Trump: Propaganda and Alternate Reality. Trump has no core, thought-through ideas of substance that he can articulate beyond the headline or catchy phrase, so his “positions” turn on a whim from one day to the next. There are no actual plans to solve our problems – unless they are plagiarized from other politicians: a “secret plan” for defeating ISIS (Richard Nixon); “Peace from Strength” on foreign affairs (Ronald Regan); the “Law and Order President” (George Wallace). Like demagogues before him, Trump has learned well the art of rhetorical propaganda. Say anything outrageous, it will get you noticed. Say it loudly and frequently enough, it begins to sound like “truth” – even though it isn’t. “They are all rapists and murderers.” “No Muslims allowed into America.” “I know more about ISIS than the generals [because I went to a military boarding school].” “African-Americans are all living in ghetto hell.” “Muslims in New Jersey cheered on 9-11.” The list is endless. Next step: deny ever having said those things. Or raise an false, unsupported issue but immediately claim someone else (e.g. National Inquirer) said it, not you. Find a convenient villain to blame our problems on (e.g. Mexicans, Muslims). Never take personal responsibility, but blame your mistakes on some paranoid, non-existent “conspiracy” or “rigged system.” And if all that fails, just fabricate a story out of thin air and the truth be damned. It is the classic “big lie” built on top of a mountain of other “big lies.” “Trust me” and “I am the only one who can fix this” are not real strategies for change.

6-NO-Trump: The Bull in the World’s China Shop. The world is in a very dangerous and precarious state right now. It is unsteady, skittish, violent, and can turn on the simplest misunderstanding. Each nation is a sovereign entity that cannot be told what to do (a reality that escapes too many U.S. politicians). Yet we are all interdependent among each other militarily, economically, and socially. America is still the place many look to for real leadership and problem-solving, even as they resist subservience to us. So cautious and patient diplomacy, and careful nuance of words, matter greatly. Donald Trump has shown no understanding of world history, no skills at diplomacy and nuance. International relations and agreements are not “deals” negotiated from the “I win/you lose” perspective that characterizes Trump business dealings. Much of the free world is anxiously in fear of a Trump presidency, who appears oblivious to those concerns. The triggers on our nuclear weapons need a calm and thoughtful commander; Trump has demonstrated neither calmness nor thoughtfulness.

7-NO-Trump: Understanding the Presidency. The Presidency is not just a functional position, sending out orders and making policy decisions. It is also the embodiment of the American Character. The President comforts us when our nation is hurting; lives the values our parents taught us as children; steadies us in crises;  brings us together when we seem to be pulling ourselves apart. We have been fortunate to have had a number of presidents with such abilities, even though we may have differed on agenda. Can you really imagine Donald Trump standing in the well of the AME church in Charleston – or any of the multitudes of similar places of grief that now occur so regularly? Or standing at the podium of the United Nations with no knowledge of the individual histories and concerns of those countries? Or bringing together aggrieved community groups after he has run a campaign built upon division and fueled by hatred towards each other? Or building a climate of sharing after demonstrating a lifetime of self-centeredness and self-promotion? Sitting in the most challenging and powerful chair in the world also requires the humility of knowing your own limitations to keep one in balance. That requisite humility has not been seen in Donald Trump. Yet one’s arrogance inevitably catches up with each of us.

The real story is not about Trump himself, but about the voters who are supporting him. Trump is a caricature riding a wave of discontented voters angry about an America moving away from their experience and expectations; angry at the ineffectiveness of government in protecting them; angry at the Republican Party for not delivering on promises made. They deserve to have their concerns acknowledged and addressed. So the single good thing Trump has contributed to this election is to expose self-serving political hypocrisy and give voice to this national frustration. But history says that the messenger is rarely also the fixer. Paul Revere alerted Americans of the British threat; but George Washington was needed to defeat them. Donald Trump may seem the voice of change, but is he, and his style and ideas, the change we want?

America has always turned away from “doom and gloom” apocalyptic candidates, because we are a confident and optimistic people. Leadership ultimately comes down to the character and humanity of the person, and Trump is simply not someone to admire as a person. Trump’s “can do” is a fakery, because it is all driven by the glorification of Trump, not the America people. I have no idea what in Trump’s background caused him to be so insecure and angry. But he epitomizes the full opposite of what parents have been trying very hard to raise their children to become. Donald Trump is simply not a nice human being, concerned about and respectful of others. He is not someone I would invite into my home, or want within miles of my family. He is not someone to look up to and admire, as we expect with our presidents. My children and grandchildren deserve better than this. We all deserve better than this. At a certain point, we have to trust our gut instincts. The 7-NO-Trump bid rejects Donald Trump hands down.

©   2016   Randy Bell             www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com