Start Believing the Truth About Hillary Clinton, Not the GOP’s Lies

Editor’s note: This post was written the week of the 2016 Democratic National Convention but was never published.

The 2016 election cycle has been one of the most vicious and frightening in my lifetime. We’re on the precipice of the possibility of real change in this country, and we have a choice whether that change will be positive or disastrous. The GOP has put forth a platform and a candidate that threatens our democratic republic to a greater degree than ever before, presenting the very real danger of moving beyond conservatism into fascism. (Read the stifling GOP platform and contrast that with progressive Democratic platform.) With the Democratic convention upon us, we have the opportunity to support a candidate to strike at the very heart of discrimination and make a real positive change.

I support Hillary Clinton. I am impressed by her perseverance in the face of the basest form of discrimination in our society today. She’s relentlessly attacked in the media for the simple fact that she’s a very strong, capable, intelligent, accomplished, and exceedingly well-qualified woman. The memes born of those attacks have no factual basis and have been debunked by numerous sources including several excellent Daily Kos articles, but the memes continue nonetheless.

PolitiFact has shown graphically that of all the major candidates on both sides, Clinton is most truthful in the “true” and “mostly true” categories combined. When the “half true” category is added, only President Obama scores higher for the sum of all three, as shown in this chart by Robert Mann (see the original graphic here). Going the other way, Donald Trump is the clear winner for the three negative/liar categories combined, followed closely by Bachmann and Cruz.

Why then is Clinton so unfairly distrusted by so many? Many articles have been written dissecting the “Hating Hillary” phenomenon dating back to early in her public life, but the phenomenon isn’t unique to her. It’s far more insidious and dangerous than that. Rob Taber addresses that question nicely in his article – Lying Liars Who Lie: 2016 Edition. In his article, Mr. Taber captures the essence of the problem in a single sentence.

To put it simply: in America we teach our children that women are liars.

In the next paragraph, he says:

The argument is laid out well in this essay, which I very much recommend. The essay includes frank conversations about our tendency to disbelieve rape victims, the way our inability to trust women affects public policies regarding choice and contraception. But also think about how it plays out in everyday life. When we hear two sides of a couple’s dispute, how quick are we to say “well, he’s a good guy” or “she’s crazy” or “she needs to give him another chance”? We’re quick to think that women are dominating a discussion if women are speaking for 30% of the time (and men for 70%). Within the LDS community, there are struggles regarding how much women’s voices are heard at the ward, stake, and Church levels, though there’s been recent movement to include more women in the highest councils.

As Taber points out, the Soraya Chemaly essay, How We Teach Our Kids That Women Are Liars, is a very informative discussion of how this myth originated and continues to be propagated throughout our society. His sentiments are all the more powerful and self-effacing in the context of his MormonPress article given LDS’ historical attitudes towards women and their place in society. They amplify what Chemaly writes about how “long dead theologians and philosophers” inspire these thoughts, and she goes further. As she points out:

…These thoughts are alive and well and have a super long tail outside of religion—think: domestic work, pay discrimination, and sex segregation in the workplace. Every time a young girl can’t serve at an altar, or play in a game, or dress as she pleases; every time she’s assaulted and told to prove it, it’s because she cannot, in the end, be trusted. Controlling her—her clothes, her will, her physical freedom, her reputation—is a perk.

Conventional Abrahamic religious thought cannot escape the idea that we have to pay, as women, with lifelong suffering and labor and be subject to the authority of men lest our irrationality and desires result in more evil and suffering. Until religious hierarchies renounce beliefs and practices based on these theologies, these long-dead men, creatures of their time, might as well be the ones repeatedly showing up in Congress to give their massively ill-informed opinions on women’s health and lives.

By any standards, Hillary Clinton’s qualifications, experience, and accomplishments are laudable. If that same biography were attributed to a male counterpart, such a candidate would be supported without question. As a nation, we must get past these pointless stereotypes that plague all women who challenge the status quo and support Hillary Clinton this November. Our country needs her.

Advertisements

There Was Only One David

This is my next installation in my economic series about the coming Corporate Feudalism and how we avoid it.

I was raised in a Christian family, more specifically, a Methodist family.  (I’m Catholic now, but was Methodist then.)  In our church, while the adults attended services, the children attended Sunday school.  In Sunday school, we would be told the stories in the Bible and talk about how those stories applied to our lives today.  One of those stories was of David and Goliath.

I’m sure most of you are familiar with that story.  Back in the days when Saul was king of the Israelites, a great Philistine army came to their borders.  The Philistine general sent word to Saul that instead of the two armies fighting each other, each side could send out a champion to do battle, and if the Philistine champion won, the Philistine army would take over the land of the Israelites, and the Israelites would become their slaves.  If the Philistine lost, the Philistine army would become the Israeli subjects.  Then they brought forth Goliath.  He was a huge man, and he had been supplied by the Philistines with the best weapons and armor that could be forged at that time.  He struck fear into the hearts of those in the Israelite army.  For 40 days, Goliath came out in the morning and at night shouting this challenge.  For 40 days and nights, the Israelite army quivered in their tents and did not send anybody out to meet the challenge.  Finally, one day, David (who wasn’t in the army, he stayed home tending sheep) was visiting his brothers in the army and taking them food.  Goliath came out and bellowed his challenge.  When nobody stepped forth, David said, “I can take him,” and volunteered.  He picked up five smooth stones from a nearby stream and used his sling to hurl a stone at Goliath.  The stone hit Goliath in the head, and Goliath died.  David won, and the rest is history.  Or a morality tale.  I have no interest in arguing which.

So then the Sunday school teacher began to talk about how this story was applicable in our lives.  She said, “You see? David was just a boy, not very big, not trained to be a soldier.  But he was able to kill Goliath.  If you have faith, and if God is with you, even you can beat the big bullies you come up against.  You can beat the bad guys.” And so it seems, that whenever anybody goes up against a big corporation and wins, or goes up against a big anything and wins, we recall the story of David and Goliath.

I got to thinking about that story a while back (I don’t know why, I just do things like that sometimes).  Today, there is a Philistine army looking to enslave us.  It is corporate America.  They have an army of Goliaths, in the form of managers.  The armor they have given their Goliaths is the power of the corporation.  The weapons include, “company policy,” and “it’s the going pay scale,” and “nobody else expects …,” and “if you don’t like it, we can always find somebody else,” and “team player.” Those words have as much bite to them as the sharpest Philistine sword, and they beat employees into submission even more quickly.  You have to be quite a David to stand up to that.

And here’s where something about that story began to bother me.  Suddenly it dawned on me.  The passage in the Bible doesn’t say how big the army was, but in context you can gather that the army was tens of thousands.  On top of that army, there were the non-soldiers of Israel, who, like David, were doing normal things.  David was tending sheep.  Others were also tending flocks, or raising crops, or building houses or whatever people did.  So in all of Israel were more than tens of thousands of people.  Yet, in all of those tens of thousands, there was only one David. Only one.  The odds of that one in tens of thousands being any particular person were really small.  Sunday school teachers were talking to the children as if each of them could be that one in tens of thousands.  But in reality, there was a higher probability of any one of them becoming a professional NFL player than being that one David. Applying that to today, the chances of any employee being able to stand up to the Goliaths sent out by the Corporate Philistines is really, really tiny.  The Corporations set forth their terms, and the employees surrender.  Another thing.  Saul had chartered David to represent the Israelites.  Whatever David gained was gained for and on behalf of all the kingdom.  If a single employee does somehow manage to be a David, he is not chartered to represent anybody but himself.  Anything he is able to wrest from the local Goliath is only for himself.

Something else occurred to me.  There was only one David, but behind him was an Israelite army of tens of thousands.  That is a part I have never heard anybody talk about.  Recall that every day, for 40 days, Goliath came forth in the morning and at night to bellow his challenge.  40 days.  The Philistine Army sat idle for 40 stupid days.  Armies aren’t meant to sit in a camp waiting to attack for 40 days.  Why didn’t they just attack?  Because in front of them was an army of tens of thousands.  While the Israelite army was not full of Davids, it was made up of tens of thousands of trained, competent soldiers.  Those tens of thousands were standing in solidarity, defending their freedom, defending their families, their land, their homes, their futures.  They did not have to be Davids to be good soldiers.  They were prepared to put up a good fight.  Even if the Philistines were able to defeat that army of tens of thousands, many would die, and many more would be badly injured.  And they could lose.  For some reason, this feared army that had rolled over other kingdoms en route to Israel did not really want to fight this battle.  So they sent their Goliath out in the belief that their Goliath could defeat anybody the Israelites could bring forward.  If there had been no Israelite army, there would have been no David.  Rather, without that army, the Philistines would have simply run over the kingdom killing anybody who got in their way.  That would have included David. Standing alone, the people were helpless.

It is no different when the employee faces the corporate Goliath.  If he stands alone, he has no chance.  The corporation has all the advantages.  It is only when employees band together into an army and stand in solidarity that the power is leveled.  Because the union army will be standing in solidarity, defending their freedom, their families, their homes, their futures. When they form a union, join the union, and stand with the union, they are on a common footing with the corporations.  It is then that the union can find and charter a David to go to battle on behalf of all the members.  And what happened when David killed Goliath?  “When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.  Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron.” While we don’t expect the union army to kill all the corporatists, we can expect the corporations to back off.  Back in the day, before Ronnie the Destroyer broke the air traffic control union and his party began to dissemble unions, unions had won for their members (and for many who weren’t in the unions) pensions, paid vacation, health care coverage, competitive salaries and safer work environments.  As unions have been dismantled, all those benefits have either been eliminated or cut back drastically.  We need unions to help get them back.  Because we can’t do it individually.  There was only one David.  And even he didn’t stand alone. The Israelite army made David possible.

My next piece will be about how we help our unions regain influence and what unions need to do.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Kasich, THIS is What the Dems Stand For

John Kasich was on Meet the Press on August 27 when he said, “The problem with the Democrats––I can’t figure out what they’re for. I mean, they have a golden opportunity, right, to be able to come in and win elections, but they can’t figure out anything other than the fact that they don’t like Donald Trump. I mean, they better figure out what they are. What’s happened to the Democratic party? It’s almost lost its soul and it better get its act together if they want to compete.”

The Democrats have been pretty clear what they stand for for the past 60 years or more. John, the only way you don’t know what they stand for is if you aren’t listening. But if you will listen, I will try to one more time try to make it clear for you. We Democrats may seek to reach these goals via different paths, but we share a final destination. (I will also acknowledge that I am but one Democrat, and others have their own ideas. Please feel free to present your own.)

First and foremost, Democrats believe that all people are created equal. It is surprising that Republicans don’t believe that too, but based on their policies, they don’t. We believe that all men and women are created equal and as such are part of the rich tapestry of this nation. This equality is conferred regardless of gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. This equality is conferred regardless of religion or belief system, whether or not they believe in any God. This equality is conferred regardless of ethnic origin or race. This equality is conferred regardless of economic status. It is these differences that make our country vibrant, and keep us moving forward. As such, all men and women have the right to live their lives free from challenge, obstruction, harassment or attack, whether by federal or local government, law enforcement or regular citizens. We believe that it is the obligation of all persons to do whatever they are able to ensure this equality, to extend respect to all persons and to encourage others to do the same. (On the other hand, we do not believe that corporations are people.)

We believe that every citizen should have the right to easy access to the ballot box. Any laws making this access easier should be enacted, and any laws making this access more difficult should be immediately repealed. We believe there should be an artifact of each ballot that can be audited should there be doubt about the outcome or legitimacy of the final count. We believe that the concept of democracy means of the people, by the people and for the people, and that the people means all the people.

To ensure that every citizen is equally represented by the people they elect, we believe that it should not be possible for large corporations and the wealthy to buy those representatives. To that end, we believe in the need for campaign reform. While PACs serve a valuable purpose in being a clearing house for fundraising and distribution of donations, we believe that the size of individual donations should be limited. Since we don’t accept that corporations are people, we believe that corporations should not be allowed to donate. We believe that dark money should be brought into the light. (Such regulations would also make it more difficult to use PACs for money laundering, which appears to have been happening.) The word “politics” is derived from the Greek “polis,” which means community. It is doing the work of running the community, whether a school district or the nation. It is not doing the work of the highest donors.

We believe that all persons have the right to determine their own destinies. They have the right to control their own bodies. They have the right to make their own reproductive choices. We believe that health care is a right regardless of social status, age or preexisting conditions, and that access to affordable care is an obligation of society to its members. We believe that health conditions should not bankrupt a person or a family, and that no person should be denied a full life due to a condition that can be cured or treated.

We believe that the surest road to a fair and open society is education. Basic education must be provided to all persons free of charge, and advanced education must be accessible and affordable. This education must not be biased toward any class or group of people. It is in the national interest to have a well educated public. Taxpayer funds should not be used for private or religious educational institutions, thereby diluting the educational opportunities for those who neither can afford the private institutions nor belong to the favored religious organizations.

We believe that immigrants make this nation richer and more vibrant. Foreigners on our soil should be treated with dignity and respect. Citizenship for those who wish to participate in our great experiment should be facilitated. Children who have known no other home should be welcome here as full citizens. We do not understand how a child brought to this country by his parents could be accused of committing a crime. Since when is it a crime to go where your parents go? We also support acceptance of refugees as a sign of our moral compass and a benefit to our country.

We believe in our future. To that end, we must be protectors of our environment. We believe that all people have a right to clean water and air. We accept the word of 97% of the world’s scientists that climate change is real, that it is being accelerated due to human behavior, and that we are nearing a time when we can’t avoid the consequences of neglecting our environment. Therefore, we should be moving from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources. As we do so, we need to focus on retraining those who rely on jobs in fossil fuel to enable employment in renewables. There will be plenty of jobs to go around.

We believe that public investments that have or will be made with public funds in infrastructure should not be turned over to private entities for their profit, whether those investments were in schools, utilities or roads. Turning those public investments over to private entities constitutes a taking from the public at large who paid for them in their taxes. Our infrastructure assets are a source of national security. These assets should be kept in public domain, invested in, and maintained. By happy coincidence, because they require workers to be local, jobs resulting from this investment cannot be offshored.

We believe that throughout their careers, workers have paid in to social security and medicare with the promise that that money would be available to them when they could no longer work. These are earned benefits, and are not negotiable. We oppose converting the funds they contributed to a scheme to balance the national budget while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. We also believe it benefits all of us when we enable those who are disabled to contribute all they can to our society. We believe that it is the obligation of the government to stand up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the less privileged, the elderly and the disabled.

We believe in the right of workers to band together in unions to create an equal playing field with their employers. We recognize the lack of power of a single person when going up against a large corporation, and the only remedy is the power of numbers. We believe that no person who works full time should live in poverty, and that any job worth doing deserves a living wage.

We believe that, while gun ownership is a right, that right does not preclude sensible monitoring. This monitoring can and should include, as with automobiles, registration and the assurance that these firearms are not modified, or are modified in a legal way, and that they are in the proper hands. Gun owners, as with automobiles, should obtain licenses to ensure they are appropriate owners and that they know safe operation and storage procedures. Those owners become responsible for incidents involving their guns, whether accidental or intentional.

We believe that we live in a complicated world and there is always something to be fighting over. However, we believe that diplomacy should be employed as our first choice, and hostilities should be a last resort. We believe our military might should be used as sparingly as possible. When diplomatic options run out and hostility cannot be avoided, we believe we should provide our military with all necessary resources while on the battlefield, and services for those who serve should be freely provided for once they return.  The notion of a homeless veteran is an embarrassment. The idea of soldiers coming home broken and their injuries, both physical and mental, being ignored is beyond immoral. Turning such services over to corporations to profit from these injuries is beyond corrupt. Moreover, it is an abomination when our national leaders appear to have a higher regard for our adversaries than our men and women in uniform.

Finally, we believe that the wealthier a person is, the more that person has benefited from the opportunities offered by this great land. We recognize that no person becomes wealthy without the benefits provided by the society at large, whether it be education, the infrastructure that makes enterprise viable, or the police and fire protection that make the enterprise safe, no person can become wealthy without such investments by the society at large. We therefore believe that such persons should happily pay a higher share of income to maintain the viability of those benefits. Thus, we believe in a graduated income tax. From those who have received more, more is expected – it is the license for prosperity.

Governor Kasich, is this a clear statement?  In this, do you find a soul?  Can’t you see a vision here? Compare this declaration to the behaviors and policies you have seen in your own party. Which more closely resembles your definition of morality?

The Economies of the Thirteen Colonies, or Why Founders Twisted God to Line Their Purses

A tad over six months ago, I was writing a series about economics and labor.  In my last installment, here, I said I would talk about the Union movement in the US.  But before I can do that, I realized that I have to talk about what the US looked like economically from the early days of colonization.  I thought that could be quickly researched and dispatched.  As it turned out, as I will explain later, I hit a bump that I just couldn’t get past.  Once I got past it, I had to do a lot of thinking and reevaluating of a lot of my own education and beliefs.  Then I had to figure out how to put the pieces together.  The result was that instead of taking me 2 weeks to put it together, it has taken 6 months.  I am still wrestling with my findings and what they tell me about me as a person and us as a country.  I hope my readers can assist me with that battle.

I begin with the notion that there were essentially 3 economies in the colonies.  One was the urban economy.  The urban economy consisted of tradesmen (furs, timber, etc), craftsmen (apothecaries, wig makers, blacksmiths, etc), fishermen and hunters, shopkeepers and merchants.  This accounted for about 5% of the colonial population.

Another economy was what I call the agrarian economy.  This economy was differentiated by the one I will discuss next, by the size of the farms.   This economy consisted of the family farm, which raised produce and livestock on about 35 acres or less.  What the family did not use was traded in the nearby town or city, so these farms did depend on having some town or city near enough to go to for trade.  Often their produce or livestock was bartered in exchange for needed goods or services rather than exchanging moneys.  This economy accounted for 90% of the colonial population.

The third economy was the plantation economy.  Plantations, in maturity, were an economy unto themselves.  The plantation had the craftsmen on site.  They produced enough to feed the entire plantation population and enough more to yield large profits for their owners.  They ranged in size from 500 to 1000 acres and raised about 5000 plants.  This is where I hit my bump.  While it was easy to figure out who the early urban settlers were before coming to the colonies, and who the early farmers were, I could not figure out how a new settler could look at virgin territory and bingo, there would be a plantation.  Who were the settlers who came to the colonies with the idea of such a large enterprise?  How did they transform the virgin land to a high producing plantation?

I should point out that I have been trained to do academic research.  So I first laid out a series of questions that I would need to answer in order to get over the bump.  The first question was, who were these plantation owners before they migrated?  I began looking up who owned plantations and who they were back home.  I was not terribly surprised to find out that the majority that I was able to identify were from noble families or attached to noble estates.  That is, they were either children of nobles or they were servants in the castle or manor (who were also frequently children of nobles), most from England or what is now the United Kingdom.  However, those who were children of nobles were second, third or later sons, not the first sons.  The first sons would inherit the estates in their homeland.  Second and later sons would become knights, lesser nobles with no land claims, scribes, religious, etc.  The best they could hope for is that the elder son would die without an heir, and they could inherit the estate.

These children of nobles came over to the colonies knowing that there was land for the taking (in many cases they bought their lands from royalty to whom the king had granted stakeholds).  They believed that land ownership was the ticket to wealth, because that is how it had operated in their homelands.  However, in Europe, land ownership led to wealth in large part because owning the land meant owning the labor of the peasants who worked the land.  Since all the land was owned, the peasants had no choice but to stay and work it.  They had to put total effort in, in order to meet the nobleman’s tax and have enough left over to feed and clothe the family.  And in a good year, perhaps put aside a small profit.  These children of nobles did not themselves have the skills to work the land or even to build their homes.  So how did they convert virgin territory to plantations?  At what point did slavery come in?  I had so many questions.

During my search, I came upon articles about the Scottish prisoners of Dunbar and Worchester in 1650 and 1651.  Of 10000 prisoners taken in the battle of Dunbar, 150 were sent as indentured servants to Massachusetts to work in the iron works.  Another batch were sent after the Battle of Worchester to Massachusetts.  However, between the two battles, about 3000 were also sent to Virginia, where the plantation owners bid for their services.  These men were essentially slaves, except that their indenture only lasted for 7 years.  And a bit more research indicated that the plantations had been using indentured servants, some prisoners and some debtors, to work the lands and build the homesteads. The original plantation houses were not, at that time, the grand estates we see today.

However, acquiring indentured servants was not an easy task, and there was not always a big battle with a lot of captured soldiers.  When the 7 year indenture was over, these servants did not stay with the ones who had acquired their services.  They would move on to their own land or their own crafts and there was nothing the plantation owner could do to stop them.  A more permanent solution was needed.

As early as 1501, the Spaniards had been bringing slaves from Africa to Santo Domingo to work the sugar farms.  This was not, however, race based slavery.  The Spaniards bought the slaves from African tribes who had defeated other African tribes and taken the defeated tribes persons as prisoners.  It was conquest based slavery.  This is an important distinction.  Never, in the known history of humankind, had slavery been race based.  The most common form of slavery had been conquest based, the second most common form had been debt based.  And, rarely had it been for life.

In 1619, 20 slaves were brought to Virginia.  However, they were most likely more like indentured servants who were freed after their indenture.  The first slave carrier was built and launched in 1636 in Massachusetts (so much for it being a southern thing).  In fact, Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641.  Up to this time, most cheap labor was indentured servants.  Over time, owning slaves became legal pretty much throughout the colonies.

So, for all the “coming to America for religious freedom” talk, how did such “religious” people condone slavery?  I found something interesting.  There is an obscure verse in Genesis (Genesis 4:15) that suggests that God put a mark on Cain so that anybody who harms him should be slain.  Until slavery took hold in the colonies, I can only find reference to the “Mark of Cain” in a few obscure places usually referring to somebody with a deformity from birth.  At some point, churches in the colonies began to refer to “Mark of Cain” as referring to skin color, that people of color were decedents of Cain, inferior to white people and destined for punishment for the sin of Cain.  In other words, they justified their ownership of human beings by perverting their own religion.  What had been an obscure verse with little application became a mainstay in many protestant churches.  It is important to note here that that interpretation was never adopted by either the Catholic church or certain mainstream churches like High Anglican, Quaker and Presbyterian.  (In fact, it was those churches that incubated the anti slavery movement later on.)  The notion of white supremacy was created to enable the economic success of the slaveowners.  (If you look at the ratio of large scale plantation owners to the population, it is about the same as the ratio of wealthy corporate moguls to current population.)  It could be argued that the reason for the article in the first amendment, freedom of religion, is because many of the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they would be able to continue to own slaves.

By the time of the Revolutionary War, the new interpretation of that verse in Genesis had become widely accepted as a major piece of a large portion of Protestantism.  By the War Between the States, it was cemented.  This was the genesis of White Supremacy: the slaveholders cynically perverted their religion, their way of relating to their God, in order to facilitate economic bounty.  That perversion stuck.  When the South was fighting the North, it was over slavery.  But by this time, it was over more than that.  It was over their religion, the one they had modified to allow a few to own human beings.  When the war ended, the slaves were legally freed.  But the religion remained, and does to this day.  That religion is not just in the south.  It also has adherents  in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri and many other states.  It can’t be legislated away as long as we have freedom of religion.  It can’t be removed by force.  Somehow, we have to figure out how to make those who believe that white people are superior change that belief.  The election of a black person to the presidency brought that belief to the surface so we can all see it, now we have to figure out how to wipe it clean.  Surely this is one way the sins of the fathers are visited on the children.

 

Duty to Die. What the Republicans are Pushing in AHCA

The Republicans are racing to enact AHCA under cloud of secrecy and distraction provided by the Russia investigation.  They are intent on their mission and won’t be denied.  But why the hurry, why the secrecy, why the subterfuge and why the cruelty?

The AHCA and other upcoming bills tell us the agenda of the Republican party.  If we analyze what they are doing, we can connect the dots as to why, and where they want to take our country.  I can’t comment on the Senate version of AHCA because nobody has seen it.  But I can comment on the House version.  We can be confident that, while the Senate version may have some differences, the effect will be similar.  The House and Senate are both controlled by Republicans, and those in charge share an agenda.  Thus, while there may be differences around the edges, the substance will be intact.

We can derive from the CBO score that the House AHCA benefits those of privilege and the healthy young, while gravely harming the aged, the disabled, and the poor.  The question we ask is why?  Why are they protecting those in least need of protection and savaging those in greatest need of protection?  What is the end game?

As I wrote in a post earlier (read it here), we are racing toward corporate feudalism. Based on their priorities and allegiances, it is obvious that this is the goal of the Republican establishment.  They have a protected class, and the purpose of the rest of society is to serve, pamper and enrich the protected ones.  The protected class consists of corporations and the wealthy.  To complete corporate feudalism, they must have control of all factors of production, that is, the means of creating wealth.  A read of the House version of AHCA and the CBO scoring of it shows that they are doing all they can to accomplish that.  It also reveals a sinister undercurrent in the Republican Establishment thinking:  Those who are not able to serve, pamper and enrich the pampered ones have a duty to die.  I will say it again, those who do not fit the purpose of the elite have a duty to die.  But, as I will explain later, they must die in the most horrible ways, and only after any wealth they may have been able to generate is returned to the corporations.

Let’s take a look at who is primarily targeted by the House AHCA.  It is the elderly, the disabled, those with preexisting conditions, the poor and the sick.  Why are they the targets?  These are the people who contribute nothing or little to the corporate bottom line.  These are the people Republicans have been calling the “takers.”  Not the corporations making billions in profits while collecting millions in tax dollars.  The “takers” are the people who continue to live while not enriching the protected.  Based on the content of bills being pushed by the Republicans, it is clear Republicans believe these “takers” have a duty to die and stop using resources.

Those who are not targeted, the young and healthy at their peak of production, are covered by AHCA  as long as they stay healthy.  They bring in far more profit than they cost to cover.  The protected class needs them to do the work.  The young and healthy are the most valuable factors of production, and they are worth the investment to maintain.  But the bill has some huge gotchas in it for them.  If they have preexisting conditions, that will be out of pocket, and at a higher rate than the actual cost to treat those conditions.  (For example, there is no way it costs $2000 a month to make and distribute insulin to a diabetic.  But that is what they are going charge the diabetic. Same with a number of other drugs.  The pharmaceuticals are having a heyday with life saving drugs.) The portion of the bill that allows lifetime caps on coverage for the employed is a way to exact maximum profit from workers and discard them when they are no longer profitable.  It also discourages workers from accessing their coverage in order to have it available in time of great need.

Women and children are targeted in this bill.  We should note that with this bill plus their other policies and practices, women are to be nothing beyond toys and incubators.  There is to be no sex education (hence Betsy), no birth control (hence targeting planned parenthood and other Republican sponsored bills both in congress and in the states), no prenatal coverage (now, isn’t that crazy if you want a healthy baby?), no maternity coverage, no neonatal protection, and once the child is born, no public assistance (they are working on dumping WIC and severely restrict even food stamps), no assistance with child care.  But if you don’t manage to raise the child the way they think the child should be raised, you can be fined, charged, arrested and even imprisoned.  This only makes sense in a corporate feudal framework where women and children are little more than livestock.  We should notice from their behavior that in their minds, the place of women in their society is the serving, pampering and enriching via sex.  Going beyond reproduction, Republicans are pushing policies that would have children not from the protected class educated in institutions that push a religion that supports their caste system and restricts knowledge to those things that will make those children grow up to be little more than capital (financial assets, like machinery).  Once their value is fully depreciated, they revert to being “takers.”

The “takers” have a duty to die.  But if you look at the rest of the administration, you find that it is more than a duty to die.  AG Sessions has spoken out against both medical marijuana and death with dignity laws. Why would he oppose those?  The reason is evil in the rawest sense.  Marijuana has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms of disease and is relatively inexpensive.  It has been shown to offer comfort for cancer patients, especially in their final stages.  It has been shown to offer some help for dementia patients.  Why not encourage its use?  And why, when a person has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, not allow them to pass on peacefully and painlessly at a time of their choosing?  I can only come up with one rationale for these things.  People using medical marijuana are not using expensive pharmaceuticals.  People who choose to die peacefully and at the time of their choosing wind up not using the pain killers or living in nursing homes.  In other words, Republicans want to ensure that as you are suffering and dying, you will first cough up any assets you have managed to acquire in your life to corporate interests before you go.  You have a duty to die, and to die broke and in agony.  To serve the protected class.

I am not sure what can be done about our trajectory.  Now that the GOP is in control of two branches of government and is about to cement their control in the judiciary (not only in the Supreme Court, but in all the Federal courts as well), a course correction may not be possible.  As of this summer, we may be officially a corporate feudal state.

 

 

 

Country Before Party Makes No Sense

I have seen so many pundits on both the right and the left calling on the Republican congresspersons to put country before party.  In fact, there is a fine article about it here.  I can understand those on the left saying that.  But those on the right should know, the phrase country before party makes no sense to Republicans.  To them, country and party are one.  What is good for the country is good for the party, and what is good for the party is good for the country.

We talk about the Republicans who put country ahead of party during the Watergate hearings.  But that was a different generation.  After World War II, regardless of the friction between Republicans and Democrats, we were fairly well united as a country.  During the war, Republicans and Democrats fought side by side, and the German bullets and Japanese kamikaze pilots did not ask for party affiliation before killing or maiming.  The person who saved your butt didn’t either.  Many of those congresspersons had served in some capacity in WWII.

There are no more WWII veterans in Congress.  There is little understanding of what it means to fight for the survival of your country.  And much has changed.  I don’t think it began with Ronald Reagan.  I am not sure it began with Richard Nixon.  It might have begun with Barry Goldwater.  (Certainly the purging of the moderates began then, as Prescott Bush pushed out Nelson Rockefeller in favor of Goldwater using the Rockefeller divorce as an excuse.)  But I know as I was becoming an activist in the Republican Party during and after college, I was hearing an odd refrain.  It was odd to me, because my parents, Republican activists, would have never have said it or even thought it.  But here it was, “The Republican Party represents the true America.”  They were in the business of delegitimizing any ideas but those offered by the party.

I have told before of a conversation I had with the county chairwoman in the 90s.  She said, “You always vote for the person with an R beside his name.  Always.”  I said to her, “but what if that person is a Hitler type person?”  Not that I thought that could happen in America, but it would, in my mind, justify voting other than R.  She said, “The party knows what it is doing.  They would weed out any Hitler.  You have to trust the wisdom of the party.”  (I should state, this conversation occurred shortly after I expressed concern that we were more concerned with fundraising from corporate donors than ordinary people, but I digress.)

After that conversation, I began noticing things in campaign speeches and ordinary conversation.  Things that marginalized non-republican ideas.  Things like, “They don’t really belong here.”  Or, “They just don’t understand these things.” (Implying an intellectual or a moral superiority.)  I started hearing about “The Real America,” which we heard ad infinitum a decade later from the beloved half term governor from Alaska.  The Real America.  Rural America, Southern States America, Factory America, Gun slinging America.  And, interesting enough, Corporate America, who are as removed from the other Real Americas as I can imagine being.  Real America was not the city people, even though they now outnumbered the Real America.  Nor our vibrant minority communities who were rapidly becoming the economic engines.

I also found it jarring that the policies put forth for Real America didn’t benefit Rural America, Southern States America, or Factory America.  Their policies were real hard on them.  Sure, they had farm bills, but those only seemed to benefit corporate farms, not the hard working family farmer.  And how could gutting the unions benefit Factory America?  It couldn’t.  It was merely a lip service, a ploy, an appeal to the emotions without passing through the brain.  We all know what they were offering Southern States America.  The only Real America that their policies helped were Corporate America.

But here it was.  The Republican Party was equated to The Real America.  It was the country.  Everybody else is either an interloper or an agitator or not very bright.  Party and country were one.  You can’t ask people to put party before country if, in their minds, they are the same thing.  The Republican Congresspersons will think they are putting country first, because to them, the party is the country.  We are so screwed!

Citizens United and its Impact on Constituency

When I was growing up, My father was active in politics.  You would never see him on the stump, and he never ran for office.  He was a critical member of various politicians’ teams, mostly republican.  One thing he was particularly good at was fundraising.  I remember him telling me, “The small donation from a family is important.  If the person who handles the family money will give you $5.00, you have to understand what that means.  $5.00 is a roast and all the fixings (this was the 60’s, after all).  That is at least one family meal.  They have given you a meal off of their table.  If they will give you that, they will give you their vote.  These donations are a sign that they are with you.”

Was the small donation also a way to gain influence over the candidate?  Probably, but it didn’t matter.  The donation was small, and their were a lot of them in relation to the district.  Lots of donations of similar amounts meant that the influence was dispersed across a whole lot of families.  The politicians had to listen to a lot of people with a lot of different ideas if they wanted to fund their campaigns and win their elections.  While they hated having to beg for donations, the process led to democratic (small d) representation.  Those families, and their neighbors, were the constituency, and the politicians never forgot it.

When I returned to Colorado in 1989, I joined up with the Douglas County Republicans, because I lived in Douglas County.  We were immediately involved in the local elections and midterms.  I was looking forward to putting into practice the things I had learned from my father.  However, something had happened to Colorado politics while I was away.  I was told, “We don’t do fundraising that way any more.  It is too hard, too time consuming, and undignified.  We have big dollar sponsors now.  All we have to do is select candidates that our sponsors can support.”  And so it was.  At the time, the big donors were people like Marvin Davis and Philip Anschutz and  corporations like major banks and large developers.  It soon included the Koch brothers and other donors at the national level.  While the smaller donations were never turned down, they were no longer the focus of fundraising.  With the change in fundraising came a change in the constituency.  The politicians no longer had to accommodate the families who made up the small donor class.  They had to accommodate the big donors.  And the influence was no longer dispersed, it was concentrated.  The constituency was now the wealthy individuals and corporations, who seemed to have the same policy focuses.

Then came the The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Act.  But first, a bit of history on campaign financing.

The first federal laws concerning campaign finance were passed in 1867 to prohibit Navy yard workers from being solicited for campaign funds.  I don’t know why this law was passed.  Over the years, other laws were passed to regulate campaign financing.  Essentially, these laws were meant to limit contributions to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups did not have a disproportionate influence on Federal elections, prohibit certain sources of funds for Federal campaign purposes (i.e., the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to national campaigns), control campaign spending (laws passed in 1910 covering U.S. House of Representative races, and 1911 to add the Senate, both laws limited the amounts that could be spent on a candidate’s election), and require public disclosure of campaign finances to deter abuse and to educate the electorate (essentially the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925).  The public disclosure was an important element of the regulations passed.

However, these laws were approved without including a way to enforce them.  Thus, the campaign finance provisions of all of these laws were pretty much ignored. In 1971, Congress passed a more rigorous set of disclosure provisions under the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act as the primary law regulating political campaign spending and fundraising. It focused on increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns.  

After Watergate, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, which put new limits on contributions to campaigns.  Unfortunately, within four years, the FEC had decided that donors could donate unlimited money to political parties, but not the candidates themselves, as long as the party used that money for “party building activities” such as voter registration drives, but not to directly support candidates.  Political parties still used this money to support their candidates.  This money donated to parties became known as soft money.  In 1992, President George HW Bush vetoed a bill restricting use of soft money.

Because of a series of scandals (including Enron) brought the issue of campaign finance to the fore of public consciousness in 2001, and the McCain-Feingold bill was passed.  The important provisions of this act included a prohibition of national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to the federal limits previously set, and limited the use of issue advocacy adds.  It also prohibited any issue advocacy ad from being paid for by a corporation, including non-profit issue organizations, or union general treasury funds.  It also included a ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals being involved in decisions regarding political spending.  Mitch McConnell was a major opponent of this act.

To comply with McCain-Feingold, many “527s” have been registered.  527s get their name from section 527 of the IRS code. 527s are mostly funded by wealthy individuals, labor unions, and businesses.  While 527s existed before McCain-Feingold, they became more popular after it was passed.

McCain-Feingold had in it a section known as the “millionaire’s amendment,” which tried to equalize campaigns by increasing the legal limit on contributions to candidate when his opponent used personal wealth to overwhelm the spending of the candidate.  As McCain said, “Money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.”  In other words, the millionaire amendment was specifically designed to offset the ability of the very wealthy to buy elections.  This is the provision that the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional in the case known as Citizens United in 2009.  Specifically, Citizens United struck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions.  The minority argued that the court erred in allowing unlimited corporate spending, arguing that corporate spending posed a particular threat to democratic self-government. However, it did also make it easier to hide the source of funds.  According to President Barack Obama, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.” He also said the decision was, “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

In fact, the Supreme Court decision in 2009 did make it easier to hide where soft money was coming from.  The elections of 2012 and 2016 are evidence of this fact.  Now our elections are largely financed by the 1%.  We know that Robert Mercer was a major contributor to the Trump campaign.  We know that Sheldon Adelson largely funded the failed Newt Gingrich campaign and was sought by all the Republican candidates in 2016.  We also know that the Koch brothers have invested heavily in elections throughout the country from school boards to state assemblies and legislatures to U.S. Congress and President.  So financing campaigns has been moved from the family donations to the company donations to corporate and special interest donations to the 1%.  So the influence, and thus, the constituency, has shifted accordingly.

However, these are the things we know about soft money.  The difficulty in finding out the sources of funds in the soft money world opens up a whole new problem.  Because of the lack of transparency, there is every possibility that a significant portion of that soft money is in fact laundered money from foreign sources.  We do know that there are questions about several individuals involved in the Trump campaign as to whether they have been laundering money.  There are transactions, for example, that Manafort has been involved in that have all the earmarks of money laundering.  It is not a far stretch to ask whether the Trump campaign was an experiment in a new way to launder money.  If the Trump campaign was benefiting from laundered money, was he the only one?  If politicians were accepting money from foreign sources, then who do they represent?  Does the influence belong now to foreign entities?  Are these foreign entities now the true constituency of our politicians?  This is a really scary thought.  Imagine if the real constituent to whom our congress and President are responsible to is Vladimer Putin.   Perhaps the time has come to ask our congresspersons, who are your real constituents?