Category: Candidates

The Audacity of Hope

11/23/2020

Well, hallelujah!

Belatedly, the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has been recognized by the current administration. This means the new kids will have office space, briefings from key outgoing officers, and opportunities for a coordinated approach to planning a smooth transition enroute to Inauguration Day.

Lately, I've been feeling like a minor character in a bad novel by an author who's lost control and can't figure out how to bring his miserable literary endeavor to an end. In this story, the main character, supposedly the hero of the piece, golfs around in the background while supporting players emerge from time to time to make a show of trying to save him.

It's like being trapped in a John Grisham novel. His books keep your attention for awhile until at the end you're dropped off in an unsatisfactory place, wondering how you got there.

It's a real-life Groundhog Day with none of the levity. Every day, we've had rising numbers of new coronavirus cases, Trump on the golf course, increases in the number of coronavirus deaths, Trump on the golf course, frivolous lawsuits filed in one state or another, Trump on the golf course, judges' dismissals of said lawsuits ... Trump on the golf course.

He cares not how many die, how many families lose their homes; how many children go hungry, lose their parents, miss out on vital parts of their education, feel less and less secure; how many health care workers lose their lives as they try to save others.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and their appointees will face huge challenges. But at least it's realistic, now, to indulge in the audacity of hope.

2 Comments

Re-electing Trump: What Would That Say About Us?

10/31/2020

2 Comments

We make generalizations about entire countries based on the bits of news we hear about them. Even with countries as similar to ours as the UK or Australia or New Zealand, most of us know little about their internal party politics or the belief systems of various groups within the citizenry. No doubt the same is true of those living in other countries when looking at our own.

Thus, it made me think when I heard a talk show host inquire, “If we re-elect Donald Trump, what will that say about America?” With less than five days to go to the election, I immediately became too busy wondering how I would answer that question to hear the response of the interviewee. But here are a few thoughts that occurred to me:

It would say character is not important in America. It would say, for instance, that we’re fine with …

a leader whose lies are blatant, frequent and egregious
a leader who forcefully separates infants and children from parents seeking a better life
a leader who publicly insults and mocks others
a leader totally lacking in empathy and concern for others
a leader who believes there are "fine people" in the ranks of the white supremacists and has no plan for addressing the issues of persistent, systemic racism
a leader who lacks the courage to tell the truth about a roaring pandemic and to take the simple precautions that would serve as a model for protection—and who, even worse, holds “super spreader” campaign events endangering thousands of people while he knows full well he is placing them all in danger

Little known fact: The U.S. reported more new coronavirus cases (98,583) on Friday, Oct. 30th, than the entire number of cases (91,339) reported in China since the virus was first identified in December 2019. (Source, Laurie Garrett, prize-winning science journalist and author)

It would say that we accept a president who tramples on long-standing norms and uses his office for his own personal gain. It would say, for instance, that we’re fine with a leader who …

refuses to release his income tax information and to place his assets in a blind trust as modern leaders have customarily done
sullies the White House by using it as a campaign venue, an act that technically makes criminals of his participating staff who are thus in violation of the Hatch Act
muddies the concept of the separation of powers—holding unprecedented gratuitous swearing-in ceremonies at the White House for his three conservative Supreme Court appointees
steers events and visitors, foreign and domestic, to venues he either owns or otherwise profits from himself
installs “acting” appointees to high office without Senate confirmation, then fires them at will, creating a revolving door of high-level officers, many with little background in the endeavors they're tasked with supervising

Perhaps most damning, however, is what it would say, not about what we accept from a president, but about what we accept in ourselves. It would say, for instance …

that equal justice for all is not a priority
that, like Trump himself, we lack the ability to “walk in another’s shoes,” to imagine life homeless, or without health insurance, or without a reliable income that allows us to shelter and feed our families
that lower taxes, especially for the upper financial echelons, are more important than upgraded transportation and infrastructure; more important than solving the problems of homelessness and hunger; more important than health care for all; more important than a living wage as a minimum wage, affordable child care, or retraining programs for displaced workers; more important than vast wealth and income inequality that leaves millions with a poor quality of life and little hope for better

Finally, it would say that we don’t engage in critical thought. It would say, for instance …

that we can’t discern truth from lies
that we don’t recognize the dangers posed by a president who knows little history—our own or the history of world
that we fail to see parallels between armed troops’ clearing of protesters from a public square—to make way for a presidential photo op, of all things—and the modus operandi of authoritarians around the world
that we accept the word of a reckless, medically ignorant president, who mocks mask-wearing and social distancing, invites us all to his super-spreader events, and tells us the virus will magically disappear, over the word of scientifically trained, experienced doctors who tell us every day how we can best protect ourselves and others from illness
that we don’t realize a chaotic administration, more focused on undoing the work of a predecessor than on instituting forward-looking programs, may be entertaining, but is simply a failed administration

We can do better than this. We'll soon know whether enough of us make that choice.

2 Comments

Debate or Bully-ism?

9/30/2020

2 Comments

The first so-called Presidential debate of 2020 wasn’t a debate at all. It was an exercise in bully-ism, nationally televised evidence that some people truly never grow up, and redundant proof that a child-man lives in the White House. It confirmed once more the wisdom of Maya Angelou's admonition: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” We all know who Trump is. I naively believed, however, that being on public display with a competitor clearly his superior would temper Trump's behavior. Au contraire! He displayed even more immaturity, more rudeness, more ugliness than I anticipated. … And my expectations were lower than a lizard’s belly.

The “debate” was a contest between barbarism and civility. At first blush, it might appear that barbarism won. I didn't count the words, but I'm sure, if the win had been based on word count, the barbarian would have been the victor. After all, he used his own allotted time and some of Biden's, too. The agreement had been that each candidate would give a two-minute, uninterrupted response to the initial question in each of the six segments of the program. Those statements were to be followed by a few minutes of discussion--as in "give and take." You might be familiar with the concept; in debates of yore, this would have seen one candidate speaking at a time. Not so now.

Was anyone surprised when Trump jumped in to talk over both Joe Biden and moderator Chris Wallace as they spoke? Shortly, the event became a free-for-all, Trump performing with all the grace of a grizzly at a tailgate party and Biden treading a fine line: respond in kind or let the bully rant? It was a no-win choice. Meanwhile, Trump lied, bragged, dodged, and attacked the Biden family. Did we know any more about his policies at the end of the night than we did at the beginning? (Does he have any policies? That's a question for another time. His "party." you know has no platform.)

The winner was not the guy who spewed out the most words. The winner was Joe Biden. While Trump confirmed his immature, bull-in-the-china-shop ignorance; Biden showed us his capacity for empathy, his love of family, and his concern for those who are suffering health and economic devastation brought on by the coronavirus. He was as presidential as a guy can be while in the sights of a run-away bulldozer.

The absence of a policy discussion was a plus for Trump. With no party platform and no plan of his own, Trump goes wherever his impulses take him. A serious discussion of policies would have been such an inconvenient handicap.

I can't help myself. I thought the best line of the night was uttered by CNN's Anderson Cooper in the “post-game” analysis when he described Donald Trump as “obesely immoral.” I’m not sure what that means, but as one of my educator colleagues used to say, “It communicates.”

There’s no point in further debates unless the moderator—or another designated person—is given a “kill” switch which would enable them to turn off the microphone of the person not designated to speak. Some have even proposed putting the candidates in sound-proof booths like those used in high stakes game shows. Unless some kind of controlling measures are instituted, the debates are an exercise in futility, of no value except for the purpose of highlighting the differences between an ignorant bully and an experienced, empathic leader. But we already knew about that.

In these chaotic times, get your day off to an equilibrious start, by reading the work of Heather Cox Richardson on Facebook. She describes herself as “a political historian who uses facts and history to make observations about contemporary American politics.” She posts a column nearly every day. They're always rational and cogent and deal with major events in the news.

2 Comments

Will the Democrats Get What They Don't Want?

3/9/2020

0 Comments

The Democratic Party is fast becoming the poster child for the Alfred Adler theory that “neurotic safeguarding always gets you what you don’t want.” Those may not have been Adler’s exact words (he was, after all, Austrian, a psychiatrist in the late 19th-early 20th century), but I’m afraid it may be an accurate diagnosis of the Dems’ dilemma.

I’m hard-pressed to understand the swift winnowing of an excitingly diverse roster of candidates to a slate of two old, straight, white-guy pols. (I can say that because I’m old myself--and there are several old white guys among my favorite people.) There were many other entries in this race, and while both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are experienced and qualified, this feels like recycling when what we need a fresh new product.

Think back: In the 2016 election, when many voters longed for a disrupter, someone who would tackle rampant income inequality, unaffordable health care, wage stagnation, and unbridled corporate greed, the Dems decided to run a moneyed candidate with long, deep ties to corporate powerhouses and super PACs, one who struggled to connect with voters on a personal level and who proposed little in the way of novel solutions to deep-seated problems. Yes, that candidate was Hillary Clinton, and perhaps the Dems thought selecting a woman made that a bold choice, but it didn’t.

Back then, their other viable option was the aforementioned Mr. Sanders. Like Clinton, he was far from warm and fuzzy. Unlike Clinton, he proclaimed himself a socialist (not the smartest thing he’s ever done) and ran to the left of almost everybody. But he did have ideas about addressing rampant income inequality, unaffordable health care, wage stagnation, and unbridled corporate greed. The Dems rejected him.

Fast forward to 2020. This year … this year, we thought, would be different. In addition to Joe and Bernie, the Dems were offered a field of diverse candidates, including one who not only proposed fresh solutions to persistent problems—and had plans for carrying them out—but who also had what often seemed to be a nearly-sacrificial personal touch. How many little girls did she engage in the “pinky swear” to let them know they could be anything they chose? How many hours did she stay after rallies so everyone who wanted one could get a “selfie?” How many personal stories did she listen to on cold Midwestern nights?

Assertive, caring, smart, inspiring, Elizabeth Warren is the whole package. So why, on Super Tuesday, was she pushed out of contention by voters who swung to the two males now left in the race? Were they so traumatized by the disaster of 2016 that they believed no woman could win against our gender’s arch nemesis Trump? Could they not see the enormous difference between the two women in question?

Maybe. But this seems like the coward’s way out. It seems like neurotic safeguarding which—remember—always gets you what you don’t want. I hope I’m wrong.

0 Comments

No Perfect Candidate

2/29/2020

1 Comment

Alas, as you’ve probably already noticed, there is no perfect Democratic candidate for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the early departures of qualified contenders, the late entry of moneyed wannabes, and a series of heated debates peopled by overwhelmed moderators and a shifting clutch of candidates haven’t made our job as voters any easier.

It’s been almost as chaotic as the Trump administration.

How to pick your person? That is the question. For debate watchers, focusing on substance was often difficult, buried as it was beneath the parry and thrust of the players. And then, there was the proverbial complicating elephant in the room: Who is best able to 1) defeat Trump and 2) increase the numbers of Democrats in the House and Senate? One thing the debates did provide was a glimpse into some of the candidates’ telling personal traits which may bear on those questions.

Amy Klobuchar, for instance, has the distinct ability to lower the temperature in the room. With the exception of an occasional dust-up when personally attacked, she calmed the cacophony when she spoke. Her soft-spoken demeanor belies a determined interior. She’s civil, proud of her Midwestern roots, and relates policy to the impact it has on real human lives. Forced to leave the hospital and her struggling newborn who remained there, she told a story every parent can relate to as when discussing the need for health care reform.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast, heated things up. He filled the room. I found myself wondering whether he listens. Much as I like many of the things he stands for, he came across as dogmatic and opinionated. And I can never quite get over the sense that there’s something tone-deaf about a politician who labels himself a “socialist” in a country where that innocuous term scares so many voters who confuse it with Russian-style communism.

Like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren is passionate

in her beliefs and consistent in her message though she did some fine tuning in the course of the debates. Like Joe Biden, she has a compelling life story. She’s assertive in exactly the way we’ve come to know and expect since the days she helped create the Consumer Protection Bureau. Like Klobuchar, she has the ability to clarify her policy positions with the down-to-earth examples of the lives of real people.

On the debate stage, Joe Biden has been forced out of the roles he’s played so well over the years—comforter at times of horrific violence (who doesn’t remember Sandy Hook?), elder advisor to Barack Obama, extemporaneous speaker par excellence when awarded the Medal of Freedom at the end of his vice presidential term. His debate performances have been, let’s say, “various.” While there’s still a lot of the warm, supportive “Uncle Joe,” there have been been moments of hesitation, though he seemed to hit his stride as the debates rolled on.

Then there’s Pete Buttigieg, whom I first “met” in the middle of a sleepless night. Unable to return to my slumbers, I had turned on the TV, which usually sends me right back to Dreamland. Morning Joe was on, and they announced that some guy I’d never heard of would be the next guest. I turned over and prepared to doze off, but that guy was Mayor Pete and soon I was wide awake as he rolled out his proposal for changing the way we constitute the Supreme Court. He was thoughtful, articulate, and informed. I was impressed. And in the debates, he’s been sure-footed, confident, and not at all intimidated by a field of rivals, some of whom are twice his age and infinitely more experienced.

As for Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, I have only one thing to say: Money. I haven’t seen enough of either of them to offer much in the way of comment. However: Money. If we hope to survive as a democracy, one of the many issues we must attend to is campaign finance reform. No-one should be allowed to buy their way into the presidency. We’ve already tried that.

1 Comment

The Audacity of Hope

Re-electing Trump: What Would That Say About Us?

Debate or Bully-ism?

Will the Democrats Get What They Don't Want?

No Perfect Candidate

Thoughts for Our Time

Archives

Categories

Copyright © 2017