Sunday Musing July 9 2017

Whoa, there was a lot to think about in today's NYT op-ed section.  I will have to email RedStateVT one of them because I don't think he reads this blog anymore and I know he is not blogging anymore. It is a piece on what has become of conservatism written by a Conservative.  I found it fascinating for its insight into what is necessary to win elections and have sufficient support to enact policies.  Trump won the election but didn't campaign on the GOP policies that they want to enact and now they cannot implement them because democracy does work, albeit in a very messy manner.  In this author's mind one problem the GOP has is that they won the tax issue in the 1980's and cutting services further undercuts this issue for the GOP today.  So he thinks Conservatives need to find a positive message to unify around.

I don't take a great deal of comfort in that so I will go to my Indivisible Meeting today.

Link to "Can Conservatives Find Their Way"

I would like to point out that Democrat's need to find that positive message as well.  Donald Trump won the election because he gave a sufficient number of voters in a sufficient number of states hope.

This is exacerbated by the rise of Consumerism which has a distasteful side effect of something I know RedStateVT and I agree on.  The rise of the Kardashian culture.  A fashion columnist  highlights the similarity between consumerism and politics today.  Trump mastered that.

Link to Politics as a Consumer Decision

And finally a writer discusses the interaction of class and racial identity when it comes to personal decisions and certain realities that are confused in the political discussion as well as in the lowest personal level of navigating society.

Link to "Who Do We Think of as Poor"

This author has some fascinating facts that the GOP needs to ponder as they develop policies for their rural voters

"It’s tempting to say I thought anyone who worked couldn’t be poor. That’s naïve. Real wages for the two-thirds of Americans without a four-year degree have dropped since 1979, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile the cost of a degree has roughly doubled over the past three decades. Today, half of American jobs pay about $37,000 or less each year, a quarter pay about $23,000 or less, and a family of four qualifies for SNAP at $32,000 or less. No wonder just over half of all SNAP families work, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. In America, “real” poverty is not about a lack of work, but a lack of compensation."

"It’s also tempting to say I balked at food stamps because of the culture in which I was raised: rural, white and working class, in a state that went to Donald Trump. Most poor families I knew as a kid avoided food stamps; they believed in bootstraps, not getting help. But to say this was only about independence is to claim an innocence I didn’t entirely possess."

"The truth is there was a shameful idea woven into my conceit of self-reliance, something so ingrained in American culture I’d never thought to say it out loud: I didn’t really think I was supposed to get food stamps because I was white."

"Having an implicit belief that poverty didn’t really happen to white people did me more harm than good, and nearly prevented me from seeking help I needed. It also ignored reality. While it’s true that blacks and latinos disproportionately live in poverty, if you analyze who gets food stamps, they are most likely to be white."

The author goes on to highlight "that urban poverty is dominated by people of color while rural poverty is dominated by white people."  But most people in the media who cover poverty are urban and college educated.  This skews their coverage in certain ways that focus the poverty issue as a problem of color and while I know the Democrats don't see it that way, it has an effect on voters.

"Covering poverty as if it is predominantly a black issue is a problem. It’s a problem because it can suggest that black suffering is a natural fact rather than a manufactured problem we should correct. It’s a problem because it fosters resentment against communities of color from economically struggling whites, who have some reason to feel their hardship is played down. And this all creates a political problem: the obliteration of the common ground that being poor can help illuminate across racial lines."

Politics is a bloody complicated process as every voter has a different mix of issues that will drive their voting decision.  It is the politician's and political parties task to discern which mix of issues will gain them sufficient support to govern and implement policies.  I believe this is something that both the Democrats and Republicans have lost sight of and that is why we have a President Trump.  The Electoral College matters and Congress matters.  

As much as I hate to say it because the Electoral College gave us both Bush II and Trump, the founder father's of this country really believed in the power of collective majorities made up of individuals and that is what they empowered in the Electoral College and Congress.

Lots to think about in today's paper.

P.S.  Somewhere in the last few days I read an article on Legislative District Reform.  It basically promoted the idea that a certain number of Legislators be elected on a wider basis than the gerrymandered districts that promote partisanship.  In many states that would force certain politicians to focus on the middle of the political spectrum more than they do now.  The article has a path to create this process, but I don't recall it.  Since what I am really feeling sorry about in all these articles today is the decline in the class of professional politicians who focus on the middle, I think this idea might have merit.

Sunday Musings June 25, 2017

I only have half my paper, the part that came on Saturday, for some reason.  There was no delivery today when I went down at 8:00 a.m.  But the Book Review comes on Saturday and I have read it unusually early.

A historical book about the science of understanding human gestation (how sex works to produce future generations of a species) was reviewed.  I had never really thought about it, but the actual science of baby creation was not understood until 1875 when a German scientist studied sea urchin creation under his new improved microscope.  This late development was not the result of people not trying to understand this science in earlier times.  They did try but there was not a sufficient base of knowledge for even Leonardo da Vinci to know what truth was.  Technology had to reach a certain point of development for the science to be revealed.

The reason I am writing about this is because 100 years after this was initially discovered, I graduated from college.  While I was not a biology major, I did take the science of human gestation for granted and 42 years late, I am surprised that it was not known earlier in time.

So for literally thousands of years, humans had no understanding of where we come from.  But the human mind, while curious, also wants certainty.  So it is not surprising that religion was believed in because it provided answers to uncertainty.  And Lord knows if there is one ever present condition in this world for humans, who are not filthy rich, it is the presence of uncertainty in their lives.  The possible sources of uncertainty are numerous for everyone ranging from lack of knowledge, to capitalism, to disease, to accidents, to aging, to political policies of all kinds.

Democrats need to remember that religion plays a role in helping people deal with this uncertainty of the human condition.  Religion is deserving of respect.   While religion is also the source of trying to hold back society in various ways including the uncovering of science, that is only because religion can be a political organization.  It is those politics that must be opposed when they are wrong, but religious belief is such a basic part of the human framework, that opposing belief in religion cannot be part of a political platform.  That will turn off too many voters and you will not win elections.  And then you end up with the policies of Donald Trump and the GOP.

This is something the Green Party of the United States needs to contemplate very carefully.  Their candidates have given us both George Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 as our Presidents.  That has not been good for the long term condition of the environment.  Nor has it been good for economic development.

I am going to see if the rest of paper has been delivered.

Well it was and Maureen Dowd, who I usually find tiring to read, really nailed the Democrats with thoughts like I have.  You have got to be for something with the 1st words out of your mouth or you won't get Trump voters to switch.  They are not responding to "Trump is Awful & you are awful if you vote for him".

Link to "Donald Skunks the Democrats"

And Ross Douthat outlines the good within TrumpCare and the reason the bad overwhelms the good.

Link to Douthat column

And a person within the Health Insurance Industry describes the reality of it.  This was a really good read.

Link to "Get Cancer Now Before it Makes You Uninsurable"

Purity vs Irony

That seems better than Purism vs Ironism.

Anyway, David Brooks study of philosophy has finally found a path back to reality.  It is a bit funny that he published his column today as RSL has gotten politically active (beyond voting) and I went to an ACLU teach in event on practical ways to be involved.  At the end, many people bolted and a few stayed on to talk, as well was partake in the wine and vittles the host had provided.  As anyone who knows me, wine and munchies are all I need to be the last one at a party.

The discussion meandered around, but I finally got to make my point that Democrats need to find ways to back off on social issues, and I specifically mentioned the issue of baking cakes for a gay wedding.  We went quickly to the difficult issue of how is religious discrimination against gays different from white discrimination against blacks.  At one level, I agree it is not.  Thankfully, the sponsor, who is am attorney, made a coherent case that constitutionally protection of religious belief is on an equal footing with an individual's right to buy something from someone.  And if the latter person has alternative places to make their purchase, they have not been harmed.  What makes this situation different from racism is that is conducted on an individual level and not at a societal/legality  level.

In fact, I can now see the logic why Orthodox Religious people feel their religion is not being respected and I certainly understand why they would vote that issue over any economic issue that caused them harm.  If a Democrat wants some of their votes, the discussion must be moved off of religion.

If Democrat's wants to win in a district where a significant number of voters are religious (which is a significant part of the country), they have to acknowledge that once social issues have been won at the societal/legal level, you stop trying to do anything beyond protecting the issue at that level and you let individuals figure it out at the very local level.  If there is some rude behavior and sensitivities are harmed, well that occurs in life and we all have to get over it and move on with our life.  Buy your wedding cake at a place that welcomes your business.

Anyway, David Brook's column on this issue is worth reading.

The Benedict Option

Why I Think Donald Trump Won the Election

Well, he didn't win the popular vote so you cannot say the Democratic ideas were rejected by a majority of the people.  But he did win the Electoral College by winning about 100,000 votes across some key states.

Yes, he coalesced the Alt-Right in all its variations but they haven't voted for a Democrat in a good number of years.  So that is not the reason 100,000 people who used to vote for a Democrat voted for Trump.

I think the reason is these people (i) could not afford gridlock in Washington anymore and (ii) they are so cut off from their traditional points of education (unions, union shops, factory floors, mines) that they swallowed Trump's anti-immigrant anti-free trade economic policies even though the ideas they bought will never be implemented; although Trump will do his best to create the aura that he is doing something along those lines.

There isn't much the Democrats can do to restore the traditional points of education, but neither can the Republicans do that.  So the Democrats have to find a way to end gridlock while protecting the economic interests of the middle class.  I know it is ironic and heartbreaking to reward Mitch McConnell's "Just Say No" policy, but the Democrats have to become the party that has policies and Congressional action that gives these 100,000 people hope.  Because it was 100,000 people this year,  it could be 500,000 or 1,000,000 people in a few more years.  Economic interests are not unique to white voters.

The Democrats must find a way to be competitive in most of the 50 states without giving up protections for every individual and the environment.

The Background to Clinton vs. Trump

I have been pondering what I could say about Donald Trump's speech on foreign policy.  On the surface to anyone who hasn't thought about foreign policy as something that needs a coherent core, many things he said sounded reasonable.  But then again, his whole instinct is insulting and demeaning people.  Foreign policy is the art of getting people, whom you have little to no power over, to do things that you want them to; with whatever persuasive arguments you have to show what you want is in their best interest.

And as an individual from the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) pointed out, Trump was promising to make nice with Putin while arguing and insulting our friends in NATO and our southern neighbor, Mexico.  And lest you think the Wall is going to be a productive infrastructure project, I will point out that the criminal elements already favor digging tunnels under what is already there and using submarines to get the really high priced contraband around whatever impediments we try to put into place.

My mental logjam was broken by reading today's insightful columns covering old ground.  Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman discuss the fact that a substantial set of white voters are angry at what they perceive as the government not working for them.  On the Democratic side that comes out in the form of populism and support for things that stick it to the wealthy and help the poor/young.  On the Republican side, that comes out in a dislike for anything to do with the GOP establishment that promised Supply Side Economics would benefit everyone and wants to dismantle the safety net that helps people when they reach retirement age.

Paul Krugman analyzes why Clinton could successfully manage this anger.  His theory is that Democratic leaders have sufficiently delivered on their promises and the base is sufficiently satisfied with their leadership to support them.  GOP leaders, instead have focuses on anger and shutting down the government and not offering solutions to issues that their supporters, like the Democratic's supporters, are having to deal with in their everyday lives.  When globalization has been causing your community problems for 30 years, you perceive a problem with political process.  And that is why they are supporting Trump, even though he is also a supporter of tax cuts for the rich.  What Trump doesn't support is paying for those tax cuts by cutting services to the people. I don't know how he will balance the budget?  Perhaps he plans to get China to give the U.S.A. foreign aid to pay for it all.

David Brooks acknowledges that he doesn't have an answer to problems that he probably doesn't completely understand because he lives in the high income bubble.  But he recognizes that the anger driving this election needs to be understood and policies developed to address it.  I am sure that Brooks as a card carrying Republican wants balanced policies that do not disrupt things that are working broadly for the benefit of society.  I would have to agree with that.  In his mind, there are places in the U.S. where balanced policies have worked to address the problems and they need to be studied so ideas on how to spread them broadly across the landscape can be discussed.

I would start with health insurance.  Paul Ryan wants to help fix the main problem with Obamacare which is that the cost of health insurance for all is being driven up by insuring those with pre-existing conditions.  If the 5% or 10% of the population with pre-exisitng conditions had access to high risk pools subsidized by someone unidentified (why not put them into Medicare?), then the other 90% to 95% could enjoy the cost of health insurance for the relatively healthy.  Of course, he still needs to address the working poor who cannot afford health insurance without assistance even if the cost does come down.

It seems to be there are many points that can generate they type of anger we see in this election cycle.  That is David Brooks desire to identify them and see what can be done to address them.  It is his belief that if people can have hope restored to their psychology they will be more rational and less radical voters.

I have long recognized that rural areas have been suffering economically for a long time. What is interesting in this long primary cycle, is that is where Bernie Sanders and Trump/Cruz run up their largest voting percentages.  The U.S. rural areas are fired up with anger with no good solutions for their most fervent desires.


Link to Brook's column

Link to Kurgman column