The Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation

I write tonight not to condemn Brett Kavanaugh.  That has been done to death, as have supportive statements.  That part is over; Brett Kananaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice and will probably be one the rest of my life.

My comment today is about the failure of the process of deciding who gets confirmed to the Supreme Court and how.  And it is about fairness.  And partisanship. 

Partly, it is about how politics have become more partisan over the past decades.  It has happened before, of course.  Early in US history, political arguments were intensely personal and slanderous (worse than today) where political parties owned newspapers and the editorials and editorial cartoons were uncontrolled and facts were not even thought relevant. 

A political cartoon today might exaggerate a person's appearance (Obama's long face, Trump's hair), but older ones had them actually portrayed as animals.  And in 1852 Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC) used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), nearly killing him while others looked on.  Things got calmer later.

But we are returning to irrational anger.  It is a different kind of anger.  Today the political parties attack the reputation, honesty, and factual memory of others at any opportunity.  They attack when they don't even seem to believe what they say themselves.  When presented with facts disproving their arguments, they say "Oh well, that is just politics".

No, it isn't!  Politics is "the art of the possible".  It is the skill of reaching an agreement with someone you don't completely agree with to get something you both think more important than what you each give.  It is the idea that people you disagree with have honorable things that matter to them, just as you have things you consider honorable yourself.

It can be theoretical trades.  One Senator wants higher taxes on imported goods to support a national manufacturing base and another Senator wants higher minimum wages so that struggling workers can afford their rent and decent food.

Or it can be more practical.  One House Member sees a need in his/her District for a bridge to connect manufacturing to highways and another sees a need for road improvements between 2 large cities.

Or both sides want to change some social laws and agree to meet in the middle for things to be changed in the future as society changes.

But that isn't what is happening today.  Today, what happens is that both sides say they want 100%  and the other side gets 0% and they fight to the death about it as if the slightest degree of negotiation is fatal.

Because it is.  The US has not been so polarized since just before the Civil War.  When I was young, there were Liberal Republicans and Conservative Repulicans.  There were Liberal Democrats and Conservative Democrats.  Each Party had to first find some degree of agreement within themselves before they could nominate some Presidential candidate.

The result was that the candidates were either close to "centrist" or had to be close.  US politics, as a Social Democracy worked well that way. 

Nixon ruined that by enticing all the conservative democrats his way, Goldwater exemplified that, and the Democrats responded by slowing absorbing the Progressive Republicans (like me). 

And here we are now.  Civil Wars occur when a people are geographically split, ideologically split, religiously split, or politically split.  We are reaching all 4 of those.

What to do?  Get our elected leaders back toward the center.  Choose centrists in every election. Or at least the least extreme candidate.  Politicians don't elect themselves, it takes we voters to put them in office.

In Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan is a Republican.  I normally vote Democrat by default because the Republican candidates seem too extreme usually.  I disagree with some things he has done.  But he is closer to the center than his Democratic opponent. 

I will put my vote toward the more centrist candidate.  I have to start somewhere.  I'm not choosing a Party, I'm choosing a candidate.

Look at your own State's candidates.  Choose center.  Put people in office who can actually work together.  Because those are the leaders of our future.  That House Member you elect next month may be the President in 30 years,

Angry Voters

I have been hard on Donald Trump (and rightly so).  But I haven't discussed his supporters much.

I sort of understand them.  They are angry.  They are desperate.  They aren't living the life their parents enjoyed.

In a general sense, we all know that some people succeed in life better than others. And the others don't.  The reasons are not my point here.  My point is that they know the world is somehow passing them by, they are not succeeding,  and they are angry.  There are few emotions stronger than anger.

Hate is usually directed, anger is diffuse.

Trump has activated the angry people.  He wouldn't have gotten the Republican nomination for President if anger and fear wasn't a real thing in significant part of the population.

I do not fear Trump.  He will go down into crushing defeat on Election Day.  It is the angry people who concern me.  Their anger is justified.  They used to have decent-paying jobs putting headlights on cars, collecting coins from parking meters, loading luggage on airplanes, etc.  There used to be jobs you could just learn to DO without having to work on a computer, make decisions, or attend meetings and argue with people.  Some people are just not good at those things.  And they have fewer places to do work now.

And I understand because in the 1st 10 years of my adult life, I had cruddy jobs too.  I pushed a lawn mower in the hot sun for 2 Summers on an Army Base.  I spent 2 Summers pumping gas at a full service station where the owner dipped his sticky fingers into the till and charged us workers for the "losses". 

I worked at minimum wage in several department stores while the rent went up faster than my wages.  I even got to where I was in charge of a 1/4 of the department store and my hourly pay was 25 cents above minimum wage.  And the store managers cheated us every chance they could get because every dime they took out of our pocket went into theirs!

But I took a competitive exam for Government work and scored 100% in 5 categories of jobs.  That was because *I* spent my time in high school studying while "other" kids were goofing off.  I learned "stuff".  I practiced general skills.  I did well.  I was promoted regularly.  I retired well.

But not much better than the middle class in the US did in the 50s and 60s.  The high point of the US economy was when unions were strong (but not overly strong), when the percentage of the total wealth held by the top 1% was low, and when a college education for children was withing reach of most middle class families. 

There was a chart in Scientific American magazine a month ago that showed the percentage of national wealth held by the top 1% of Americans. 

In the 1920s, it rose to 20%.  At the end of The Great Depression, it was down to 15%, and the end of WWII, it was down to 10%.

In 1970, it was down to 8%.  After the Republican Tax Reform act of 1986, it rose rather suddenly to 16%, and after the 2000 Bush Administration, it went back up to 18%.  That is wrong.  The trickle down theory of wealth only means every one below the top 1% gets peed on.

The Republicans are doing it very very wrong, in pay to their super-rich supporters.  But the Democrats are doing things a whole lot better.

What we need is a Centrist-Union party dedicated to recreating the middle class.  No industrialized nation can survive without a strong middle class.  That is what makes democracy work.

Democracy works best when the poor have a path up, the middle class has some basic stability in life, and the rich are accepting a lower level than "outrageously fabulous".

I'll give a sports example...

Say you are a farmkid in Kansas and you have a choice between driving a tractor around cornfields for $20K a year vs earning $100K a year catching balls in the outfield.  Of course you would take the $100K.  But is it worth $50M.  No, you would do it for $100K. It is idiodically super-rich people playing their own game, competing with each other.

If they weren't, the seats would cost $10 and they would all still make a fine profit.  THat's what a generally middle-class world would look like...

The Clinton/Trump Debate Tomorrow

I'm worried about the debate.  Clinton has to show great command of all national and international issues (and she will).  She probably has to know the Minister of Finance of Slovakia and the exchange rate of Dollars to Laotion Kips (and she probably does).

All Trump has to do is not pull down his pants and moon the audience...

And then too many people will think him "presidential" for restraining himself. 

If there was ever a difference in expectations between 2 people in a debate, this is it.  And it is not fair.  I grew up taught that knowledge, experience, and nuance matters in life and leadership.  I went through my career that way and I have lived my life that way. 

If Trump becomes our President, my brain will just EXPLODE.  And not because he is, but because enough Americans thought he should be.  It will be a society I no longer want to be part of. 

I live in Maryland.  Maryland is not a contested State.  Maryland will go for Clinton without any doubt.  It is some of the other States I worry about.  Personal opinion of States that go for Trump; they are obviously insane.

I read a very interesting book decades ago (and re-read it sometimes) called 'They Also Ran' by Irving Stone.  It details the losers in presidential elections, why they lost and what kind of presidents the losers would have made.  Stone's general view is that the American voters have generally made good decisions, but sometimes really made bad ones.  His judgements on the elections seem sound.

As he said in his epilogue, the American People have made the better choice rejecting Hayes for Tilden (the election was crooked in Florida and Hayes was chosen badly),  Douglas for Lincoln, Blaine for Cleveland, Landon/Wilkie/Dewey in favor of Franklin Roosevelt, Dewey over Truman,  Nixon over Kennedy,  and Goldwater against Johnson. 

We erred grievously choosing  Taylor over Cass, Grant over Seymour, Coolidge over Davis, Eisenhower over Stevenson,  and Nixon over Humphrey

We made a difficult choice between Smith/Hoover  between equally good candidates.

The rest of the elections seem to have been the better choices.

Let's hope this election doesn't go down in history as the worst decision the voters have even made...