Category Archives: All Politics Is Local

Local Color

Recently the newspaper for our nearest metropolitan area ran a research series about water rights in our state. Water is a precious resource. Should the buying and selling of water rights be run as a for-profit business? Selling water rights has become a way of survival for older farmers with no one to take their places.

The articles provided input for dealing with this issue before it becomes critical. They were typical of the research and reporting of this daily newspaper.

Our smaller community newspaper lets us know about our city council meetings and various local events. It provides a forum for the varied opinions of local citizens. To judge by the number and depth of recent letters to the editor for local candidates, you would not know it was an “off” election year. Local journalism is part of the process.

Newspapers tied to a particular area cannot be replicated by Facebook. Though I occasionally use Facebook for keeping up with acquaintances, I never, ever use it as a source of news. I don’t know why anyone would.

I know the bona fides of my local news sources. I don’t know if a Facebook piece is written by an expert, a Russian troll, or a mentally unbalanced hater.

I’m convinced more than ever of what I learned in my first journalism class in the days of the Cold War: a democracy cannot exist without locally supported newspapers.

What Does “Drain the Swamp” Mean?

The current administration promised to “drain the swamp” when it was elected. What has that meant?

Swamp draining has meant more political ambassadors, appointed because they donated money to a candidate. The number of career ambassadors serving at U.S. embassies is at the lowest level since records have been kept.

Draining the swamps has meant desertion of allies like the Kurds. It has meant holding back funds, for political purposes, voted on by Congress to help Ukrainian allies fight Russian incursion into their country. It has meant losing the respect of our allies.

“Please stay.” That’s the plea from the president of the American Foreign Service Association, as seasoned diplomats quit in frustration.

Fewer young people sign up to take the Foreign Service exam, no longer inspired to enter government service.

Not only in the State Department but in other agencies as well, turnover at the top has been unprecedented. Apparently, swamp draining means little cohesion even among those chosen by the administration. Cabinet secretaries and other appointed officials have quit, some fired by tweet, others leaving in disgust.

Here’s a look at the amount of turnover at the top tiers of our government.

Make your own decision about what draining the swamps means.

Jesus in the Voting Booth

“Forty years ago in Houston, Texas, a group of conservative pastors pulled off a heist at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention that reshaped both America’s biggest Protestant denomination and its national politics.” (Lexington: “On the Edge,” The Economist, June 15, 2019)

The article comments on the denomination’s story since that Houston meeting. Many evangelical leaders became openly political, usually favoring candidates from the Republican party.

Forty years on, what has been the result of the politicalization of a denomination? According to the article: “The confidence that fueled the 1979 resurgence is long gone. The convention’s membership . . . is at its lowest in 30 years, and falling. Half of all Southern Baptist children leave the faith . . .”

What’s the takeaway? Perhaps a call for the support of certain directions rather than support of a particular party.

Jesus’ ministry took place in an empire ruled by an aristocratic elite, but we still might learn from his interaction with the leaders of the day. He seemed inordinately concerned for the poor, the hungry, the sick, the dying, and the grieving.

Jesus welcomed any of the wealthy who came to him. However, he told stories like the one consigning a rich man to the flames of hell because of the man’s disregard for the poor beggar in his neighborhood.

Perhaps Christians might vote with these examples in mind.

It’s Close Enough For Government Work

“It’s close enough for government work,” the old joke goes. Actually, much “government” work these days is not done by government employees but by contractors. That’s because, over the years, the belief grew that the government employed too many people.

We could save money by contracting work to what many believed were more efficient business models, so the idea went.

However, the reduction led to backlogs for some agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration.

In addition, as the The New York Times (January 3, 2014) pointed out: “ . . . the current practice of contracting out vast swaths of government work indefinitely . . . has created a bloated federal-contractor sector in which the public good is often subservient to profit.”

The outsourcing of work can seem unfair, for example, if a contract worker in a war zone makes a much higher salary than a soldier for Uncle Sam serving in the same area.

No one supposes government employees are all sterling characters. Oversight is required. However, they are generally hired for a particular job function. Unlike contractors, they are not there to make as much money as possible off the taxpayers.

When I worked in a U.S. embassy overseas as a career government employee, I cooperated with the information tech contractors who came to install new computer systems in the embassy. They were nice guys (all males, as I remember) and as far as I could tell did an adequate job with the new systems.

They went back to their hotel at five in the afternoon, followed by an evening out. I usually stayed another hour or so, taking advantage of the quiet to finish work.

If an American citizen called in with an overnight emergency, I came in and worked as long as necessary to find some resolution for the problem.

I had my job, and the contractors had theirs. Contracting makes sense in areas where the need for the work increases for a limited time or requires unusual expertise.

Certainly, U.S. government employees have been guilty of shoddy work, or worse, betraying their country. They take an oath, however, to obey the laws and Constitution of the United States and often develop pride in what they see as serving their country.

With the number of contractors in recent years found guilty of misusing their access to government documents, that sense of pride should not be lightly dismissed.

The Biggest Finding from the Mueller Investigation

From Stephen Kotkin (“American Hustle, What Mueller Found—and Didn’t Find—About Trump and Russia)” in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2019):

“ . . . Russians approaching the Trump campaign could not figure out whom to contact, who was in charge, or who mattered. . . . Putin, supposedly, could help Trump get elected but could not talk to him, despite the publically expressed eagerness of Trump and his people to enter into contact and make deals.”

Jared Kushner is quoted as saying, “They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices.”

Apparently, the Trump campaign was so poorly organized that the Russians couldn’t figure out who to talk to. Trump’s people didn’t collude with the Russians because, in Kotkin’s opinion, they were too inept to do so.

The Money that Isn’t There

The late Senator John McCain strongly supported legislation for reform of political campaign funding. The McCain-Feingold Act was passed in 2002.

However, the Supreme Court undid much of the reform in various rulings, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. The decisions opened the door for unlimited contributions from corporations and allowed more channels of secret money to pour into political campaigns.

According to opensecrets.org, election spending for the 2016 presidential and congressional elections was 6.5 billion dollars.

In a political process depending more and more on money, the advantages to the wealthy are obvious.

Consider also the increasing amounts of money given to political campaigns that might previously have been given to other causes—programs for troubled youth, drug rehabilitation, spiritual growth, to name a few.

Politics has consumed us in the past few years. We seem to believe that the magic candidate will solve all of America’s problems. Even ordinary citizens of limited means, who never before gave politically, turn anger into campaign spending.

In truth, it’s probably the efforts of individuals and small groups concerned for neighbors that do more good. But money given in the past for such programs may be finding its way into political campaigns instead.

Where We Go For the Most Important News

My husband and I subscribe to digital versions of a couple of national newspapers, including our closest major metropolitan daily.

However, the one we faithfully pull out of the newspaper tube next to our mailbox is our twice weekly local newspaper. This one may be the most important.

What did our city council consider in its last meeting about the proposed zoning plans for the city?

How long will one of the ferries serving our island be removed before another replaces it?

What’s going on at the arts center?

We scan the local police report, too.

Oh, yes—there’s the picture of our local high school graduates. Also, a story on the end of the sports year at the school. Announcements of scholarships and what the two student speakers at the commencement will be talking about.

Let’s see, here’s an article about the elementary school students harvesting vegetables from their garden.

We check the events calendar—everything from a library book sale to a meeting for children of alcoholics and dysfunctional families.

Of course, we must read the letters from readers—this is where our neighbors endorse candidates, weigh in on government proposals, and make their opinions known.

All newspapers face challenges today. One of our civic duties is to keep them as strong as possible.

Support is especially vital for our local papers. Regular reporting on local governments and the issues which affect our lives, more than anything else, favors a strong democracy.

Rotten Boroughs

Parts of Britain, by the 1800’s, were known as “rotten boroughs.” A rotten borough was an election district that had lost significant population due to industrialization and movement to cities. The remaining shrunken population still elected a representative to the British parliament.

Meanwhile, in contrast, growing cities had little representation in parliament.

Gradual reforms eventually led to a fairer system, giving more representation to the cities.

Our voting system today doesn’t approach the unfairness of the rotten borough, but it bears resemblances.

Each state, whether California (2010 census: 37,252, 895) or Wyoming (2010 census: 563,757) elects two senators.

California elects 53 representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. Wyoming elects one representative.

A combination of those numbers forms the “electoral college.” This electoral college, according to the U.S. Constitution, elects the president. It has 538 members (equal to 100 senators plus 435 representatives, plus 3 members for the District of Columbia).

Each electoral vote from California represents 719,219 Californians. An electoral vote from Wyoming represents 192,579 citizens of Wyoming. Thus, the citizens of some states enjoy more representation in the election of the president.

Several movements are attempting to change the election of the president to more equally reflect the population of the United States. However, whether one loathes it or loves it, the election of the president by the electoral college is, at present, perfectly legal.

However, one reason for less representation of urban voters in the House of Representatives has to do with the “gerrymandering” of voting districts by state legislators. Gerrymandering means the party in power too often draws voting lines to favor its members rather than honestly reflecting the population of the state.

Surely, true representative government rests on accurate representation of actual voters.

No pay, mortgages, orthodontics

Sunny Blaylock is married to a U.S. diplomat. She and their children accompanied her husband to his assignment in Malaysia. Families were not allowed at his next post, however, in Pakistan, due to terrorist concerns.

She stayed a year in Malaysia with the children, while her husband worked to strengthen U.S. interests in Pakistan.

Her husband’s next assignment was a home assignment, to the U.S. State Department in Washington. The family looked forward to being together again. Ms. Blaylock received the offer of a job with a small U.S. contracting company.

She began working for the company, but then the government shut down. The company could no longer afford to hire her.

Her husband continues to work, but without pay at present.

Meanwhile, the mortgage must be paid, and their orthodontist has told them that their daughter needs braces . . .

Competition: Politics and Charity

I’m sure I’m not the only one inundated this past political season with emails pleading for donations for various candidates.

Some of them may have been from Russian trolls for all I know, but others certainly were from legitimate candidates, including those I voted for.

How much of the money we formerly gave to religious causes, to the needy, and to other charitable concerns is now going into political campaigns?

Politics has become more than a civic duty. It has become our newest religion.

That may be another argument for campaign finance reform.

Exhausted Majority

Something like 86 percent of Americans are a politically exhausted majority according to the results of a survey. (Sojo.net; Hidden Tribes)

The exhausted include: Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Discouraged (biggest at 26 percent), Moderates, and Traditional Conservatives.

Apparently the only ones enthusiastically pressing on are the Progressive Activists (8 percent) and the Devoted Conservatives (6 percent).

As the article points out, it’s no longer us versus them as far as the majority is concerned.

We need peacekeepers and civility projects and forums for the majority of Americans who are not extremists.

Ignore the haters. Visit the safe places to meet and heal.

We the People?

We have great cities, huge corporations, a dynamic economy. But we are failing to develop our people.

The wealthy accumulate more wealth, but the tax base shrinks. More of our taxes come from ordinary working people rather than the wealthy. Ordinary people pay taxes; the wealthy hire lawyers to find loopholes.

How much better to invest more of that wealth in building up ordinary families: schools, college, continuous job training, health care. “The country needs to rethink the role of human capital and invest substantially in doing so.” (Kenneth F. Scheve and Matthew J. Slaughter, “How to Save Globalization,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2018.)

One with minimal schooling and training can no longer walk into a life time job, with benefits. Yet jobs—our daily service—are part of our self-worth.

It is, as the authors point out, not just too many ill-paying jobs but the fact that labor is so unrewarded for too many.

They propose investments, not only in education but in life long training to meet a changing job market. “ . . . it is human capital, more than any other asset, that determines an individual’s changes of thriving in a dynamic economy. The United States should expand its investments in human capital at every stage of American life.”

In other words, invest in “we the people.”

Climate and Other Changes

Suppose climate isn’t changing because of human activity, but we pass legislation as though it is?

Our air and water would be cleaner, for one thing. Flooding would be better managed, and newer sources of energy would create jobs in new fields.

Why, then, are we having difficulty cleaning up waterways and passing stricter emission standards?

Possibly because coal miners and others will lose jobs, at least the jobs they have now. Some employees of industrial polluters may lose jobs, too. Standards will be stricter and may cost money to enforce. We may have to give up activities we are used to doing. Development on sensitive land may be forbidden.

Yet, data points to unprecedented and rapid warming of the earth. We have a conflict between what is good for the “community” (a cleaner environment and better management of our resources) over against difficult changes for some.

How, then, can we work toward a zero sum game for all players?

We can begin by acknowledging the hardship caused to some of our population by climate change policies. Change, any change, usually requires that someone give up something.

Our jobs are changing and not only from climate policies. We cannot stop change. We can only manage change, if we so choose. We can begin by asking questions.

Why are we wedded to practices of the industrial revolution when that revolution is long past?

Why is our economic system arranged as if most families can survive with only one wage earner?

Why do we live as though the norm is lifetime employment with one company? A company we must depend on to provide essentials like health insurance?

Climate change is only one change we face. Our digital revolution is another. Continual training, available for all who need it for new jobs, is essential. Universal health insurance, not dependent on an employer, is another.

Given the means to change, we also must be willing to change for the benefit of the community.

Those Socialists

The word “socialism” has taken on new meaning as a catchword in current American politics. The columnist Froma Harrop calls for a better understanding of the word.

Some political candidates, Harrop says, are calling themselves socialists but “seem to have little idea of what socialism is. And most of the conservatives talking back to them don’t seem to know, either.” (“The silly debate about socialism,” The Seattle Times, 9 September 2018).

These new candidates, Harrop says, are not talking about taking away the means of production from capitalists. They are talking about using taxes to strengthen social safety nets.

The term “distribution of income” does not in itself mean the planned economy of the former Soviet Union. Older Americans have benefitted for years from social security and medicare. Well-functioning transportation systems, supported by government, are a boon to the economy.

Few Americans, those calling themselves socialist or not, want to end private ownership. This economic system works efficiently in the world of supply and demand of physical goods.

But a profit driven system works poorly for many Americans in areas like health and education.

Wealthy citizens can afford the healthcare and education their children need. But healthcare and education for all, not just the wealthy, ultimately benefit our capitalist system with healthy, educated workers.

Health and education, like transportation, work better when all have access to them.

Truth as a Fashion Choice

“The core issue is not Trump’s deceptions but the public’s self-deception: Why do we tolerate levels of deceit in political life that we would never find acceptable in our personal lives as parents, as friends, as neighbors and colleagues, and as law-abiding citizens?

“The answer, I believe, is that as our politics has reached such a state of remorseless combat that many people seem to regard telling the truth as a fashion choice — you can choose to do it, or not, as mood and circumstance vary.”

–Sally Quinn; “What Ben Bradlee Would Think of Donald Trump,” July 13, 2018; www.politico.com

I understand those working men and women who voted for Trump. They have been, to some extent, betrayed by the prosperous, and certainly maligned by too many liberals. Their vote was a protest, a wake up call.

I sympathize with Christian evangelicals, concerned about our sybaritic society, who voted for him, many with reservations about him personally. Some evangelicals who did not vote for Trump are speaking out against the choices of their fellow believers. There’s a dialog there.

My concern, instead, is for what I think of as Trump’s brown shirts: the people who would take up guns and kill—as indeed some have. Those who either are twisted inside or are frighteningly gullible—like the man who actually believed an absurd story that Hillary Clinton was running a child pornography ring out of a pizza parlor.

As Trump’s administration drags on, anything but unwavering support may cost you—your job or maybe your security clearance. Any journalist who brings up troublesome facts unfavorable to Trump’s policies is automatically labeled “fake.” Trump ignores facts, not only with constant lies, but with vile and dehumanizing insults.

That so many people today do not seem appalled by his lies and viciousness is troubling.

People Spending

“. . . focusing on human capital during the first 1,000 days of a child’s life is one of the most cost-effective investments governments can make.” (Jim Young Kim, “The Human Capital Gap, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2018)

Compared with weapons and military spending, the cost for good schools and healthcare for children is minuscule. These programs reap benefits down the road in healthier and trained adults. Yet, these programs tend to be cut when budgets are tight.

We no longer live in an age when one income can support the average family. If parents are so important to a young child’s life, why do we not encourage more leave time for parents when a child is young? Affordable child-care facilities close to workplaces?

Surely our political parties can unite around the need to bolster our spending on people-friendly policies.

Believe Me

John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, has written a thought-provoking book, Believe Me: the Evangelical Road to Donald Trump. Fea dedicates his book to the 19 percent of evangelical Christians who didn’t vote for Trump.

Nostalgia can be a form of fear, a longing for a supposedly better time which actually never existed, Fea says. He portrays Trump as using this kind of nostalgic fear.

Many of the 81 percent who voted for Trump did so because of fear, the author believes. Since colonial times some evangelicals have feared witchcraft, Catholics, immigrants, Communists, and liberals. Now they fear secularism.

Fea names as idolatry the tendency of some evangelicals to see the United States as the kingdom of God. Trump touts “making America great again.” Which time in American life is so great that we should return to it?

American life in the 1950’s, as Fea points out, might have been generally benign to American middle class whites. It wasn’t that for many American blacks.

He uses the term “court evangelicals” for some religious leaders who support Trump. He compares them to past leaders who served kings and risked being corrupted themselves.

Fea finds a different hope for Christians who decry the current cultural morass. He is inspired by the model of the civil rights movement, “a Christian approach to politics.” This involves: “Hope, humility, and a responsible use of American history.”

My takeaway: evangelical Christians may have to decide between serving political ends to advance their kingdom or returning to the example of their leader, Jesus. He built a community that changed the world through the way they lived.

Off our Radar: Tax Cuts for the One Percent

Why did the U.S. Congress pass a tax plan in 2017 that lowered taxes for wealthy Americans, who already profited from a favorable tax system?

An article in The Economist (“Free exchange: The ballot or the wallet, July 21, 2018) suggested that, as the rich get richer, they use their increasing wealth to tilt the political system in their favor.

With more money to pay for political campaigns, is it any surprise that a wealthy citizen might favor politicians willing to inflame voters over any issue except creating a fairer tax system?

Years ago Senator John McCain tried to interest citizens in campaign finance reform. Few voters expressed interest, and it faded away.

Nothing says we can’t revisit campaign finance reform again.

Winning Without the Popular Vote

The selection of the American president by the electoral college, not by popular vote, went unnoticed in most presidential elections until recently. Most presidents who won the popular vote also won the electoral college.

The term “college” is misleading, though written into the U.S. Constitution. It’s simply a group of people elected every four years by the different states to decide on the president and vice-president for the next four years.

The electors may not even appear on the ballot. Normally, however, in each state, electors have been chosen by each political party to represent that party’s candidate. The electors meet in December to officially elect the president and vice-president.

The number of electors for each state is based on that state’s representation in Congress. The number is equal to their two senators plus one for each of the state’s representatives in the U.S. House, plus three for Washington. D.C.

The winner in a state takes all of the electoral votes, except in Maine and Nebraska, who allot part of the vote proportionately.

Obviously, more populous states will have more electors based on House representatives. However, the advantage of population can be diluted by the addition of two electors for every state regardless of population.

In the recent past, population growth has concentrated in cities. Rural areas have, in many cases, lost population. Yet states with less population still retain the same number of senatorial electors as those with growing populations.

The Economist, a British-based magazine, pointed out the growing importance of the electoral college in seeming contradiction to the democracy Americans are so proud of. “In two of the five elections for 21st-century presidents, the minority won the electoral college.” (July 14, 2018; “American democracy’s built-in bias”)

Our elections are still dependent on the 18th century thinking that shaped our Constitution. Direct election of a leader by popular vote was still too radical, even for the document’s framers.

Various schemes have been suggested to steer the electoral college to a more population-based makeup.

Unless it does, the growing divisiveness of Americans may be reflected in more “minority” governments.

Governing from the Ground Up

The bus service on the semi-rural island in Puget Sound where I live charges no fares, except for one route into a neighboring island.

The bus service is not free, of course. A tax voted in over 30 years ago by county residents funds the service. Students needing to get to jobs after school, seniors with local doctor appointments, and commuters traveling to the ferry for work on the mainland all use the buses.

A recent vote by the country transit board retained the fare-free rides. The majority of the 850 comments, gathered online and in meetings from citizens, were opposed to charging fares.

Reasons given by respondents for retaining the fare-free busses included “concerns over the loss of ridership, impacts to the environment, cost of collecting fares versus the revenue generated, impacts on vulnerable populations, and operational scheduling impacts.” (Jessie Stensland, South Whidbey Record, June 26, 2018)

Local governments are not immune to corruption and poisoned politics, of course. Nevertheless, within our partisan-blocked national government, citizens can consider other ways to work their will.

Note: Just as in national politics, freedom of the press is essential. Local newspapers provided notice of the proposed fare charges, as well a forum for discussion.