Party Politics

Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

There is lots of furor right now over the behavior of the current Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. From what I can tell it's the people who supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination that are the most offended. Bernie has been alleging unequal treatment by the committee for quite some time and it appears he was right. It comes as no surprise to me now and I found it a credible accusation then given that Clinton and Wasserman Shultz are friends. I don't know if it was direct discrimination but I'm sure there was at least a passive preference by the DNC for Hillary Clinton. The DNC is supposed to equally support all Democratic candidates without preference but there is a little more to the imbroglio than that.

Bernie is a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Why does he do this? Why doesn't he just go it alone? The reason is that there is advantage in allies, in having numbers of people who will help you further your goals. Bernie declared as a Democrat and was allowed to campaign as a Democrat by the DNC. The DNC did not have to allow this but it did. Bernie was permitted to participate in the debates as a Democrat and to seek delegates as a Democrat. Why didn't he just do it as an Independent? Because it would have been impossible to have participated as a major candidate that way. He chose to forego that route and be governed by DNC rules which he found to be somewhat stifling.

Now, unfair though it may be, there were those in the DNC who did not see Bernie as a true Democrat. He had not placed himself on the line for Democratic causes and Democratic candidates. Most of the time he was not even a Democrat so it is easy to understand why a person charged with furthering the aims of the Democratic Party may not be so obliging. On the other hand, Hillary has a long history of supporting Democratic causes and candidates and has raised gobs of money for the party. When one looks at the issue in this light the picture becomes a bit clearer. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's aim is to put a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat that is clearly defined as a Democrat. Her assessment was that Bernie could not win and Hillary could.

So, what did the DNC do that created disadvantage for the Bernie Brigade? Things like scheduling debates, publicity and maybe even pressure to drop out. But Bernie has run a remarkable campaign that has energized young voters and new voters and has managed to raise millions of dollars from largely small contributions. It was the kind of campaign that we like to think is still possible and the Bernie Brigade feels cheated. Well, they were. Maybe not cheated out of the nomination because he was trounced in the South and lost some other very significant contests but perhaps cheated out of some deserved dignity and respect.

But the real issue here is not that Bernie was disrespected and cheated but, rather, the state of party politics in the USA these days. Political parties came about quite early in the history of the republic. John Adams was notoriously against them but Jefferson and others saw the advantage of banding together to increase power to nominate. The lust for power and the advantages of having allies led to political parties and we have had them ever since. For the most part it has been a contest between two parties whatever they may have been called unlike our cousins across the sea and to the north who use an parliamentary system in which many parties can flourish and compromises are made to bring about a majority. I don't see that as any better than ours and perhaps more disruptive. Parties have worked fairly well. Until recently the leaders of the parties were able to enforce adherence to party objectives and legislation but with the death of earmarks and the rise of instant communication the means of discipline and the surety of being discovered have had a profound influence.

Not being able to reward compliant members with earmarks has freed the legislators to seek reward in another way and that way has been by massive lobbying forces that define a legislative preference and fund it with unseen cash. Those who will not align themselves with the lobbyists suddenly find themselves the subjects of negative campaigns and a lack of money with which to mount a campaign.

It seems that the bugaboo is the money that corrupts the campaigning and legislative processes. Without those influences the legislators and campaigners would have to actually plead for the approval of the voters which, ideally, is the way it is supposed to work. The parties can be seen to facilitate legislation for without them there would be endless debate and a great din of voices. The parties allow for the movement of legislation when there may be enough support that it has a chance of succeeding. But these processes have also been corrupted by House and Senate rules of self governance which may prevent debate and amendments. The so called Hastert rule which forbids the GOP from bringing a vote on any issue without a majority of that caucus is a stumbling block that prevents non-partisan agreement. Whoever in control of the Senate controls what comes up for debate and what does not. Harry Reid was notorious for that and the GOP now won't allow debate to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. The rules must be changed.

My Take is that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is simply the face of a more divisive problem. The cancer of campaign funding and the archaic rules of the House and Senate. Change these and the problem goes away.

Tragedy and Confusion

The killings, whatever name you call them by, in St. Paul, Baton Rouge and Dallas are horrendous. The overload of the killings occurring on successive days boggled the mind and made it very difficult to express oneself without allowing prejudices to play a part. If you will look and examine each incident you will see that the relevant issues are few and they are the same issues that we have been struggling with for several years now.

Firstly look at “Black Lives Matter.” The name does not suggest that only black lives matter but that they matter as much as others. The incidence of police assaults and killing of African-Americans is statistically much higher than with Caucasians. The assertion that there is a different standard of treatment for African-Americans seems to be obvious. This proven fact is the central point of conflict in our recent violence. We have seen African-Americans stopped, manhandled and killed. Even when the person is guilty of a crime the level of violence used to subdue the suspect is over the top. In many cases it seems clear that a deescalation of violent maneuvers was possible and the choice was made to use force and even when force has been used it has culminated in deadly force. In some cases it appears that deadly force was applied when there was no actual threat.

It has to be made clear that police are the protectors of the people and guardians of a civilized society. They should be part of that society and not enemies of it. The people should be able to look on them with respect and appreciation and most, by far, do just that. But the police are thrust into situations that causes them to act in a fraction of a second and make the right decision. Is that decision influenced by a miscalculation of racial threat? It seems to be just that.

In the use of deadly force the police are held to a standard that seems ridiculously low. In most jurisdictions it is only necessary that the officer genuinely fear for his life. In Cleveland, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, Baltimore and other cities it appears disingenuous to claim that standard was a reality. But the perception of fear by the officer seems to be the linchpin. The bar should be higher than that. It is a rare occasion that a police officer has been held to have responded illegally. Yes, it's a job fraught with danger. Yes, decisions must be made in a split second. But those decisions must be right. If the police are perceived by the people as using one standard for Caucasians and another for African-Americans then the relationship between the police and the people falls apart.

The shootings of the police officers in Dallas weren't caused by Black Lives Matter except as it existed in the mind of this one African-American ex-soldier. In his mind, however deranged it was, it was time to take the battle to the streets. Black Lives Matter has been a largely non-violent movement focused on gaining equality of treatment under the law. What we saw in Dallas was murder but in the mind of the murderer it was revolution against the oppressive white society. What we see with the Black Lives Matter movement is revolution also but one that expresses non-violence.

So, the goal of the Black Lives Matter movement has been clouded by the actions of a black man in Dallas. What he did was no service to the movement, rather it has harmed it by inciting more hate of the African-American community. They are not to blame. In Dallas the police surrendered their lives to protect those participating in the Black Lives Matter march and that is as it should be. They gave their blood and lives to protect the people. They deserve great honor but it must not cause us to be lax in our pursuit of justice for all.

If we can put away our spite and dangerous rhetoric long enough it is critical that we, as a people, discuss and determine what kind of force we are going to accept to keep the peace and protect the people. Angry voices and racial bias must be put aside in an effort to come up with some usable and enforceable standards for proper use of police force. The inequality of the application of force must not be allowed to continue to exist. This is not a battle between conservatives and liberals, law enforcement and crime or cops and people. It is a matter of public justice and equality for all. It is serious business and we must deal with it without the usual partisan clownishness that we so often see.

It bears mentioning that the weapon used was not an assault type weapon as we currently think of them. It did hold 10 rounds and it would be better if the limit was 5. But we have to recognize that without that gun those people are still alive. All of them. But, in addition to this there is the matter of using a robot to deliver a bomb. No matter how you color it this was the use of a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil. How long before some agency flies a little helicopter in the window to kill someone? Lots of people say we must have guns in order to be able to revolt against an oppressive government. My Take is this. This is what revolution looks like.

 No Jail for Hillary

The Hillary Haters have had a tough couple of years. The outcome of eight (count 'em) investigations by various committees have cleared her of any culpability in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Now comes the investigation by the FBI of the issue of her using a private server to handle her emails and it also finds that there is no evidence of anything warranting prosecution. If Social Media is any indication the Democrats won't have to worry about Trump winning the election in November. By then most Republicans with any passion will have died from heart attacks or dehydration from all the frothing at the mouth.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (rep) S.C.

There is no point in trying to use rationale and reasoning to point out the factors that led to these decisions. The Hillary Haters are not interested in rationale, they will be satisfied with nothing short of blood. The GOP allowed the fringe elements to provide the passion for their party under the false assumption that they could be controlled. They had no idea that there were so many of them until they started losing their own jobs. According to Donald Trump they ain't seen nothing yet. Those dastardly Republicans who have not become part of his fawning posse are targeted and have no chance at being reelected due to their reticence according to his edict.

There have been interviews done and articles written explaining how the presumption of innocence and the pesky thing about proof bear on the decisions made by those who are charged with that task. It is not enough just to take Rush Limbaugh at his word (why would anyone do that) or to believe that Sean Hannity is anyone even approaching a reputable source. Allegations don't do the trick no matter how many times you say them.

FBI Director Comey

Director Comey, who was an Assistant Attorney General under President Bush 43 proved to me that he is not beholden to any political power when he refused to be bullied by Presidential Counselor Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card into signing off of the legal justification for acts of torture committed under President Bush's administration. Only a man with a righteous sense of justice could face down that kind of pressure. It is to his commendation that President Obama appointed him Director of the FBI at a time when uncommon ability was required and he has acquitted himself honorably. I have disagreed with some of his statements but never his reasoned judgment. Now, because he once again did the honorable thing, he is called before Congress like a schoolboy to take a whipping and he took it with honor maintaining his composure and confidence. Legislators who once covered him with praise now accuse him of succumbing to the mysterious, magical power of the Clintons and soiling his pristine reputa

tion. The spectacle is nauseating to watch and a poor example to the world of what our political system is capable of. And now it seems that everyone on Social Media is an expert in investigations along with being a Constitutional scholar.

No, it will do no good to try to reason with these people. They are already aswoon over that protector of political incorrectness and stalwart defender of American borders who can say the most outrageous things and only those in the GOP who have failed to follow (as of yet) are even slightly distressed. Most of the rest realize that it would take something incomprehensible to deny Hillary Clinton the White House this time. The things most likely to be incomprehensible are more outrageous (the word is used so much now it loses significance) utterances for the mouth of Donald Trump. Most recently he was caught praising Saddam Hussein for being good at killing his own people. Perhaps people should be a little uneasy with having a President with those proclivities.

It is going to be a long, ugly summer. At the conventions it is expected that the Democrats will see protest from those Bernie supporters and they have some valid points to make. Bernie is doing a great job of withholding his blessing until he has squeezed every bit of value from it. The Republicans still have rumors floating about of a “Dump Trump” movement. It is scandalously tempting but if it happens it will fracture the GOP so badly that it may take 3 or 4 election cycles to restore it. Some are saying that this is the death of the GOP but I doubt that.

Hillary Clinton

Look, Ms. Clinton is far from perfect. Problem is that she has lived for forty years in the public eye and she has gathered up legions of haters. She has a lengthy record to peruse and anyone who cares can make an educated guess at what she would do as President. She has some things in her past I am uneasy with and I hope she has learned a lot from President Obama about restraint in using military power. Her opponent has very little to study of his public record and what can be studied is not what should be considered to be qualities for a President. He has made no policy statements to contradict anything that Ms. Clinton has said other than to call people names and act like the child you always thought needed a good spanking. He is outlandish.

My Take? Ms. Clinton has pulled some boners but the choice is clear.

Brexit v. Clinton-Trump

The recent unbelievable and irrational vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union should be a warning shot across the bow of the Clinton campaign for the Presidency of the United States. There are significant differences between the two countries that will ameliorate a direct comparison but there are enough similarities to warrant a cautionary outlook.

It appears that the vote in Britain is the result of a large turnout, over 70% of the electorate voted, with the older generations voting predominantly to leave while the younger portion of the electorate voted to remain in the union. It is just that they did not turn out in sufficient numbers to win although it seems that the vote could have gone the other way had they done so.

The correlation between the Brexit vote and our Presidential vote is not a direct one but rather one that can somewhat accurately gauge the sentiment of much of the electorate. I don't think that I have ever seen an electorate so riled up and disgusted with the inability of government to get things done. That frustration is expressed in different ways and in favor of different solutions and candidates but the root cause can be traced to a common source. For over 30 years now the middle class has been under attack from what seems to be all directions. It is a complex set of equations that have led us to the point that both of our political parties are claiming the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and statistics support that. The richest 1% of the population controls over 80% of the wealth in this country and they have convinced many that it is the result of government regulation. They have convinced people that anyone can realistically aspire to achieve great wealth and many of those people resist regulation designed to return a portion of that wealth to them.

Great Britain and much of the rest of the world is no different. The richest 62 people in the world control more wealth than the entire remainder of the world. You may say, “well, they worked for it” and that is most certainly not the truth. They have attained great wealth by using their wealth to convince legislators and others to pass favorable legislation to ensure more profits and the people know it. Voters in both major parties are upset that the representatives that they elect pay them no heed when it comes to voting for legislation that has the opportunity to make lives better. Even though the disaffected from both parties are disgusted they see the solutions to their problems differently. Indeed, they see the causes for those problems differently which gives rise to the virulent nature of the campaigns.

Those who identify as conservatives see immigration as a major issue. They love it when Trump calls people names and threatens to deport them all. When he stokes the fires of nativism they see our culture as being under attack from all comers. When there is an attack by terrorists anyplace in the world they see red that we still allow Muslims to enter our country even though we are forbidden to consider religion as a discriminating factor.

Those who identify as liberal see the wealth gap and the presence of great sums of corporate money as a cancerous influence on our democracy that results in favorable treatment for the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and those who would aspire to that classification. They see greater government regulation as an answer and a return to higher taxation of the wealthy as a means to begin to restore infrastructure and create jobs for the people.

It is uncommon for there to be such anxiety and furor among the people and yet see so wide a disparity in the range of solutions. In the past it was simple to identify an issue and candidates were obliged to define policy solutions to address those issues. In these days the system for political campaigns has been turned topsy-turvy and we, as a people, have not figured out how to deal with it. The people have expressed their displeasure but their representatives choose to ignore them confident that they can push the correct buttons to achieve reelection. They perceive, correctly, that as long as they can keep a public persona that appeals to their electorate they are free to do whatever they wish as legislators or even nothing at all. Rather than being good at one's job the defining criteria for reelection has become more one of public relations.

No one, including me expected Donald Trump to be in the elevated position that he is but, believe it or not, here he is. Just about everyone expected Hillary Clinton to be in the position that she is despite a strong and spirited run by Bernie Sanders which revealed the underlying anger of the Democratic Party.

So, here we are, barely more than four months from electing a new President, and the electorate is in turmoil. We certainly can't expect most media outlets to be useful in helping us to make decisions since media is also in the game of public perception. Turmoil and conflict are the lifeblood of their ratings and service to the republic, the reason they were granted such extraordinary protection by our Constitution, cannot be expected.

So, where does that leave us? My Take is that we are left in a position to try and understand issues that are complicated and internationally important. A job that we, as individuals, are poorly suited for. It will be incumbent upon us to be reflective and uncommonly sensible, something that we are not particularly known for. Anything else and we will look like Great Britain but exponentially worse.