Category Archives: All Politics Is Local

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.

Revisited: The Day They Stopped a Pardon Scandal

Since taking office, President Trump has used the power of the presidential pardon to free several people convicted of various crimes. The crimes include illegal campaign contributions, lying to the FBI about a government coverup by a former president, and contempt of court for discrimination against minorities.

As of this writing, Trump has hinted of more pardons, including that of one official serving time for a public corruption conviction, including soliciting bribes.

Some of the crimes mirror legal battles now being played out against former Trump campaign officials.

The situation recalls memories of a governor of my home state of Tennessee in the late 1970’s.

After the governor was voted out of office, but before his term expired, he began issuing pardons in what was termed a “cash for clemency” scandal. These included the commutation of a sentence for at least one convicted murderer.

The outgoing governor was a Democrat, the incoming governor a Republican. The concerned leaders of both political parties, however, convened and swore in the new governor several days before his term was to begin. Any more pardons thus were averted.

This revisit to the past is not necessarily to suggest the extreme measure of impeachment against a current president. It is to suggest that both political parties in Congress could act together to go beyond partisan politics.

They could pass legislation insuring the full investigation of Russian meddling in our elections. They could reign in questionable practices by some Trump appointees.

The Republican governor sworn in early by both parties in 1979 was Lamar Alexander, now one of Tennessee’s senators, known as a moderate. Time for moderates of both political parties to unite for honest governing.

Packaging the American Election

American elections are about advertising—the packaging of the candidates. And packaging costs money.

A reward for contributing the most money to a successful campaign may be access to the president to lobby for favored business interests. Or the contributor may be awarded a place in the president’s administration or maybe an ambassadorship.

Candidates are sold like toothpaste or cars. They are sold to appeal to the electorate, who are boxed up by paid studies into neat electoral slices.

Political campaigns are couched to appeal to those electoral slices. Like an ad for a food product, they narrow down a specific desire and zero in.

A few Americans read about products before they buy them—dietary supplements, automobiles, or floor covering, for example Too many depend on splashy advertising that appeals to desire but doesn’t offer real information.

Desires for physical products are often self-centered: to be cool or beautiful or wealthy. Vague promises, hard to quantify, are made about the product’s potential. Smart consumers search for proof that the product gives what it promises.

However, desires also can be unselfish: for strong job growth or freedom from terrorism or saving the lives of babies. Politicians cater to these desires, too. Whether candidates actually care or can actually deliver may be secondary to their desire to be elected.

Wise voters continually study reputable sources—about the country and the world, as well as about the candidates. Does the candidate’s character and past life indicate how well the candidate may carry out what they say? Do candidates actually give evidence of caring for what they promise to do?

Best to go beyond the flashy advertising, the tweetable campaign slogans, and the I’ll-give-you-the-moon speeches.

Rule by Executive Decree

Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in an interview on VOA with Greta Van Susteren, spoke of “rule by executive decree.” He was speaking specifically of the Iran nuclear agreement, but his words apply more broadly.

As Crocker pointed out, both Democratic and Republican presidents have used executive orders to carry our their policies to an unprecedented degree. Rules are issued; rules are rescinded, all by strokes of the presidential pen.

Congress is unable to pass even simple legislation. Our divisions have torn it apart, leaving it unable to function.

This position, Crocker rightly pointed out, “is not a good position for our nation to be in.” It damages our ability to act with any authority in world affairs.

Our friends wait for us to find a path. Our enemies take advantage of our flip-flopping. We can’t be trusted, they say. Just wait, and policy will change with the next president.

At some point, if we are to overcome this blockage, we must respect those with whom we disagree and work together. Name calling and angry tweets belong to unsupervised children.

Are we capable of “reasoning together”? Our survival depends on it.

James Comey, John McCain, and now Rex Tillerson

The books, A Higher Loyalty by James Comey, and The Restless Wave: Good Times, Just Causes, Great Fights, and Other Appreciations by John McCain, hint of the moral war being fought in this country.

Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State, fired in the usual Trump fashion, had not fit well in the job to which he was assigned. Inexperienced in government operations, he neglected to form necessary relationships with the people who worked for him.

Nevertheless, unlike other wealthy men appointed by Trump, Tillerson didn’t work to grease wheels for the rich. He was a good man trying to do his job honorably. Speaking recently to the graduating class of Virginia Military Institute, he joined others in spotlighting the moral challenges this country faces.

“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom,” Tillerson said.

Though he did not mention Trump by name, listeners surely understood the speech as a repudiation of Trumpian practices, of labeling as fake any news that is unfavorable to the administration.

The danger of Trump so filling the airwaves with easily provable untruths is that we accept lying as just part of the game. It isn’t. We’ve never had a politician lying so often and with so little shame.

As Tillerson said, “When we as a people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may seem the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . . . If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both the public and private sector, and regrettably at times into the nonprofit sector, then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”

Is Democracy Dying?

“Is Democracy Dying?” is a series of essays in Foreign Affairs (May/June, 2018). They discuss the chances for democracy’s continuance, especially in the United States.

Why is the United States, for generations the world’s poster child for democracy, not immune from danger? One answer—many believe the main answer—is this country’s growing inequality.

An article in the series by Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist, compares today’s wages with wages at General Motors fifty years ago when “ . . . workers earned an average of around $30 an hour in 2016 dollars. Today, the country’s largest employer is Walmart, which in 2016 paid around $8 an hour.” (“The Age of Insecurity; Can Democracy Save Itself?”)

The cards are stacked against the working and middle classes, as we increasingly reward the more well-off. The recently passed tax legislation cuts taxes for the wealthy. This is predicted to increase the national debt and lead to calls for scaling back or abolishing programs for the less well-off, like affordable medical care or even social security, the pension system for the elderly.

Growing inequality would seem to demand, first of all, that we distribute the tax burden, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy.

As Inglehart writes, quoting overwhelming conclusions from research: “. . . extreme inequality is incompatible with democracy.”

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting and Why Is One Company Allowed to Manage so Much of Our News?

Sinclair Broadcasting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Without many of us being aware of it, this one company is on the threshold of managing a large proportion of U.S. television stations.

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting?

According to Jon Talton (“As Rules Faded Away, Sinclair Stepped In,” The Seattle Times, April 8, 2018) the company requires “right-wing talking points to be aired on its local stations…”

This not only takes away from local reporting. It also makes a mockery out of reporting “news.” The stations, if they implement the Sinclair model, become propaganda machines, not reporters of facts.

When radio appeared in 1912, the airwaves were considered public. The federal government began issuing licenses.

When television was later introduced, the Federal Communications Commissions enacted the Fairness Doctrine. It required balanced coverage of controversial issues. Though national networks appeared, like NBC and CBS, the ownership of stations was mostly local. In fact, Sinclair began as a locally owned station in 1971 in Baltimore.

Talton details how the Fairness Doctrine was eaten away over the years by lawsuits and deregulation under both Democratic and Republican administrations. “This opened the way for the success of Rush Limbaugh and imitators, who couldn’t have broadcast their shows without balance under the old rule.”

Limits on the ownership of local stations were lifted, and thousands of local stations were bought by a few big owners, including Sinclair.

According to Talton, the government watchdogs were captured by the broadcasting industry. He points to Ajit Pai, President Trump’s FCC chairman, as aggressively rolling back rules.

Local reporting is being overtaken by news slanted to particular political interests.

But, as Talton says, we can all turn off irresponsible broadcasters like the Sinclair stations. We still have the option of listening to legitimate television and radio stations and subscribing to good newspapers. We have choices. So far.

The Folly of Disdaining the Experts

President Trump’s cabinet of department secretaries and advisors lurches from tweeted firings to unprecedented numbers of new appointments.

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a good man humiliated for trying to do his job, is only one of many caught in the flood of incoming and outgoing.

The State Department he headed is one of the original three U.S. government departments begun under George Washington.

The purpose of more recently created departments may be a bit fuzzy, but the purpose of the State Department is clear and always has been. The State Department’s purpose is to handle U.S. relations with other countries.

The State Department’s Foreign Service Officers, otherwise known as diplomats, train to carry out their mission to the rest of the world, like members of the military for their assignments.

They learn foreign languages, study the history and culture of the countries where they will serve, and train for managing outposts of the U.S. in foreign countries. On average, they spend two-thirds of their careers in those countries.

Their duty is to use their skills and on-the-ground experience to serve the various presidents and their administrations. “Serve” is the operative word.

Yet presidents sometimes disdain their diplomatic servants. Roger Grant Harrison (“Will the State Department Rise Under Pompeo?” American Interest, April 4, 2018) suggests why this might be so.

Wrote Harrison: “The problem with career Foreign Service Officers is that they know too much. They know why your simple-minded plan to invade Iraq and install a democracy won’t work. They understand the tribal, ethnic, and familial loyalties that will frustrate your efforts to consolidate the opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, and why the endlessly trained Afghan military will never win the victory that American generals endlessly promise.”

Ah, well, they try. And will try again, under Mike Pompeo or whoever finally takes over from Rex Tillerson.

Borrowing from the Future

Politicians understand how Americans hate paying taxes. A good way to get votes is to promise lower taxes—even if the resulting deficit will burden next generations.

Even though we hate taxes, we love programs paid for by taxes: the military to keep foreign enemies at bay, social security for the elderly, weather forecasts warning us of hurricanes, protection for our borders, clean air and water, national parks, police to guard us, good schools, justice systems to mandate fair play, protection of Americans abroad—and so on and on.

Unfortunately, payment for these programs comes disproportionately from the incomes of wage earners. The recent tax cuts for some wage earning Americans are a pittance compared with tax cuts passed for wealthy Americans—those able to live on accumulated wealth, not dependent on wages from a job.

Taxation on wealth has not kept pace with taxation on wages.

This is not to heap shame on economically advantaged Americans. Many of them give liberally to good causes. They begin businesses resulting in jobs. They fund scholarships. They sponsor research.

But this giving is voluntary. Until taxation on wealth keeps pace with taxation on income, our government will be inadequately funded.

Americans who receive a tax cut this April are cautioned to remember that the gift is actually money borrowed from the future.

How Many of These Young Demonstrators Will Vote?

Teenagers in our local high school were allowed seventeen minutes on March 14 to demonstrate for safer schools. One minute was allowed for each person killed by a gunman in a Parkland, Florida, school in February. The high school faculty considered the demonstration a lesson in civics for the students.

By the next congressional elections in November, 2018, a few of these students will be old enough to vote. By the time major elections are held in November, 2020, a great many of them will be eligible.

Elections are influenced not only by those who vote, but also by those who don’t.

Typically, younger voters have not voted at the same rate as their elders. Will this change in future elections? How much would a rising participation rate by younger voters change our politics?

A Witch Hunt?

After he was fired by President Trump, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe issued the following statement:

“The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.”

Supposedly, McCabe was fired because he provided an interview to a news agency unauthorized by the FBI.

In his rebuttal, McCabe says of the charge: “As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

McCabe is said to have written memos relating to his conversations with President Trump as did former FBI director James Comey. They, like Comey’s memos, may shed light on whether Trump attempted to halt the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Robert Mueller was appointed by the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the Russian meddling. Now Trump is calling this investigation a “WITCH HUNT.”

Trump makes this accusation, despite cases already brought against thirteen Russians, as well as several Americans within the Trump campaign and administration.

Robert Mueller, by the way, is not a Democrat. He is a Republican, a highly respected public servant appointed as FBI director by President George W. Bush. He served for thirteen years as director.

Schools and Tax Cuts

According to an article in The Economist (“Five into four,” February 3, 2018), cutting taxes at the state level in Oklahoma has been disastrous for its schools.

The tax cuts were based on the belief that cutting taxes will so invigorate the economy that the loss in revenue will be replaced, even exceeded, by economic growth.

Instead, according to the article, “. . . deep tax cuts have wrecked the state’s finances . . . lawmakers gave a sweetheart deal to its oilmen, costing $470m in a single year . . . ”

Teachers have fled the state for living wages in other states. Other services also have suffered, including the state highway patrol.

Tax cuts in neighboring Kansas wrecked state finances there as well, However, a Republican legislature in that state rebelled and reversed tax cuts. Tax raises require a larger majority in Oklahoma.

Despite these examples, cutting taxes on the more well off appears alive and well in the recent tax package passed by the U.S. congress. Unfortunately, the deficit from such cuts threatens programs enjoyed by the less well off. Anybody for cuts to Social Security?

Discouraged About Our Politics? Try Baby Step Involvement

Recently, Washington State legislators passed and sent to the governor a bill exempting many of their records from public view, despite the state’s Public Records Act.

Public protest over the bill began after newspapers pointed out how they used the Public Records Act to investigate political corruption,.

The legislature had passed the exemption bill without the usual public debate and scrutiny. A large number of representatives and senators approved the bill, supposedly rendering it veto proof.

The governor, though expressing himself against the measure, was considering letting it pass without any action, since, it seemed, the legislature would simply vote to override his veto.

Thousands of emails poured into offices of the legislators. Thousands of citizens phoned. Some even sent letters. Reaction overwhelmingly condemned the bill.

The governor vetoed the bill, and the legislators agreed not to pass it over his signature. They will, they said, work on another bill that follows more accepted procedures and allows for compromise.

In a time when our national government appears polarized and paralyzed, citizens can exert a great deal of influence at the state and local levels. Perhaps responsible state governments will prod our national politicians out of their dysfunction.

A long time ago, I heard someone suggest that involvement, even in small ways, works to overcome the despair of powerlessness.

I was one of those who emailed my state legislators. It was a small act, but, strangely, it did give me a bit of optimism about our democracy.