July 2016 Archives

Dear America,

The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are clear, but the choices for vice-president manifest the differences between the presidential candidates as both people and as politicians.  Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana.  Pence is an evangelical positivist who believes that he knows what God thinks and wants, and because he has such faith in his afflatus, he also believes that he has the right to shove it down the throats of all Americans...freedom of religion be damned.  But despite his ardor on the subject of morality, despite his political ambition and eagerness--I suspect that he views this nomination as a gateway into the national political pantheon and hence to the White House in eight years--he looked more like a lapdog than a vice president throughout the Republican convention.  He was so obviously Trump's sycophant, supplicant and minion that it was embarrassing to watch, even for someone like me who dislikes Pence for his unctuous piety so intensely.  I felt humiliated for him, albeit he seemed to be right where he wanted to be.  Then there was the announcement by Hillary Clinton of her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, and what thunder Trump and his children were able to create was rendered moot.

I must admit that I have some doubt about Mr. Kaine's progressive credentials.  I don't know much about him yet, but apparently he favored the TPP--the trans-pacific trade pact that President Obama favors, but that has become an albatross around the neck of anyone who endorses it now--and deregulation of the banks, which as everyone now knows need more regulation, not less.  But overall, he is progressive with regard to social policy and circumspect relative to foreign policy.  He shares the now common commitment to avoiding the Bush era "nation building" tendency to look for wars to fight in the name of values that we cherish, but that are not universally accepted.  As to American exceptionalism, that notion doesn't seem to have tainted his thinking about the position of the United States in international affairs the way it has the likes of Newt Gingrich and the other Tea Party favorites.  But even with a few chinks in his liberal armor, he still makes Mike Pence look downright pathetic.

Kaine gave his speech after being selected by Clinton in both Spanish...fluent Spanish...and English.  And while the trademark of both Pence and Trump is the ad hominem attack, Kaine stayed away from personal criticism of opposition candidates in favor of statements on, and contrasts between, the policies and preferences of the two primary camps in this election: liberals and conservatives.  And since there seems to be no place for anyone to stand in the middle this time, this election will turn on which pole attracts the most independents, and that means that the  arguments that are acceptable to the majority of independents will prevail as long as they are cogently made and are made in an appealing fashion.   And if for no other reason than that, Kaine's energy and intellect will contrast with Pence's claim that God is on his side, and will likely be the edge by which Hillary Clinton wins in November.  Kaine single-handedly stole the Republicans' ostensible thunder, which was manufactured by putting the well dressed and attractive scions of a boorish pontificator on a pedestal in an attempt to dilute the impact of the odious crassness of the man who gave them life.  Donald Trump, while managing to arouse the crowd with his own self-exaltation, demonstrated that he isn't made of presidential timber, and his utter lack of substance was like a banner waving above his head as he made his conclusory statements about what he will do as president without ever saying how other than with his now patented phrase, "believe me," as if anyone with all his wits would do so.

So here's where we stand.  On the Democratic ticket there are two intelligent politicians with experience in government, and thus, a knowledge of how governance works.  On the Republican ticket we have a blatherskite and a religious true-believer, neither of whom has any sense of what needs to be done in this country, and certainly no conception of how difficult it is going to be, whether you believe Donald Trump or not.  The election is in the hands of those Americans who are not bound to party or philosophy, and my bet is that they can tell the difference between amateur demagogues and thinkers.  The real question for them to ask themselves isn't whether they are more liberal or conservative.  The real question is, will they elect competence and reason over blind faith and conceit.  In other words, we, America, will decide in November whether we believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny or real human beings.

As I always say, on election day, the American people always get what they deserve.  Let's hope that the majority of us choose reality over myth, and that we deserve something better than the wishful thinking of the playground bully and his side kick.

Your friend,

Mike

Dear America,

The Republicans are like a dog with a bone.  They have been harping on Hillary Clinton's emails and the Benghazi murder of American diplomatic staff for years now, and they have yet to find anything about which anyone cares more than they would if she had scratched her nose without saying "may I."  And while hunting their purported witch, they have revealed themselves to be what they are.  They are Republican shills and political operatives--perhaps I should say operators--with the most self-serving of motives: Republican hegemony.  You can't even say that they are ideologues,  If they were ideologues, we could at least say of them that they are fighting for a cause, but they aren't.  What have you ever heard that Trey Gaudy or Jason Chaffetz stands for?  I've never heard either one of the articulate a policy principle for their inquisitions, and Gaudy in particular seems to go from persecution to persecution without interruption.  At a trial, when an attorney asks a question that is meant to make a point rather than elicit an answer, the apt objection from opposing counsel is "irrelevant," or "immaterial."  Irrelevant means, the question is not designed to elicit testimony that relates to the issues at hand, and immaterial means that the question, even if relevant, doesn't make one iota of difference with regard to the issues.  So, if an attorney asks a witness where he was born, unless he can show why that information is significant in the case in some way, it is immaterial at least, and perhaps irrelevant as well.   So when Trey Gaudy assumes his ex-prosecutor's demeanor and asks a question as if to say, "Aha.  What about this," what remains is the question, why does it matter, and he never seems to get to addressing that.  Chaffetz, on the other hand, is just a moralizing, overly pious critic who will take exception to anything that any Democrat...Hillary Clinton in particular...does.  And what is the result of this extended game of "Gotcha?"  Trump.

I believe that the American people, even the Republicans, are sick of the game that the Republicans play.  And while the gerrymandered majority would rather have a Republican playing it than a Democrat, they really would prefer neither.  That's where Trump comes in.  Sure he is a Republican, but that is just a matter of convenience.  Being a member of the party gives him access to their slot on the ballot in November, but he has already said openly that he doesn't feel that he needs the party mechanism, nor does he care whether those who operate it are on his side.  And by the way, that's how Bernie Sanders got so close to being nominated for the Democrats.  He essentially disavowed the party in its then-current state and went about publishing his own vision of what the party should be.  But Bernie's problem was that too many people thought he was unelectable, and there was only one other choice: Hillary Clinton.  He didn't get quite enough of a chance to gain the necessary momentum  Trump, on the other hand, had competition from fourteen others, and they diluted the opposition to Trump's outlandish xenophobia and closet support for the plutocracy...and to cap all that off, the Republicans had nothing to lose in the presidential election.  They already have congress, so they have de facto control of our national government;  nothing to lose but they can gain the elimination of the only check on their power: the presidency.  The Democrats however have only one thing protecting them from rampant conservatism, and that is the presidential veto.  They lose that and they've lost everything.  So, when it came to preserving that buffer against the new gilded positivism that the Republicans want to foist on the rest of us, it seemed risky to put Bernie up against them in the presidential sweepstakes.  Thus, Hillary.  Thus, Hillary vs. The Donald.  It's like a game of Russian roulette...with two bullets.

I still have faint hope that the "stop Trump" movement will succeed.  I don't want a Republican president, but I'm afraid of a Trump presidency...like tens of millions of others.  I also have hope that at the Democratic convention, Hillary will conclude that the Republicans have sufficiently defamed her that the best thing she can do for the Democratic Party is to withdraw and let Bernie, who leads Trump substantially in every poll, don the mantle of nominee.  But let's face it.  Neither prospect is any more likely than meteors striking both convention halls and wiping out all of the pols, who are really the problem in the first place.

Since the play "Hamilton" gained so much attention for the eponymous "founding father," he has ascended into the pantheon of popular heroes, but no one seems willing to do any research on who he really was.  Just read "The Federalist Papers."  In number 63 in particular, Hamilton touts the bicameral nature of the proposed federal legislature for the fact that there would be a rambunctious House of Representatives, sure, but there would also be a Senate, which in his version of the government would be chosen from among the elite, not elected.  Hamilton seemed like a democrat, but in reality, he was as much an oligarch as...well, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  He too believed that grayer--and that translates to "richer"--heads should prevail...and more importantly, control.  That's what we have now, and assuming that there will never be a President Bernie, that's what we  will still have after November 1, 2016.

Your friend,

Mike