Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Who Really Elected Donald Trump?

I know I said I was leaving social media for a while, and I promise after this I will, but I've been so disgusted at so much that I've been reading in the last day, I thought I'd give one last shot to offending absolutely everyone.

Here is the kind of drivel I'm been running up against:
This is the voice of the courtier class of pundits, fingers in the wind, pandering to what they're betting is the emerging political class that will sign their paychecks and give due reverence to their musings.  If the universe were just, they'd all be banished to a circle of hell consisting of one infinite television studio where they would sit chained to a single endless desk, jabbering gibberish at each other for all eternity.

Forget the babel.  Trump's election was not due to Hillary Clinton, her bad campaign, her emails, Bernie Saunders defeat, a bad economy, or liberal condescension.

It happened by the willful action of nearly 60 million Americans.

Let's be clear.  They knew what they were getting.  Donald Trump may have been the least subtle candidate in American history.  His campaign was predicated on racism, xenophobia and settling scores.  Dog whistles abounded.  He was a business genius notorious for endless bankruptcies and a single year tax loss of nearly a billion dollars.  He was as far away from the values of Christ as could be imagined - an openly lecherous sexual predator, a documented pathological liar, with a proven record of stiffing his contractors and business partners, underpaying staff and fighting unions. Time and time again, he not only displayed his ignorance of the world he will now lead, of the capacities and uses of America's vast military, and of science itself, but he was clearly completely uninterested in learning.  Most importantly, in his vilifications, petty feuds and meandering speeches, he has revealed himself repeatedly as a psychologically disturbed individual who is not in control of himself.

None of these things were secret.   There was no bait and switch.  No stealth campaign.  Many million people voted for Donald Trump not in spite of these things, but because of them.  They reveled in his immersion in hatred and revenge. They were turned on by his implied threats of violence.  While those may be in the small minority, not one of the sixty million can say they didn't know.  No one can say they were coerced to support Donald Trump.  They chose to, and recognizing that fact is the most important take-away from this election.  

They are good people, hard-working people, with strong friendships, who love their children and families and are loved in return, but this cannot be made to conceal the fact that they performed an evil act, and should be considered accordingly. It is not a competition with how many children Obama may have killed in Syria, or his injustice to native Americans, or to Hillary being in bed with Wall Street.  It is their personal act and their personal responsibility.

These are adults.  Their ignorance wasn't inadvertent; it was willful.  Their action was not misguided; it was purposely malevolent.  They are not to be coddled, or excused, or explained away.  They are America's "Good Germans" who have fully bought into a politics of hatred and revenge, and made a conscious decision to hurl America down an abyss.

Maybe they will change.  Maybe they can be persuaded.  But if Trump's presidency is as dark as his stated intentions, those supporters not yet sickened into reversal will be the cheerleaders leading the way to catastrophe, with the prospect of widening bloodshed an added perk.

There is a beast in all of us, and Trump awakened it in so many.  But only with our permission.

The core cadre of Trump supporters don't want your understanding; they want your subjugation, expulsion and destruction. "Lock her up!" was their native cry.  "Kill Obama!" was another, heard even during Donald Trump's acceptance speech.

They are not be be courted, but confronted, opposed and defeated.

“In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart."  That is what Anne Frank wrote, and I would like to think it's what I believe as well.  But her sufferings also left her with no illusions about the existence of evil, its power and effects.
"I see the world," she wrote, "gradually being turned into a wilderness, I hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too, I can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.”

Lynn Becker's opinions are his alone and do not represent any organization, association or company.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

What Do We Do Now?

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
   - T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets
If you listen to the pundits, you'd believe that the marathon, knock-down brawl that ended last night with Barack Obama's election as President of the United States left us exactly where we began:  A Democratic President and Senate, and a House controlled by Republicans able to block every Presidential initiative.

When you look beneath the surface, however, things are different, in a number of interesting ways.

1.  Does spending matter?  Jesse Unruh once described money as "the mother's milk of politics". You can't run a campaign without it.  Yet one of the lessons of this election is that there appears to be a point where more money simply doesn't matter.  This isn't a new discovery - think Jim Oberweis - but this Wednesday morning finds a litter of emptied wallets washing up one the shore with little evidence they had any effect on the tide.  Sheldon Aldelson's $100 million, Linda McMahon's $100 million for two losing elections, the billions of Super Pac disbursements.  Exactly where did it produce victory?

2.  Are voters simply tuning out Negative ads?  Aligned with massive spending was the tsunami of increasingly vile attack ads, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that carpet-bombed the airwaves.   In most cases they demeaned and degraded the candidates they were designed to advance.  And they were spectacularly unsuccessful.  In Illinois, they couldn't save Joe Walsh, or Judy Biggert, whose ads suggested her opponent Bill Foster was a tax cheat, ruthless capitalist and - gasp- a millionaire.  (Yeah, I know, those qualities would make a Republican candidate a hero in the eyes of the right wing, but that's a story for another time.)  They couldn't even save Bob Dold, who lost a squeaker to an opponent his ads attacked as a secretive, phony businessman.  And there's no evidence that the attacks ran by the Democrats were any more effective.

As with money, it now looks like a little negativity goes a long way.  Broadcasters may love how wall-to-wall media buys boost their bottom lines, but the evidence is that, after a certain point, viewers simply treat attack ads like any other obnoxious commercial - they ignore them.

Somewhere, someday, a viable candidate will test-drive the strategy of fictional Presidential hopeful  Jimmy Smitts  and eschew slickly produced, voice of doom commercials in favor of using their spots to talk directly to voters.  My bet is that they'll prove massively effective in cutting through the clutter, and the era of massive buys of mass-produced boiler-plate negative ads will draw to a close.

3.  Is Tea Party Jacobinism a road to nowhere?  In state after state, Tea Party activists, fronting for right-wing corporate interests, seized Republican nominations by bumping off conservatives judged insufficiently pure, including Indiana's long-time Senator Richard Lugar.  What worked for winning primaries, however, proved disasterous in general elections.  Once voters got a chance to see the extreme ideologies, they took seats being contested by Tea Party acolytes away from the Republicans - in Indiana, in Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan, and more.

There's a more ominous parallel for general elections, looking forward to 2014.  It's always been a pattern that the party out-of-power makes gains in off-year elections.  What may be even important is how the lower turnout in off-years is what allows more extreme candidates to lead their smaller, but highly motivated base to victories that, in general election years, a far larger turnout of moderate voters would make impossible.

What Do We Do Now?

That was the plaintive question asked by Robert Redford in the saavy political film, The Candidate.  The exhausting, un-ending campaign has actually resulted in victory.  Where do we go from here?

In the case of Barack Obama, some of the unresolved issues - the deficit, cutting spending, fixing Medicare - are obvious.  Others, liable to alienate potential supporters, were kept in a lockbox for the duration of the campaign.  Obama's victory speech was the first time he mentioned global warming or same-sex equality in a very long time.  The campaign to reverse healthcare reform and dismantle financial regulations has been arrested, but transitioning both to the next level has yet to begin.  Similarly, the use of drones by the United States, with massive civilian casualties, is a critical public policy matter that has yet to have a true public discussion.  It is not enough for those of us who supported Barack Obama to celebrate our victory and return home.  The President's feet must be held to the fire to make sure he carries through on his promises - on the environment, to equal rights under law, to forging a just and effective foreign policy.

And how does the President deal with the present political reality?  This morning, Republicans are all over the airwaves spinning how the perceived lack of a "mandate" means Obama should basically do nothing but "compromise" (i.e., adopt right-wing policies) for his second term.  The historical fact these same operatives helped George W. Bush fabricate a "mandate" out of losing the popular vote in 2000 appears to have conveniently faded from their memories.

George Bush was able to do this because Democrats give him the benefit of the doubt and went along with his disastrous schemes like the war in Iraq, tax cuts, out-of-control spending ("deficits don't matter"), and a deregulation of the financial sector that enabled the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.

Republicans have proven far less co-operative, including nearly 250 Senate filibusters.  Speaker Boehner is on the air this morning proclaiming that continuing Republican control of the House represents a mandate from the American people to continue their obstruction.  That's for public consumption.  But those same Republicans are looking at the election returns.  They're looking at all the elections they lost when Tea Party extremism triumphed. And they know how to count.

With the veto and control of the Senate, Obama knows he can already stop Republicans from doing really bad things.  In his second term, the challenge is make the rhetoric of his acceptance speech a reality.  Obama has to work with the opposition find those areas of common interest - deficit reduction, Medicare and Social Security reform, to name just a few - and use working together to help moderate Republicans extract themselves from the hammerlock of their party's extremists.  That's the lesson of New Jersey, where a crisis made the usual poisonous rhetoric unaffordable, with Obama and Republican Governor Chris Christie working together closely to overcome the after-effects of Hurricane Sandy. 

The word "gridlock" needs to be banned from any statements coming from the Obama administration.  Let the Republicans keep it for their own.  For Obama, it must be all about resolve and determination, about never doubting that solutions will be found.  It's about never stopping talking, never ceasing probing and poking until the points of vulnerability are discovered, and a new consensus is forged.

This is a case where it is brain surgery. It's a far more subtle, fine-tuned procedure than the vomitorium of inflammatory rhetoric we've just survived, but in the long term, it's what will determine the future character of our Republic.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Romney vs. Obama: They are NOT the same.

Note to Readers:  We are entering one of the most important Presidential elections in our lifetimes.  And so I'll be adding my two cents on some key topics.  I recognize, however, that politics is a divisive topic, and so I've created this second blog for all future posts,  You can also follow my other blog, ArchitectureChicago Plus, here.

You may find the title of this post strange.  Surely, there has seldom been so clear a choice as the one presented to voters in this year's Presidential election.

Still, to a small but influential group of authors and activists like Chris Hedges and Ralph Nadar, a different interpretation is clear:  Barack Obama has been so great a traitor to progressive principles that there is effectively no difference between Obama and the far-right platform of Mitt Romney.  They cite core issues such as the failure to make good on his promise to close Guantanamo, the lack of criminal prosecution of financial sector executives who caused the 2008 crash, continuing militarism - including the killing of innocent civilians in secret drone attacks, the compromises with Republicans on tax cuts and spending, expanded spying on American citizens, and more.

And they are correct.  These are deeply troubling issues.  They should be part of a vigorous public debate.  And yet, even with all this, in their final conclusion, Hedges and company are not just wrong, they are dangerously wrong.

I speak from experience.  I remember 1980, when the progressive group IVI-IPO was debating it's presidential endorsement.  Speaker after speaker got up and declared that incumbent Jimmy Carter had governed so far to the right, there was effectively no difference between Jimmy Carter and his challenger Ronald Reagan.   The only acceptable choice was the liberal independent, Republican congressman John Anderson.

We now know how that turned out.

Overwhelming deficits, exploding military budgets, covert military operations, attacks on the rights of women and minorities, the destruction of protections for the environment and for safe food and products, evisceration of the rights of workers and the prosperity of the middle class - all of these critical problems of today were jump-started by Ronald Reagan.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney may have taken all these issues to a previously unimagined extreme, but it was Ronald Reagan who set it all in motion, on a massive scale.

These was a difference, and we're still reaping the toxic whirlwind three decades later.

Mitt Romney promises to replace Medicare and Medicaid with voucher programs.  He promises to further decrease the tax burden of America's most affluent citizens, while closing "loopholes" that will increase taxes on the working class. The  Republican platform promises to make a criminal of any woman having an abortion, under any circumstances, including incest and rape.  The stated Republican policy is to create roadblocks to discourage minorities from voting.  Mitt Romney promises to increase military spending, beyond even what the Pentagon wants to spend.  In the person of John McCain, he promises new military engagements throughout the Middle East.  He will not only not prosecute wrongdoers in the financial sector, he will repeal the regulations enacted to keep them from crashing our economy again. 

Do Hedges and Company think he's kidding?  Or are they willing to sacrifice America just to prove their point?

Barack Obama passed the first real reform of health care, which every President before him was unable to accomplish.  He got Bin Laden, which George W. Bush failed to do.  He fights for the rights of women, of workers, of minorities.  He is the last bulwark, however imperfect, between an America of opportunity and justice, and the Republican vision of a new Ayn Randian feudalism that will make the gilded age look like a workers paradise.

Make no mistake:  Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are not the same choice.  The declaration to contrary by Hedges and Company is a sucker's bet for which, if Barack Obama is not re-elected, all of us will pay the catastrophic price.

In 1980, even if Jimmy Carter had gotten every one of John Anderson's votes, he still would have lost to Ronald Reagan.  In 2012, in contrast, the election is so close that the "they're both the same" argument, if allowed to stand,  could well be the tipping point that hands America over to the most extreme elements of the right wing.

I am perfectly willing to stand with Hedges and Company on their key grievances, but I refuse to join them in a suicide pact whose final result is an exponential worsening of all the issues they profess to care so deeply about.  I support the re-election of President Barack Obama.