Obamacare. The GOP promises that we'll have something bigger and better. With all the rhetoric that has been spewed to the party loyalists, I doubt that they can deliver anything that is half as good as what they pledge to destroy, if only because they never have worked to design something that can replace Obama's signature accomplishment. It saddens me that the only thing unifying the GOP has been a pledge to destroy healthcare for millions. Yet, it could be much worse. We don't know what the "new normal" will be in the near future.
Recently Meryl Streep came out and protested the president elect's style in a recent speech at the Golden Globe award show. She didn't even have to mention him by name. Was she justified? She decried the bullying that passes for strength nowadays, and attacked a subculture that wants power for its own sake, and not to do something good with it. What is wrong with that?
There is a rush to undo the gains made in society over the past 8 years. We have a president who is likely owned by the Russian government. He is already breaking some of his many promises, pledging to build a wall along our Southern border with our money, then convincing Mexico to pay for it. Does anyone really believe that they will do so? I doubt it very much. Strangely enough, some of his nominees have more class than Trump has, including Jeff Sessions. Sessions is willing to say that Waterboarding is torture, something that Trump can't bring himself to say. Why is that? Could it be that many Trump supporters only care about their rights, and not the rights of humanity? Could it be that they have no empathy for others, and like Trump, are on a narcissistic ego trip?
It is troubling how extreme how today's GOP seems for a centrist. Abortion should have been a question settled 40 years ago, and it is still in play because of cultural politics. White supremacists have cleaned up their message, and use phrases such as "Southern Heritage" when they fly the Confederate Battle Flag. (Heck, most of these people don't know that the "Stars and Bars" referred to a different flag, the flag the South wanted to use for its national standard.) Centrists fear a government led by people who would shut down polling places heavily used by poor people. Centrists fear a government who would take rights away from the GLBT community because it angers a small religious minority. Centrists fear a government run by people who can not compromise in any way. And now, we will get to see what a "Right Wing" government will do.
There is a big problem in America, and it is the Urban/Rural divide. Maybe it is about time that we think of dividing this nation into three separate nations: (1) States along the Pacific Coast, (2) States along the East Coast, and (3) The "Heartland" states. Each would inherit the US Constitution, but would make its own laws following the dissolution of the America we once knew. Only then would we be able to see which nation's laws makes the most sense. But until then, we have this social conflict that can not be resolved, and can result in a second civil war. Hopefully, we will not see that happen....
By this point in the campaign, I'd expect that in a normal Presidential Race, we'd have more undecided voters. This year, we have people from both parties who are sick of the choices given to us by the two major parties, and want another choice. Given the above chart (issued on 10/16/2016), it looks like 9% of the public wants to vote "NO" to both Trump and Clinton, leaving 6% of the public in the "Undecided" category.
If we factor out the two minor parties, the chart looks like this:
This chart implies that 8% of the vote is up for grabs, making it highly likely that Hillary will win. Although anything can change up to election day, the above two charts do not look good for Trump.
- - - - - -
The big problem with elections is showing the public that they have not been rigged. It is much harder to falsify votes once cast. Instead, the two parties fight to keep people loyal to the opposition from getting to vote. But what happens when a vote is as close as it was in Florida's Bush v. Gore battle? One could legitimately say that the election was stolen by Bush and his friends. Yet, Gore had the grace to concede, knowing that he could have destroyed America's faith in this most important of citizen rights and duties.
In some states, the incidents of election fraud are not myths. Elections can and are being rigged by corrupt politicians who manipulate vote casting machines. In other states, even the dead have voted. Yet, for the most part, our elections are reasonably honest and can be counted on to accurately reflect the will of voters in the territory covered by the ballot.
Unfortunately, Trump is now putting the electoral process into question. He is accusing unnamed "others" of trying to rig the election. He is taking legitimacy away from the process in the eyes of his supporters, and this is dangerous. Assuming that Trump loses, his followers will not believe the results of the election. (Gore's supporters had a better claim that the election was stolen from them, but the need to hold the electoral college election for POTUS may have been more important than the accuracy of Florida's vote.) Can you imagine what could happen if a bunch of disaffected, armed Trump followers don't hear an honest concession speech from Trump on November 8th? I shudder at the thought.
- - - - - -
If one studies German history of the 1920's and early 1930's, one sees eerie parallels to what is happening in the United States. In Germany, hyperinflation destroyed the financial power of Germany's middle class. In the United States, the effects of globalization did the same to many in the middle class, as there was no safety net or shock absorber for these people. No wonder why they both sought out a "messiah" to deliver them from their suffering. Sadly, neither group could articulate its problem, nor could they come up with a leader from their own ranks who could challenge a corrupt elite. As a result, the Germans put Hitler into power, and we risk putting Trump into power.
In America, we have systemic unemployment, and no one dares to speak those words. People in rural areas do not have access to the opportunities of the city, and they couldn't even afford to move to the cities if they could leave their homes. The one factory, mill, or mine has closed down, leaving people with no way to escape poverty. A similar situation exists for those in the inner cities, as we have neglected the needs of the poor, and avoided addressing both social and educational needs that would help them break the cycle of poverty. We warehouse those who break laws in prison, permanently tainting them with a scarlet letter of a criminal record, and then expect that they compete for the few jobs left for those with "checkered backgrounds". The prison-industrial complex is hurting both rural and urban areas equally, and is helping to keep the poor in both areas from advocating for their own interests.
- - - - - -
Globalization has hit America hard, and both rural and urban areas have suffered because of it. No job is safe any longer. Yet, no one is proposing the form of safety net or shock absorber we need for our labor force. We do not provide for workers to retool themselves for the future. We do not limit the export of jobs that can be done anywhere, so that Americans are only serviced by American workers, Why is it that we place call centers in India, when this work can be just as easily done by people in rural West Texas, a Lakota Sioux reservation, and Chicago's South Side? There is no reason that we don't reserve most of these jobs for Americans, and pay the higher product prices needed to bring this labor back home.
Our elites are the problem, and they must be replaced. However, we must be careful to make sure we know how to operate the levers of power as we throw the bums out - or we will make things worse with a rebellion that is not thought out. Years ago, General Patton recognized the need to keep some ex-Nazis in charge of operations in occupied Germany. Contrast this with George Bush and the occupation of Iraq - he threw all ex-Baath party members out of power, and they had chaos.
For those who still want to vote for Trump, I have one question: Are you ready for the chaos that his election or defeat will likely cause?
When I wrote the following rambling missive to a friend, I didn't realize how well it could work as a blog post. Thinking about this letter (and my friend's unpublished response), I realize that I am a Jeffersonian at heart, while my friend is a Hamiltonian. In short, I believe in the will of the people, although I believe that it must occasionally be checked and balanced. My friend sees the elite as a needed safeguard against the rabble running amok.
For the most part, our views are two sides of the same coin - both of recognize the public's need to have a say in their own affairs, but we both recognize the need for a buffer to keep the common person from destroying the society in which he lives. And both of us have been lucky enough to avoid the encumbrances that would make us slaves to the society in which we live, instead of controlling our own destinies to a large degree.
Right now, I see the Trump and Sanders campaigns having their successes rooted in the general belief that the public is mad as hell and isn't going to take it any more. A Trump or Clinton win would result in a one term presidency - and would leave the body politic much more unstable than we can afford at this time in history. Yet, I like instability (to some degree) as I like to see the body politic refreshed by healthy blood - something we haven't seen in a while.
So I hope you enjoy today's missive, in the form of rambling thoughts I've written to a friend to provoke conversation....
If I were going to do a War Of The Worlds story today, I'd make the "aliens" look more like us, so that the alien invasion would not be that of a faceless enemy, but of an enemy that lives with us. (This reminds me of a movie that Roddy Piper made - "They Live.") The story would be more of the dilemmas a space faring civilization faces when encountering a "sort of" sentient species, and then the ultimate realization that this planet is too toxic for that species to inhabit - leaving the formerly colonized to think that they had the upper hand in their own right. Of course, one could throw a lot of social metaphors into the story to give the story more gravitas than it deserves, and to score higher ratings from the critics.
The problem with a lot of mass media these days is that it has been dumbed down for a lot of Americans to consume. For example, how many shows will they make about antique and pawn shops, along with the people who run and supply them? How many shows can they make about dwarfs and their families? How many shows can they make of "unusual" families? Of course, I'm biased. I feel that narrowcasting has allowed a significant portion of the American public to avoid exposure to ideas to which they feel uncomfortable.
I think the problem starts in the schools and in the homes. Both liberals and conservatives can make good arguments about the problems in educating our children. But I also think we're seeing signs of structural unemployment which can't be ignored. Low end jobs are being outsourced to low wage places, leaving America to increase the size of its social safety net, lest we have major social unrest. Couple that with middle to high end jobs now gradually being replaced by computer functions, and we may be looking at a situation (which could become worldwide) where there are more people than jobs. How can a society cope?
Before you think that my idea of people outnumbering available jobs is a problem that could result in a radical solution, think of this. Before the Black Plague, "serfs" (I could equate them to newly freed slaves becoming tenant farmers) had no social power, owed most of their production to the manors, and could afford to take no chances with what they grew. There was always another serf to take his place. The plague took away all that excess labor that the manoral economy depended on, took away many of the lords and ladies, and left the remaining labor with the upper hand. They started to grow a wider range of crops, ate better, and were part of an economy that started to develop labor saving inventions because there were more jobs than labor. What could happen in America with roughly one gun in circulation for each of its citizens, if our elites don't address the problems of an economy where there are more jobs than people? Any slight event could radically destabilize things, resulting in great population loss before a new stable state is achieved.
So we go back to the schools and the homes. Religious fundamentalism has shown itself to be a plague on mankind. We have home schooled students who can't prove they know enough to enter trade schools. In fact, many of them can't do the math required for these schools, because their parents decreed that the bible contains everything the child needs to learn. We're already seeing what happens to some states when these clowns get to power - education gets shafted, in one case, the cutbacks meant that there was no local school available for the children of one town. (I wish I remembered the full details of this situation - I think it was in Kansas, but I'm not sure.) I shouldn't pin the blame on religious fundamentalism alone. We've seen the same neglect for our school systems and families in non religious areas of the country. We're seeing an America divided on Rural vs. Urban lines, and the Rural populations are winning for now. They are making the mistake that the solutions that worked 50-75 years ago, when the US was at its greatest level of prosperity vs. the world, are still valid today. Simply praying to god a bit more, and resisting social change (acceptance of the GLBT population as having equal rights), will not solve their problems. Something more is needed from both Rural and Urban populations....
We now have ready made scapegoats for people like Trump to exploit. Before you say I'm about to go into a diatribe against "the Donald", reflect on this - he did bring issues into the political conversation that the political elite would rather not address - albeit in an inelegant, crude way. I'd rather see him as president than Cruz. A vote for Trump is the hard core Republican's way of giving a vote of "No Confidence" to the GOP and its candidates. Sanders is the equivalent from the hard core Democrat's side of things, especially when it's a vote against Hillary Clinton. Although Sanders has not fleshed out his ideas that well, he might be the least dangerous person to elect because a GOP dominated legislature will block his every action.
Both political parties have their own reasons for keeping the insurgents from taking power. But it's harder to see the benefits of the insurgents gaining power. If Trump were to be elected, he'd be a wild card, a joker waiting to do something that would trigger impeachment and conviction - removal from office. It would also mean that the GOP would be able to get rid of its extremist elements and could produce a party ready to govern again. If Sanders were to be elected, it would give the Democrats a reason to stop a continued slide to the political right, and renew its position as a moderate leftist party again. And with both Trump and Sanders, I expect that they would have their reasons to deal with Wall Street and the corrupting influence of its money and power. Trump, to remove power from his enemies. Sanders, to clean up a system which caused the mess we are in....
As I noted, this was the start of a conversation that has lasted several sets of email exchanges so far. The ideas are not well formed yet, but they touch on problems that have been long ignored by our elites. I only wonder whether our leaders will bother to do their job, or continue to push America towards the decline of its empire....
Has anyone noticed that the cultural divide in America in the 21st century isn't that much different from a map of the United States drawn at the time of the Civil War? Most of the states drawn in blue are "liberal" states, while most of the states drawn in gray and territories drawn in brown are "conservative" states. In a previous entry, I noted that the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. What I didn't note was how geography plays a big part in a region's cultural values.
Areas of high population density are often hotbeds of cultural diversity. One can not but have his or her values tested by being in contact with people who think differently. A typical New Yorker will have coffee at a pushcart staffed by an Iranian, eat lunch at a Kosher deli staffed with Mexican labor, and have dinner at an Italian restaurant staffed by Albanians. On another day, that same person may eat breakfast at a Greek diner staffed by Columbians, have lunch in a cafeteria staffed by native born Americans, then have dinner at a Soul Food joint before rushing off to an Irish bar....
Contrast the above to life in smaller towns in the old Confederacy. In many of these small hamlets, one might not even find one decent restaurant - and have to grab a burger at the local pub. (Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" comes to mind here.) Due to the remoteness of many of these places (think of small towns in the Rockies and in Appalachia), many people socialize with people who often are related to each other by inter-generational intermarriage. Their views often aren't challenged, as they only meet people like themselves on a regular basis. When one lives in these smaller communities, the locus of social activity is often the local church. This doesn't sound like much, but think of it as the one institution in the South that wasn't crushed after the civil war, and you'll see how dysfunctional values of 150 years ago could be preserved to the present day.
Religion, as an institution, changes much slower than society in general. This is good, when people need a connection to the eternal. It is bad when dysfunctional values are passed on from one generation to another. Years ago, my mother made a big deal about our church changing the hymnal being used every Sunday. Imagine what it was like dealing with the issue of slavery - something which the bible permits and has rules for. If a person comes from a society that accepted slavery, and was forced to end it - it is likely that the religious institutions would be slow to follow the political mandate. It is also likely that these same institutions would help people find ways around the political mandates (legal and illegal) - which we saw in the era from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights battles of the mid 1900's.
People in conservative areas are slow to change with the times, and there are still traces of institutional racism found across the USA - including the "Northern" states. In Nixon's "Southern Strategy", he knew what language the GOP could use to flip it from Democratic Blue to Republican Blue. And he was successful. Unfortunately, he also eliminated the mixing of conservative and liberal values in BOTH parties which helped stabilize American government. Now, we have a very conservative GOP which uses both a religious and plutocratic litmus test for its candidates - and its influence is growing in the short term, while demographics condemn it to likely failure in the long term.
Would we have been better off if the South had left the Union? I'm not sure - it'd have been one hell of a hard border for both sides to police. Socially, I think the North would have been better off, and would have looked more like today's Canada with its higher priority on social welfare and fairness. The South, however, would have had a history similar to today's South Africa - with a period of Apartheid and ostracism from world politics, followed by a more democratic, but polarized country.
Instead of what could have been, we have what we have now - a country fragmented along a rural/urban divide, where the more conservative elements are holding off on the needed investments in our common future. Sadly, I don't see anything changing soon....
