Believe it or not, Donald Trump, is already a failure as a President. The first 100 days of a President's tenure are the most productive--at least, for most Presidents. The reason being that this is when most Presidents are the most popular and the most powerful. After all, theoretically, he was just elected by more than half the country, which implies that more than half the country is supportive, even excited, about the proposals a new President put forward during his campaign. This then puts pressure on his political allies and opponents to appease the majority of the country lest they be perceived as thwarting the will of the people.
This is not the case for Donald Trump. He lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, taking office with a majority of the country against the proposals he had voiced during his campaign. Not only this, but Trump's approval ratings--both his initial approval rating when inaugurated, and his rapid decline to his current 35% approval--are the lowest of any President in history at this point in their Presidency. So, he doesn't get a first 100 days; and, in fact, he may not get any days of popularity and power. There is no pressure on his friends or foes in Congress to appease him. Even Republican members of Congress have constituents speaking out against some of his proposals, and they are voicing those concerns very publicly.
We are currently 75 days into Donald Trump's Presidency--three quarters of the way through what should have been his most productive time in office--and he has racked up far more weeks of failure, controversy, and lawsuits than he has political wins. From his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, having to step-down, to the Russian investigations, to his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, having to excuse himself from the investigation due to his possible involvement with the crimes being investigated, to his twice halted Muslim ban by the federal courts, to his and the GOP's colossal failure in repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, to his current Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, being held up and possibly denied Congressional approval without a historic change in Senate procedure, to a new lawsuit being heard by a federal judge in Kentucky for inciting violence at one of his own campaign rallies a year ago, Donald Trump is not only failing, he's flailing. Despite Republicans having control of the House, Senate, and White House, they are getting nothing accomplished during what is their most likely chance to do so.
It's unfortunate that Trump's failures are coming as no consolation to Democrats. Everyday social media is filled with alarmist memes and warnings about what Trump has proposed today, and while these are scary proposals for people with progressive values, they are only proposals. Nearly all of what Trump has done so far has been through Executive Orders and policy changes within federal agencies. These changes are no small deal, but they are temporary in that the next President, who at this rate of failure, backtracking, and full-on policy reversals (not to mention total lack of character and conviction and a very loose relationship with reality) by Trump will likely be a Democrat, can change on day 1 of his or her Presidency.
This may very well be the end for Trump. Even if he doesn't get impeached for colluding with the Russian government to sabotage Hillary Clinton's Presidential run or for conflicts of interest between his businesses and his role as President, legislatively, everything he wants to do has to get through Congress. To get through Congress, it has to have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. So, to pass any bill, to accomplish anything at all that will last past his final day in office, Trump must get 8 Democrats to sign-off on the legislation. This goes for budgets too; meaning, he can talk about building a wall all he wants, but unless he plans to pay for it himself or get Mexico to pay for it, as he promised, he's going to need Congressional approval for the funds. Same for his tax overhaul. Same for any of the outrageous things he's proposed over the last two years.
There are about nine months left before campaigns start for the midterm election. One-third of the 100 Senate seats are up for re-election. Nine of those are Republican seats; Democrats need to win five of them. In the House, elections will be held to elect representatives from all 435 congressional districts nationwide. Additionally, 36 states will be voting to elect Governors. How does this pertain to Trump? Republican members of Congress are going to be far less likely to side with a President embroiled in scandals, lawsuits, and legislative failures during an election year. Meaning, if Trump does not get some big wins in the next nine months, which is unlikely given his record during what should have been his honeymoon period, he may have both Democrats and Republicans publicly denouncing his policies and trashing his administration in their re-election campaigns. He may also find himself in a stalemate, if not impeachment hearings, for the final two years of his Presidency with a Congress being run by Democrats.
There is another silver lining to Trump's failure as a President. Whether he realizes it or not, he has brought the long-held beliefs of the Republican party out of the shadows for all the world to see. They were already expecting to be trounced during the 2016 elections. The only reason they weren't is because people wanted to protest and Trump was their pipe-bomb to the establishment. The policy beliefs of most Americans still do not align with the Republican platform. The demographics of American voters increasingly favor Democrats, and now, Donald Trump has exposed Republicans as all bluster and false promises with regard to immigration, health care, tax reform, and the like. If they can not make steps forward in any of these areas even with complete control of Washington, they may be looking at years of losses. This was their big chance to prove they are still worthwhile as a party and they are blowing it, BIG TIME. Not only this, but many moderate Republicans have come to see their party for what it is: a science-denying, racist, sexist, fake news-loving party who panders to the worst of society. This is not how moderate Republicans see themselves, and many may be looking to the far more moderate Democratic party to speak to their political needs.
During the 2016 election many progressives thought Donald Trump was the best thing to ever happen to Democrats. Then he won and they were appalled, frightened, and devastated. This is understandable, but maybe, just maybe, we needed a Trump Presidency for the world to fully appreciate how sinister, heartless, hateful, and incompetent the Republican party has become.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Passion is Great, Strategy is Better
After dwelling on the results of the election and remembering daily that this man has a majority in congress and will appoint Supreme Court Justices, I needed inspiration badly. This is why I was so inspired to hear former President Obama (it hurts to say former, doesn't it? ) express the wisdom he shared with his girls about the state of the world under the new administration: "The world isn't over until it's over." And he's right.
We progressives like to sadistically indulge in the catastrophic, even fatalistic, nature of bad news. I believe this is due to the fact that we allow ourselves to feel a wider range of emotions, including the emotions of others who are suffering, and try not to numb ourselves to the potential dangers of the information we hear everyday. Because of this, we tend to be a bit more wily, weird, and passionate about what is going on in the world. It's hard for progressives to fight politically because we have so much information and no overarching ideology for filtering what matters to us as a party. In fact, many progressives fear attaching themselves to the Democratic party for fear of having their views dragged to the middle. Compare this with conservatives who, rather than fearing their party will drag them to the middle, have dragged their party to the far right in a way we haven't see in two generations. Republicans often win elections because they have an ideological filter as a party that dictates whether or not they care about the information they are hearing. They hear the Earth is warming due to human behavior, and the more reasonable of them--the ever dying breed able to accept the consensus of experts in a field over partisan hacks on television--say, "Ok, well, how can we solve this in a way that doesn't tank the economy? How can we turn this into an opportunity for innovation? Is there even a realistic way to solve this problem without implementing strangling regulations that will lose our country a ton of money?" This filter allows conservatives to remain calm in the face of potentially detrimental information.
We progressives like to sadistically indulge in the catastrophic, even fatalistic, nature of bad news. I believe this is due to the fact that we allow ourselves to feel a wider range of emotions, including the emotions of others who are suffering, and try not to numb ourselves to the potential dangers of the information we hear everyday. Because of this, we tend to be a bit more wily, weird, and passionate about what is going on in the world. It's hard for progressives to fight politically because we have so much information and no overarching ideology for filtering what matters to us as a party. In fact, many progressives fear attaching themselves to the Democratic party for fear of having their views dragged to the middle. Compare this with conservatives who, rather than fearing their party will drag them to the middle, have dragged their party to the far right in a way we haven't see in two generations. Republicans often win elections because they have an ideological filter as a party that dictates whether or not they care about the information they are hearing. They hear the Earth is warming due to human behavior, and the more reasonable of them--the ever dying breed able to accept the consensus of experts in a field over partisan hacks on television--say, "Ok, well, how can we solve this in a way that doesn't tank the economy? How can we turn this into an opportunity for innovation? Is there even a realistic way to solve this problem without implementing strangling regulations that will lose our country a ton of money?" This filter allows conservatives to remain calm in the face of potentially detrimental information.
Progressives see this as heartless and cold and simple-minded, probably because we don't have a heady ideology. We have an emotional worldview that leads many of us to hear of global warming, blame ourselves, and withdraw from the 21st century altogether. We make, sometimes ridiculous, concessions like refusing to drive or fly or even reproduce. We take up urban farming with zero experience and find ourselves stressed-out by the new responsibility of maintaining multiple gardens and feeding livestock while trying to hold down jobs and raise our families. Not that these are bad things to do; I would even argue that progressives are far more creative and innovative and the more disciplined among us will be the ones to solve problems like global warming in a realistic and economically sustainable way, but we need to be more realistic in our approaches and strategy. Becoming a homesteader in the middle of a city and judging everyone else who isn't making the same effort is not a realistic approach to global warming or environmental sustainability.
This is my point. If there is one take-away from last year's election it is that Democrats--not as an institution, but as a constituency of voters--need to stop dabbling in the obscure and outlandish and focus on where we are now as a country (and a world). We need to get more disciplined at playing the game and start taking an interest in heady long-term strategy over feel-good, whimsical rhetoric. Republicans are in it to win it; and they are winning it. They are making very simple moves that transform their ideology into legislation and appointments at every level of government that will last a generation. Democrats elected the first black President with a message more liberal and optimistic than anyone since Kennedy and what did Republicans do? They said (out loud): "Our number one priority is to see that Obama fails." And they did it. They made his first two years appear so radical and out of touch that Americans voted in a conservative congress at the midterm elections and this new congress blocked every move Obama made and then demonized him as a tyrant and a dictator for taking executive action to go around them. And, had Mitt Romney had an ounce of personality or passion as a politician, Republicans would have had congress and the Presidency for the last four years. Furthermore, they gerrymandered their congressional districts nationwide to make sure they keep the House of Representatives in their camp for the foreseeable future. They are ruthless by progressive standards and that's because we take our opponents' rights and feelings into consideration even while fighting for our own agenda.
This has to stop. They will appreciate us when we win. And we will win when we start focusing on winning and not on gaining lip service to every pet-policy we feel so strongly about. We need legislative action. We need politicians who boil their message down to broad overarching themes while acting on everything we have always believed in as progressives. Those of us who understand the breadth of issues happening in the world today need to be smart enough to understand that these issues are better served when we empower our party to play chess instead of checkers. We need to stop expecting our politicians to speak publicly about our specific concern when those who don't understand the breadth of issues going on in the country have very different concerns than ours. Our Democratic Presidential candidates are forced to talk about such nuanced issues to get the nomination that they end up alienating half the country in the general election. We need to be expanding our base by speaking to the issues of people who don't already agree with us. Instead we are forever educating the public and chastising our opponents and by proxy the general public for not understanding every nuance of the political web of issues.
Republicans keep it simple: Small government, low taxes, military strength, and (though incredibly hypocritical and out of sync with the rest of their politics) family values. That's it, four things. Now the breath of issues they squeeze into these categories is enormous. What they expand these four themes to include once in office is equal to the array of issues Democrats fight for, but they don't try to cover in depth every policy they care about during their campaigns. They talk about these four issues in as vague and concise language as possible while attacking their opponents for not being strong on these four issues. In doing so, they frame the political discourse. While Democrats spend a year and a half going into great wonky detail on two dozen issues (some of which only a small percentage of the population are concerned with or even know exist) and mostly ignoring their Republican competitors until the general election, Republicans are pandering to their four issues (issues most Americans can get on board with even if they don't totally agree) and then squeezing the two dozen other issues they'll be responsible for into their four issue framework. They talk as much about Democrats during the primaries as they do about the issues and, as evidenced by last year's election, they fall in line like good little soldiers no matter how much they disagree with their candidates.
I truly believe that the future belongs to progressives. The demographics of the country are trending our way and the divisive and hateful message of Donald Trump has motivated Democrats like I haven't seen in my lifetime. However, if Democrats don't put their hearts in check and start using their heads, I fear we will continue to fail in the political realm. Fiery rhetoric and protests and petitions are all important, but they change nothing if we cannot put in place politicians--and as a result, legislation--who further our values as a party.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Is Trump Really the Next Hitler?
First of all, I want to be clear that I am not a fan of equating democratically elected leaders in the United States to Hitler. It was done when Obama was elected in 2008 and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard. But, if there was ever a threat of a Hitler-esque leader taking the United States in a Nazi-esque direction, it is Donald Trump. The only similarity there was between Obama and Hitler was his charisma and passionate followers during his first campaign. That's it. And, Republicans turned those similarities into an argument for him becoming a tyrant who would destroy the American way of life, and thus an excuse to obstruct his agenda at every turn (nothing could be further from the truth as his eight years has shown us). The similarities between Trump and Hitler are many. He has unleashed and exploited a large faction of people who needed scapegoats for their fears and difficult circumstances. He gave them Mexicans and Muslims and Immigrants. He has a total disrespect for the media and sees them not as the people's last best defense against a secretive and nefarious government, but as a nuisance to be silenced by force from his followers (as he has encouraged at his rallies), if not legally through changing the libel laws (as he has proposed). He holds the same bigoted views of white supremacy as Hitler. He respects heavy-handed, unilateral power like Hitler. He uses populism to build support among those who may not agree with his bigotry, but enable it out of support for his promises to do things, like bring back coal jobs and overturn Row v Wade, that are nearly impossible to achieve. He is annoyed, at best, by pluralism, and lashes out whenever opposed by even the most trivial of opponents (i.e., SNL writers and the cast of Hamilton).
Those of us solidly against Trump are apparently inclined, as many were during Hitler's rise, to believe he won't be as bad as he sounds, or do the more radical things he has promised to do. Despite the fact that his party controls both the House and the Senate and will, through radical obstructionism of our first black President, appoint at least one and possibly three conservative Supreme Court Justices, we believe he will be kept in check by the more level-headed Republicans in Congress. Before you are so quick to be comforted by these supposed moderates, I would implore you to remember that they have been stoking the coals of bigotry, nationalism, fake news and angst toward the media, misinformation, and radical Christianity for decades. Based on their wishy-washy flip-flopping support for Trump during his campaign, it is not clear at all that they will stand in his way if going along with his dangerous and bigoted policies means getting conservative legislation passed that will serve as an albatross around the neck of future generations--generations, I might add, that are FAR from conservative in their politics (lest I remind you that marijuana is legal in a quarter of our states now, and a Democratic Socialist polled far ahead of Trump throughout the entire campaign season).
Despite a mountain of evidence pointing out that Trump means every word he has said over the last year and a half, Americans, with their hope springs eternal optimism, continue to say, "Well, this couldn't happen here, we have checks and balances." To which I say, "Maybe." Do we really want to test those checks and balances? How many of them are based on the assumption that we elected respectable, pluralistic statesmen to work together on behalf of all Americans? How do our checks and balances play out when a minority of the country puts, by all measures of human decency, an absolute heathen with no respect for said checks and balances, in the White House?
Do we want to see a President appoint military leaders who share his bigoted, war-mongering views and disregard for international law? Perhaps there are enough military leaders who would not carry out his unlawful commands, but even then, will they stand their ground and refuse to carry out orders, or will they resign, leaving a vacuum for other Trumpian leaders to take their place? And, if they do stand their ground, do we want to see what happens when a nation's military stands against its own President? Or, perhaps worse, fractures itself into those willing to follow Trump's commands and those who won't. These are terrifying possibilities. Is Civil War the kind of checks and balances Trump enablers have in mind? Because, at the end of the day, the Constitution doesn't prevent Civil War, or a military coup. And, lest you think I'm being alarmist, there have already been military leaders who have said they would not follow protocol if asked to commit war crimes, such as torture, going after the families of terrorists, or bombing opponents with no regard to civilian casualties (all of which Trump has proposed). If that actually happens, a constitutional shit storm will ensue.
There is also the question of nuclear war. Donald J. Trump will have complete autonomy in deciding if we use nuclear weapons--a man who can't watch a satirical skit about himself on SNL without voicing his hurt feelings on Twitter. There is no person in the country who can legally veto this decision by a Commander and Chief. His Secretary of Defense, whom he appoints, has to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it. Let that sink in for a minute. One man has complete power to end the world. Some check and balance. Also, Trump has said he would prefer more countries have their own nukes so they are not so dependent upon the U.S. for military protection. Where does that end? And, at what point do those countries decide they need to defend themselves against us? What many voters seem to have forgotten is that our greatest check against Presidential power is the ability to elect a President. Instead we seem to have elected a President in protest and are now assuming that the other constitutional checks can keep him for destroying everything we believe in. In a great many areas, they can't.
At the end of the day, the underlying force that keeps the peace, not only of the country, but of the world, is the United States military, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies adhering to both the laws of the United States and International Law. Again, there are no checks and balances against the principle of "Might makes right," and we elected a man who has professed that he very much believes in this principle. At the end of the day, he who has the most guns, wins. I've heard Trump supporters/ enablers say such ridiculous things as, "Well, if he does anything like that, we as a people will rise up against him." To which I say, "Really? Rise up against the U.S. military? A military of 1.4 million trained killers, 4500 nuclear weapons, bombers, drones, tanks, etc, etc. And, was this your rationale when voting for him?! That you would 'Rise up' if he actually does the things he said he would do? How irresponsible are you?"
Regardless, it's too late to rethink this. He's in. We did it. And it wasn't even a majority of us. So, is Trump the next Hitler? And, if so, will our checks and balances save the most vulnerable among us (not excluding the environment we are dependent upon for survival)? We can only wait and see. One thing I would strongly advise against is normalizing this for yourself. I would not try to make this okay for yourself or for your fellow citizens who are terrified of this man and the men he is appointing. There is nothing okay about this and there is no evidence he will not turn our country into something that we, and the world, no longer recognize as a force for good. There is only him and what he decides to do. If that doesn't terrify you, then you terrify me.
Monday, March 14, 2016
How Bill Sold Me on Hillary
Last night I had the good fortune of hearing Bill Clinton speak on behalf of Hillary in a tiny high school gym in Asheville, NC with maybe 200 other people. I was for Hillary when this thing started. Let's be honest, she's a powerhouse on economic issues, on foreign policy, on social issues. You name it and she can talk at length about the best way to deal with it. The problem is, like many other progressives, I feel like she is too centrist and perhaps too enmeshed in the world of money and politics to make sweeping change.
Thus, for the last several months I have been feeling the Bern big time. He speaks to my values and my hopes for America in a way that no other candidate has. I want more public options. Period. Because to me, the choice is between paying taxes and letting my democratically elected government (representatives of the people who can be voted out when they stop standing up for my best interests) set up programs that provide me and my family with healthcare, education, infrastructure, livable wages, retirement savings, high speed transportation, parental leave, greener energy, stricter regulations on those who would do us harm or take advantage of our vulnerabilities as middle and lower class citizens, etc; or, waiting around until billionaires decide it is in their best interest to provide these options to their workers, clients, or customers and even then do so at a price that gives those who can afford a better life insurmountable advantages over the rest of us. We have no control over the billionaire class and the private sector they control except through our government. Bernie seems to get this more than any American politician I've ever heard and is getting huge support for doing so. thus, I've been really excited about him.
Then, in steps Bill Clinton. First of all, holy moly is this man brilliant and insanely informed. When he speaks, it's like the entire world and its web of intersecting politics is sitting in his brain at all times and he's just picking and choosing which parts to explain to his current audience. Having him sitting in the White House residence (and no doubt the oval office a fair bit too) is a tremendous resource and reason enough to vote for Hillary. This aside, he also effectively dampened my hopes that Bernie's vision is anymore than that, a vision; not something that will ever get accomplished in the next eight years. He reminded me that he and Hillary also pushed for single-payer healthcare (by far my biggest issue in choosing a candidate this year) and couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. Basically, it's just math; without 60 Democratic Senators in Congress, single-payer is dead on arrival. As he pointed out, this is why Obama's passing of the ACA (Obamacare) is so impressive. He got this passed despite Republicans having the option to filibuster, and as imperfect as it is (and it's imperfect; it had to be to get enough Republican support to pass it), it's the biggest step forward toward universal coverage that we've made since WWII. The problems with it are: A) Many people's plans are still covering too little and costing way too much, B) Just to tow the line of conservatives trying to make Obama look bad, many Republican governors are refusing to take free federal money to expand Medicaid in their states, and, C) Many young people (who are a big part of the ACA's functionality since they will pay into the system and use it the least) are opting to pay the fine for not signing up rather than pay out the nose for a plan.
So, healthcare is now available to everyone--insurance companies cannot deny people regardless of preexisting conditions, age, gender, etc, they have to cover more pre and post-natal care and many other things they wouldn't cover as of seven years ago--but that doesn't prevent insurance companies from passing the cost of the extra risk for covering all these new people and conditions on to their customers. Bernie says (as I believe) the ACA was a half measure and while commendable isn't hacking it. It's complicated as hell, it's a huge pain the ass for people to navigate, there's tons of information they're requesting annually to keep your subsidies, insurance companies are constantly changing and dropping plans , raising premiums, and reducing coverage, and it leaves many of us with an expensive plan that's better than nothing, but that's about it. Sanders wants to scrap the whole thing and expand Medicare to cover everyone and pay for it with tax increases, mainly on the wealthy, but a few percent higher on everyone else as well. I would like to see this happen. However, Bill Clinton just reminded me that not only will Bernie not have 60 Democratic Senators to break a Republican filibuster, the Senate will very likely still hold a Republican majority when he takes office. Thus, good idea, but not possible. Also, maybe not even a good idea based on a number of economists whom I have always respected when they've told me things I want to hear, but have been skeptical of recently because I want so badly for single-payer to be the silver bullet I believe it to be.
Hillary says, "Look, I believe in single-payer as well. I want us to get there when it's possible; I'm going to work with governors to try to get more states setting up their own single-payer plans; but, in the meantime, people need relief." I am one of those people. My wife and I currently pay about 15% of our after taxes income to healthcare. Hillary wants to increase subsidies up to $5000 per family to lessen the burden of out-of-pocket costs and premiums that go above 5% of a family's income while also amending the law so no family pays more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs. She wants to have the government negotiate lower prices with drug companies (as is done in every other country in the world--by the way, countries, who, all have single-payer universal healthcare plans that pay WAY less than we do per capita on healthcare costs); she claims she can work with Republican governors to incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in their state for lower income people; she'll invest in navigators, advertising, and outreach to get more people signed up, and more. Essentially, her plan is like wrapping a deep cut in gauze and applying pressure while pumping you full of pain-killers when the real fix would be to get a few stitches and be finished with it. Unfortunately, gauze and pain-killers are what's available for the time being. I'm mature enough to see and accept that.
Clinton's other plans as Bill articulated so well are similar in that they take what's currently happening and provide improvements, not complete overhauls. And some of her ideas are quite good. For instance, she wants to put 500 million new solar panels up around the country and power every home with clean energy in the next eight years. She wants to let every college grad refinance their student loans at current rates, make community college free and make changes (which are specific on her site, but too many and too complicated to explain well in debates and sound bites) that will in the end make college a debt-free experience. She wants to create jobs by investing in the ripping up of all the lead pipes nationwide that poisoning our drinking water; investing $275 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. Hillary Clinton really does have some great ideas, but they're complicated and piecemealed in a way that loses passionate progressives' interest. However, Bill Clinton laid them out in a much clearer and more inspiring way than she ever has. If he could just speak for her, I think she'd have even more support from the Democratic base. He is, after all, as Obama has called him, the Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
Bernie takes a much different approach than Hillary. He says, "To hell with these nips and tucks, we need a revolution! We need stitches, we can afford stitches, every other country in the world is getting stitches; where are our goddamn stitches? We're bleeding to death here!" And man o' man is that more inspiring to hear. Because it's true. We've been getting screwed by corporations and wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of shady billionaires for over thirty years. I, like Bernie, want nothing more than to tax the shit out of these people and spend it on government programs that benefit the middle and lower class. It happens everywhere else in the civilized world. We don't get the perks of a wealthy nation because all of our wealth is isolated in the top 1% of earners and they aren't about to share the wealth of their own free will (and the American public is apparently too stupid to vote in favor of their own best interests).
That being said, the system is what it is and as we've seen with Obama's "In like a lion out like a lamb," Presidency, the President only has so much power to create change in the country. Congress can be very effective in shutting down a President's agenda if it is not in line with their politics--and our current Congress' politics are batshit conservative if not childishly obstructionist. I think Hillary's plans are plans she can get Republican support for, or at least enough Republican support to push them through. Bernie's plans only work if, in addition to electing him we elect a Democratic super majority to Congress. That would be a revolution and that's something I and most progressives are very much behind. BUT, that isn't anywhere close to happening. We have the rise of little hands Hitler on the other side of the aisle. No way he wins in the general, but his following is out there and they vote--locally and otherwise and it's people like them that will forever keep us from accomplishing Bernie Sanders-like progress. I think it is much more likely that we'll see blue states making big progressive moves on their own, proving these changes work, and eventually getting the rest of the country on board. I think Bernie's plans could work on a state level, in the right states, but on a national level, I just don't see how he gets any of what he's saying passed. And, if he can't get the big ideas passed, what's his back-up plan? What we end up with may be far less organized and functional than what Hillary is purposing because it will be an ACA-like compromise on what he's after (if he doesn't get categorically blocked by Republicans for eight years solely based on calling himself a Democratic Socialist. Maybe we need to consider that Hillary Clinton is pretty experienced with all of this stuff and married to one of the most brilliant Presidents we've had in recent times who is no doubt advising her on all of her positions.
Ultimately, as progressives, we don't want to admit that these billionaires and huge corporations make up a significant portion of our economy and have the potential to pay for a lot of nice stuff the country really needs. Calling them liars and crooks and coming after them with lofty rhetoric about high taxes and tough regulations, while inspiring to hear, is not a great way to get them on board with making positive changes. They're grasp on the country is not going to loosen just because a Democratic Socialist becomes President. He can't Executive Order them into submission. He needs congress to do any of the things he's talking about, and quite frankly, after hearing Bill Clinton talk for an hour, I am inclined to say Hillary will make our lives better, faster by playing the game than Bernie will by insisting the game is stupid (Even if it is). After all, what kind of politician can't take someone's money and then screw them down the road? I think Clinton is politically savvy to know this and do this. She plays the game and plays it well and while she won't get us a revolution, she may get us eight years closer to a country that benefits our children more than it does the children of people who would be fine if they paid 95% of their income in taxes.
Thus, for the last several months I have been feeling the Bern big time. He speaks to my values and my hopes for America in a way that no other candidate has. I want more public options. Period. Because to me, the choice is between paying taxes and letting my democratically elected government (representatives of the people who can be voted out when they stop standing up for my best interests) set up programs that provide me and my family with healthcare, education, infrastructure, livable wages, retirement savings, high speed transportation, parental leave, greener energy, stricter regulations on those who would do us harm or take advantage of our vulnerabilities as middle and lower class citizens, etc; or, waiting around until billionaires decide it is in their best interest to provide these options to their workers, clients, or customers and even then do so at a price that gives those who can afford a better life insurmountable advantages over the rest of us. We have no control over the billionaire class and the private sector they control except through our government. Bernie seems to get this more than any American politician I've ever heard and is getting huge support for doing so. thus, I've been really excited about him.
Then, in steps Bill Clinton. First of all, holy moly is this man brilliant and insanely informed. When he speaks, it's like the entire world and its web of intersecting politics is sitting in his brain at all times and he's just picking and choosing which parts to explain to his current audience. Having him sitting in the White House residence (and no doubt the oval office a fair bit too) is a tremendous resource and reason enough to vote for Hillary. This aside, he also effectively dampened my hopes that Bernie's vision is anymore than that, a vision; not something that will ever get accomplished in the next eight years. He reminded me that he and Hillary also pushed for single-payer healthcare (by far my biggest issue in choosing a candidate this year) and couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. Basically, it's just math; without 60 Democratic Senators in Congress, single-payer is dead on arrival. As he pointed out, this is why Obama's passing of the ACA (Obamacare) is so impressive. He got this passed despite Republicans having the option to filibuster, and as imperfect as it is (and it's imperfect; it had to be to get enough Republican support to pass it), it's the biggest step forward toward universal coverage that we've made since WWII. The problems with it are: A) Many people's plans are still covering too little and costing way too much, B) Just to tow the line of conservatives trying to make Obama look bad, many Republican governors are refusing to take free federal money to expand Medicaid in their states, and, C) Many young people (who are a big part of the ACA's functionality since they will pay into the system and use it the least) are opting to pay the fine for not signing up rather than pay out the nose for a plan.
So, healthcare is now available to everyone--insurance companies cannot deny people regardless of preexisting conditions, age, gender, etc, they have to cover more pre and post-natal care and many other things they wouldn't cover as of seven years ago--but that doesn't prevent insurance companies from passing the cost of the extra risk for covering all these new people and conditions on to their customers. Bernie says (as I believe) the ACA was a half measure and while commendable isn't hacking it. It's complicated as hell, it's a huge pain the ass for people to navigate, there's tons of information they're requesting annually to keep your subsidies, insurance companies are constantly changing and dropping plans , raising premiums, and reducing coverage, and it leaves many of us with an expensive plan that's better than nothing, but that's about it. Sanders wants to scrap the whole thing and expand Medicare to cover everyone and pay for it with tax increases, mainly on the wealthy, but a few percent higher on everyone else as well. I would like to see this happen. However, Bill Clinton just reminded me that not only will Bernie not have 60 Democratic Senators to break a Republican filibuster, the Senate will very likely still hold a Republican majority when he takes office. Thus, good idea, but not possible. Also, maybe not even a good idea based on a number of economists whom I have always respected when they've told me things I want to hear, but have been skeptical of recently because I want so badly for single-payer to be the silver bullet I believe it to be.
Hillary says, "Look, I believe in single-payer as well. I want us to get there when it's possible; I'm going to work with governors to try to get more states setting up their own single-payer plans; but, in the meantime, people need relief." I am one of those people. My wife and I currently pay about 15% of our after taxes income to healthcare. Hillary wants to increase subsidies up to $5000 per family to lessen the burden of out-of-pocket costs and premiums that go above 5% of a family's income while also amending the law so no family pays more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs. She wants to have the government negotiate lower prices with drug companies (as is done in every other country in the world--by the way, countries, who, all have single-payer universal healthcare plans that pay WAY less than we do per capita on healthcare costs); she claims she can work with Republican governors to incentivize the expansion of Medicaid in their state for lower income people; she'll invest in navigators, advertising, and outreach to get more people signed up, and more. Essentially, her plan is like wrapping a deep cut in gauze and applying pressure while pumping you full of pain-killers when the real fix would be to get a few stitches and be finished with it. Unfortunately, gauze and pain-killers are what's available for the time being. I'm mature enough to see and accept that.
Clinton's other plans as Bill articulated so well are similar in that they take what's currently happening and provide improvements, not complete overhauls. And some of her ideas are quite good. For instance, she wants to put 500 million new solar panels up around the country and power every home with clean energy in the next eight years. She wants to let every college grad refinance their student loans at current rates, make community college free and make changes (which are specific on her site, but too many and too complicated to explain well in debates and sound bites) that will in the end make college a debt-free experience. She wants to create jobs by investing in the ripping up of all the lead pipes nationwide that poisoning our drinking water; investing $275 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. Hillary Clinton really does have some great ideas, but they're complicated and piecemealed in a way that loses passionate progressives' interest. However, Bill Clinton laid them out in a much clearer and more inspiring way than she ever has. If he could just speak for her, I think she'd have even more support from the Democratic base. He is, after all, as Obama has called him, the Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
Bernie takes a much different approach than Hillary. He says, "To hell with these nips and tucks, we need a revolution! We need stitches, we can afford stitches, every other country in the world is getting stitches; where are our goddamn stitches? We're bleeding to death here!" And man o' man is that more inspiring to hear. Because it's true. We've been getting screwed by corporations and wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of shady billionaires for over thirty years. I, like Bernie, want nothing more than to tax the shit out of these people and spend it on government programs that benefit the middle and lower class. It happens everywhere else in the civilized world. We don't get the perks of a wealthy nation because all of our wealth is isolated in the top 1% of earners and they aren't about to share the wealth of their own free will (and the American public is apparently too stupid to vote in favor of their own best interests).
That being said, the system is what it is and as we've seen with Obama's "In like a lion out like a lamb," Presidency, the President only has so much power to create change in the country. Congress can be very effective in shutting down a President's agenda if it is not in line with their politics--and our current Congress' politics are batshit conservative if not childishly obstructionist. I think Hillary's plans are plans she can get Republican support for, or at least enough Republican support to push them through. Bernie's plans only work if, in addition to electing him we elect a Democratic super majority to Congress. That would be a revolution and that's something I and most progressives are very much behind. BUT, that isn't anywhere close to happening. We have the rise of little hands Hitler on the other side of the aisle. No way he wins in the general, but his following is out there and they vote--locally and otherwise and it's people like them that will forever keep us from accomplishing Bernie Sanders-like progress. I think it is much more likely that we'll see blue states making big progressive moves on their own, proving these changes work, and eventually getting the rest of the country on board. I think Bernie's plans could work on a state level, in the right states, but on a national level, I just don't see how he gets any of what he's saying passed. And, if he can't get the big ideas passed, what's his back-up plan? What we end up with may be far less organized and functional than what Hillary is purposing because it will be an ACA-like compromise on what he's after (if he doesn't get categorically blocked by Republicans for eight years solely based on calling himself a Democratic Socialist. Maybe we need to consider that Hillary Clinton is pretty experienced with all of this stuff and married to one of the most brilliant Presidents we've had in recent times who is no doubt advising her on all of her positions.
Ultimately, as progressives, we don't want to admit that these billionaires and huge corporations make up a significant portion of our economy and have the potential to pay for a lot of nice stuff the country really needs. Calling them liars and crooks and coming after them with lofty rhetoric about high taxes and tough regulations, while inspiring to hear, is not a great way to get them on board with making positive changes. They're grasp on the country is not going to loosen just because a Democratic Socialist becomes President. He can't Executive Order them into submission. He needs congress to do any of the things he's talking about, and quite frankly, after hearing Bill Clinton talk for an hour, I am inclined to say Hillary will make our lives better, faster by playing the game than Bernie will by insisting the game is stupid (Even if it is). After all, what kind of politician can't take someone's money and then screw them down the road? I think Clinton is politically savvy to know this and do this. She plays the game and plays it well and while she won't get us a revolution, she may get us eight years closer to a country that benefits our children more than it does the children of people who would be fine if they paid 95% of their income in taxes.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Elected or Not, Bernie is the Future
Maybe he wins. Maybe he doesn't. But America cannot ignore the political realignment that is a Democratic Socialist in a close race for President of the United States.
What Bernie Sanders has done in just a matter of months is quite remarkable. In the same way that Donald Trump has brought racist, xenophobic, sexist, and generally uncivilized white people into the spotlight this election season, Bernie Sanders has highlighted just how many Americans are ready for radical progressive change on scale with the likes of FDR. It's what many of us thought we would get with Barack Obama and were sorely disappointed. Had we known he would run to the middle as soon as the political calculations of doing so seemed advantageous he most likely would not be where he is today. That being said, he has gotten a lot accomplished in the face of nearly unprecedented obstructionism from a republican party so divided that the only thing they want to see the first black President fail.
I only bring up Obama because he has laid the ground work for Bernie Sanders to get the support he has gotten. He brought the youth vote and the minority vote into the mix in a big way, and while he couldn't fulfill their wildest dreams of a progressive utopia, they're paying attention now and they're ready to vote for someone who will push the envelope even further.
Don't believe this shift to the left is happening? That's fair--it's hard to see through the thick, putrid smog that is Donald Trump ranting and bullying and carrying on like a five year old with ten billion dollars in the bank--but let's look at some numbers.
Favorability ratings among the general electorate--not just republican primary voters--show that Donald Trump is unfavorable with 58% of potential voters and favorable to only 33%, giving him a net favorability rating of -25%, the worst of any candidate in the race on either side. Does that mean he won't win the nomination? Not at all, but it does mean he is very likely to lose in November. On the other side, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race with a positive favorability rating of +3. Does that mean he'll win the nomination? Nope; but it does mean that if he does, he'll have a good chance of becoming President. In fact, in Real Clear Politics' average of all polls, Sanders beats Trump in a hypothetical match-up by 6 percentage points. Clinton, meanwhile, only wins by 2.8 over Trump, if at all. Say the candidate is somehow Cruz or Rubio instead: Sanders beats Cruz by 4.7% and is tied with Rubio while Clinton is tied with Cruz and loses to Rubio by 4.7%.
The point here isn't that Bernie Sanders is going to be President, it's that he could be President. By the numbers, he's the better candidate. He's better liked and has more voters lined up in his column in head-to-head match-ups against republican challengers. Unfortunately, he's still 5 points behind Clinton nationally. Worse, Nate Silver, the statistics and probability wizard who has in the past two elections predicted with absurd accuracy, not just who will win which states, but who will win which counties within those states, says Clinton has a 62% chance of winning the nomination to Sanders' 38% chance. He also says Trump has a 97% of winning the GOP nomination, which even if he's way off the mark, pretty much guarantees we're going to see a lot more of a very unfavorable person this year.
For Sanders' supporters, myself included, these are very frustrating numbers. Our candidate is better liked and more likely to win and yet it seems very unlikely that he will be the nominee. But, regardless, his message and his policies are the future. A Pew Research Center poll found that while only 31% of all Americans react favorably to the idea of Socialism, most Americans favor Socialist policies and Socialist values, especially young people. 49% of voters age 18-29 have a positive view of Socialism and only 47% view Capitalism as a positive concept. The link above give a much more exhaustive and cited list of the specific Socialist programs Bernie is proposing that the majority of Democrats and Republicans support (as long as the programs aren't called, "Socialist"). A quick preview though: 64% of Americans support reducing greenhouse gases emissions, 58% of Americans believe the big banks are too powerful and need to be broken up, 63% believe the minimum wage needs to be raised to $15 in the next few years, 53% support new legislation to make it easier for workers to unionize, 68% of households say wealthy families pay far too little in taxes, 85% of business owners favor closing all overseas tax loopholes in their entirety, 68% of the public agrees that the government should close all tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore, more than half of all Americans say corporations and private parties should be banned from donating to political campaigns and campaigning should become government funded, over 50% also agree we should move to single-payer healthcare, and finally, most voters support expanding Medicare and Social Security as well as Medicaid (Again, click here for citations of the polls backing these numbers).
As you can see, Bernie may not win, but the majority of Americans are already Democratic Socialists. We are worlds away from the policies of the Republican Party, if such a party can even be said to exist anymore given its multiple dueling factions, and even further from their intolerance of people unlike themselves. 2015 was the first year minorities outnumbered whites enrolling in kindergarten. yet conservatives seem to be latching ever tighter to their hate toward these people. We've moved left, we'll continue to move left, and mark my words, by the time Gen Xers reach retirement, the Republican Party, if it doesn't drop this title altogether, will look like today's Democratic Party and the Democratic Party will be a party of Democratic Socialist fully out of the closet.
What Bernie Sanders has done in just a matter of months is quite remarkable. In the same way that Donald Trump has brought racist, xenophobic, sexist, and generally uncivilized white people into the spotlight this election season, Bernie Sanders has highlighted just how many Americans are ready for radical progressive change on scale with the likes of FDR. It's what many of us thought we would get with Barack Obama and were sorely disappointed. Had we known he would run to the middle as soon as the political calculations of doing so seemed advantageous he most likely would not be where he is today. That being said, he has gotten a lot accomplished in the face of nearly unprecedented obstructionism from a republican party so divided that the only thing they want to see the first black President fail.
I only bring up Obama because he has laid the ground work for Bernie Sanders to get the support he has gotten. He brought the youth vote and the minority vote into the mix in a big way, and while he couldn't fulfill their wildest dreams of a progressive utopia, they're paying attention now and they're ready to vote for someone who will push the envelope even further.
Don't believe this shift to the left is happening? That's fair--it's hard to see through the thick, putrid smog that is Donald Trump ranting and bullying and carrying on like a five year old with ten billion dollars in the bank--but let's look at some numbers.
Favorability ratings among the general electorate--not just republican primary voters--show that Donald Trump is unfavorable with 58% of potential voters and favorable to only 33%, giving him a net favorability rating of -25%, the worst of any candidate in the race on either side. Does that mean he won't win the nomination? Not at all, but it does mean he is very likely to lose in November. On the other side, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race with a positive favorability rating of +3. Does that mean he'll win the nomination? Nope; but it does mean that if he does, he'll have a good chance of becoming President. In fact, in Real Clear Politics' average of all polls, Sanders beats Trump in a hypothetical match-up by 6 percentage points. Clinton, meanwhile, only wins by 2.8 over Trump, if at all. Say the candidate is somehow Cruz or Rubio instead: Sanders beats Cruz by 4.7% and is tied with Rubio while Clinton is tied with Cruz and loses to Rubio by 4.7%.
The point here isn't that Bernie Sanders is going to be President, it's that he could be President. By the numbers, he's the better candidate. He's better liked and has more voters lined up in his column in head-to-head match-ups against republican challengers. Unfortunately, he's still 5 points behind Clinton nationally. Worse, Nate Silver, the statistics and probability wizard who has in the past two elections predicted with absurd accuracy, not just who will win which states, but who will win which counties within those states, says Clinton has a 62% chance of winning the nomination to Sanders' 38% chance. He also says Trump has a 97% of winning the GOP nomination, which even if he's way off the mark, pretty much guarantees we're going to see a lot more of a very unfavorable person this year.
For Sanders' supporters, myself included, these are very frustrating numbers. Our candidate is better liked and more likely to win and yet it seems very unlikely that he will be the nominee. But, regardless, his message and his policies are the future. A Pew Research Center poll found that while only 31% of all Americans react favorably to the idea of Socialism, most Americans favor Socialist policies and Socialist values, especially young people. 49% of voters age 18-29 have a positive view of Socialism and only 47% view Capitalism as a positive concept. The link above give a much more exhaustive and cited list of the specific Socialist programs Bernie is proposing that the majority of Democrats and Republicans support (as long as the programs aren't called, "Socialist"). A quick preview though: 64% of Americans support reducing greenhouse gases emissions, 58% of Americans believe the big banks are too powerful and need to be broken up, 63% believe the minimum wage needs to be raised to $15 in the next few years, 53% support new legislation to make it easier for workers to unionize, 68% of households say wealthy families pay far too little in taxes, 85% of business owners favor closing all overseas tax loopholes in their entirety, 68% of the public agrees that the government should close all tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore, more than half of all Americans say corporations and private parties should be banned from donating to political campaigns and campaigning should become government funded, over 50% also agree we should move to single-payer healthcare, and finally, most voters support expanding Medicare and Social Security as well as Medicaid (Again, click here for citations of the polls backing these numbers).
As you can see, Bernie may not win, but the majority of Americans are already Democratic Socialists. We are worlds away from the policies of the Republican Party, if such a party can even be said to exist anymore given its multiple dueling factions, and even further from their intolerance of people unlike themselves. 2015 was the first year minorities outnumbered whites enrolling in kindergarten. yet conservatives seem to be latching ever tighter to their hate toward these people. We've moved left, we'll continue to move left, and mark my words, by the time Gen Xers reach retirement, the Republican Party, if it doesn't drop this title altogether, will look like today's Democratic Party and the Democratic Party will be a party of Democratic Socialist fully out of the closet.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Bernie's Proposals Will Get Us To Clinton's Proposals, Maybe Further
I came across this article today, which is a tough, fair look at Bernie's proposals. I highly recommend you take a look, especially if you're a Bernie fanatic. As much as I agree with his ideas, as you'll see in this article, he has some details to hash-out for us, to say the least.
That being said perhaps a candidate's ideas, not speculation of whether their ideas will ever come to fruition, is the criteria on which we should base our vote. I don't believe for a minute that campaign promises will be accomplished. It seems to me they are less promises and more insights into what a candidate considers ideal. One can tell a lot from another person's utopia, be that a country of gun-slinging multi-millionaire cowboys with no federal government, no taxes, no minorities, and Jesus Christ plastered atop our American flag. Or, an America with considerable taxes, a huge federal government, and considerable public benefits; one with no monstrous corporations or insurance companies or big banks or risky stock market gambling. Or, finally, a middle of the road, inured continuation of business as usual with a few tweaks to avoid a global calamity or a public uprising. In case that was too subtle, that last "utopia" belongs to Hillary.
Clinton's proposals, while more probably achieved, say a lot about what she'll be like as a leader. If she loses, it will be due to a lack of dreaming and reaching. Shoot for the middle, get the middle. No one is inspired by achievable. No one grows up dreaming of being middle-management and taking home an average salary to their affordable house and taking affordable vacations with someone they married because they were tired of looking for a perfect match. Is this where a lot of people end up? Sure. But you can't shoot for that. You can't make that the goal. Hillary Clinton is running in a primary against a revolutionary politician proposing huge changes with sky-high rhetoric for the second time in a decade and she appears to be making all the same mistakes. She's going to have to go beyond the achievable as a campaign promise. Bernie is saying, "Let's do an Ironman together!" Hillary's response can't remain, "Yeah, right. How about a Turkey Trot?"
No one is going to bad-mouth Bernie if he doesn't get us single-payer universal healthcare or free college, or any of the other big benefits he's promising, so long as he tries. Maybe he only ends up making some steps forward on the Affordable Care Act, but that's all Clinton is even proposing. No one is going to vote for that. It's uninspired. Maybe he doesn't get us free college tuition but gets us to a debt-free college tuition. Again, that's Clinton's plan. No one is going to vote for that when the other guy is pitching free tuition brought to you by the assholes who destroyed our economy and then demanded we save them from going under and taking the world with them--the same people who have been pulling down record profits and paying themselves obscene bonuses throughout The Great Recession instead of giving back to the people who bailed them out. Maybe Bernie's plans only get us to Clinton's plans, but maybe they get us a little further, and regardless of the details or the achievability of his vision, isn't that worth voting for to find out?
That being said perhaps a candidate's ideas, not speculation of whether their ideas will ever come to fruition, is the criteria on which we should base our vote. I don't believe for a minute that campaign promises will be accomplished. It seems to me they are less promises and more insights into what a candidate considers ideal. One can tell a lot from another person's utopia, be that a country of gun-slinging multi-millionaire cowboys with no federal government, no taxes, no minorities, and Jesus Christ plastered atop our American flag. Or, an America with considerable taxes, a huge federal government, and considerable public benefits; one with no monstrous corporations or insurance companies or big banks or risky stock market gambling. Or, finally, a middle of the road, inured continuation of business as usual with a few tweaks to avoid a global calamity or a public uprising. In case that was too subtle, that last "utopia" belongs to Hillary.
Clinton's proposals, while more probably achieved, say a lot about what she'll be like as a leader. If she loses, it will be due to a lack of dreaming and reaching. Shoot for the middle, get the middle. No one is inspired by achievable. No one grows up dreaming of being middle-management and taking home an average salary to their affordable house and taking affordable vacations with someone they married because they were tired of looking for a perfect match. Is this where a lot of people end up? Sure. But you can't shoot for that. You can't make that the goal. Hillary Clinton is running in a primary against a revolutionary politician proposing huge changes with sky-high rhetoric for the second time in a decade and she appears to be making all the same mistakes. She's going to have to go beyond the achievable as a campaign promise. Bernie is saying, "Let's do an Ironman together!" Hillary's response can't remain, "Yeah, right. How about a Turkey Trot?"
No one is going to bad-mouth Bernie if he doesn't get us single-payer universal healthcare or free college, or any of the other big benefits he's promising, so long as he tries. Maybe he only ends up making some steps forward on the Affordable Care Act, but that's all Clinton is even proposing. No one is going to vote for that. It's uninspired. Maybe he doesn't get us free college tuition but gets us to a debt-free college tuition. Again, that's Clinton's plan. No one is going to vote for that when the other guy is pitching free tuition brought to you by the assholes who destroyed our economy and then demanded we save them from going under and taking the world with them--the same people who have been pulling down record profits and paying themselves obscene bonuses throughout The Great Recession instead of giving back to the people who bailed them out. Maybe Bernie's plans only get us to Clinton's plans, but maybe they get us a little further, and regardless of the details or the achievability of his vision, isn't that worth voting for to find out?
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
The Real Grown-up's Table: Predictions for Tonight's Debate
After enduring months of GOP un-hopefuls acting-out like a gang of middle children seeking media attention--sharing such enlightening comments as all Mexicans are rapists and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews were all armed to the teeth like present day Americans--we get to hear from the grown-ups.
What to expect:
Bernie Sanders is still mostly unknown despite his nipping at Clinton's heels in the polls. A strong performance tonight could put him over the top. His advantage lies in the low expectations of his performance. Unless he falls asleep at the podium, a-la Obama in the first 2012 debate against Romney, he's going to gain some new followers and stand in stark contrast to Hillary's long history of flip-flopping, half-truths, and ties to the same wall street types Sanders wants to put in jail for destroying the economy.
On the other hand, Bernie is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, which to most Americans just means Socialist. Here's a word that's been used on both sides of the aisle for decades to marry progressive politicians to the ideas of Stalin and Lenin and the like...and Bernie is using it to describe himself. If Hillary doesn't use this word at least a dozen times tonight it will show a great deal of self-restraint and perhaps a poor debate strategy. However, even if she does, Bernie is an incredibly articulate man and has been defending this title effectively for years. I'm sure he will have an educational response to any accusations that he somehow sides with hammer and sickle Socialism just because he promotes public benefits that people of other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades. Still, that shouldn't stop Clinton from highlighting that America has historically been repulsed by all things Socialist, which limits his chances in the general election.
Whether Hillary will get to play offensive tonight depends a lot on the moderators. Based on the CNN GOP debate, it seems likely that we'll see the moderators stirring up petty arguments about emails and Benghazi accusations, and trying to pit Hillary against the politics of her husband. She will have to skillfully pivot out of these traps if she wants to compete with Bernie's big ideas for revolutionizing our social and economic way of life in the U.S. It would be greatly to Clinton's benefit to try to stay on offense, because, based on Sanders' campaign thus far, he is not going to go negative. He's brilliant at keeping interviewers on topic and rarely stoops to bashing other Democrats when there are so many real life institutions and broken policies to rail against--not to mention, Republicans. If Clinton spends the debate tearing down Sanders instead of talking up her own plans, she's going to come off as a bitch, which I assume she is desperately trying to avoid.
As for the other candidates, Joe Biden's empty podium has a better chance of getting the nomination. Why they were even invited I do not know. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time we hear from them; although, I'm sure Clinton and Sanders will be relieved to have some non-threatening candidates giving them a break from talking every once in awhile. The rest of us, barring some brilliant ideas that these candidates have that are simply not making their way into the media cycle, will be annoyed with them cutting into time we could all be sleeping. Which begs the question: Why the hell aren't these things done on the weekend? But hey, that's neither here nor there.
Happy viewing! Regardless of what happens tonight it will be good to hear from a few politicians who didn't spend 48 hours prior to the debate prepping themselves on Wikipedia about the issues facing our country. Clinton and Sanders are some powerhouse intellectuals with some stellar political skills. I imagine we're in for a treat.
What to expect:
Bernie Sanders is still mostly unknown despite his nipping at Clinton's heels in the polls. A strong performance tonight could put him over the top. His advantage lies in the low expectations of his performance. Unless he falls asleep at the podium, a-la Obama in the first 2012 debate against Romney, he's going to gain some new followers and stand in stark contrast to Hillary's long history of flip-flopping, half-truths, and ties to the same wall street types Sanders wants to put in jail for destroying the economy.
On the other hand, Bernie is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, which to most Americans just means Socialist. Here's a word that's been used on both sides of the aisle for decades to marry progressive politicians to the ideas of Stalin and Lenin and the like...and Bernie is using it to describe himself. If Hillary doesn't use this word at least a dozen times tonight it will show a great deal of self-restraint and perhaps a poor debate strategy. However, even if she does, Bernie is an incredibly articulate man and has been defending this title effectively for years. I'm sure he will have an educational response to any accusations that he somehow sides with hammer and sickle Socialism just because he promotes public benefits that people of other wealthy nations have enjoyed for decades. Still, that shouldn't stop Clinton from highlighting that America has historically been repulsed by all things Socialist, which limits his chances in the general election.
Whether Hillary will get to play offensive tonight depends a lot on the moderators. Based on the CNN GOP debate, it seems likely that we'll see the moderators stirring up petty arguments about emails and Benghazi accusations, and trying to pit Hillary against the politics of her husband. She will have to skillfully pivot out of these traps if she wants to compete with Bernie's big ideas for revolutionizing our social and economic way of life in the U.S. It would be greatly to Clinton's benefit to try to stay on offense, because, based on Sanders' campaign thus far, he is not going to go negative. He's brilliant at keeping interviewers on topic and rarely stoops to bashing other Democrats when there are so many real life institutions and broken policies to rail against--not to mention, Republicans. If Clinton spends the debate tearing down Sanders instead of talking up her own plans, she's going to come off as a bitch, which I assume she is desperately trying to avoid.
As for the other candidates, Joe Biden's empty podium has a better chance of getting the nomination. Why they were even invited I do not know. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time we hear from them; although, I'm sure Clinton and Sanders will be relieved to have some non-threatening candidates giving them a break from talking every once in awhile. The rest of us, barring some brilliant ideas that these candidates have that are simply not making their way into the media cycle, will be annoyed with them cutting into time we could all be sleeping. Which begs the question: Why the hell aren't these things done on the weekend? But hey, that's neither here nor there.
Happy viewing! Regardless of what happens tonight it will be good to hear from a few politicians who didn't spend 48 hours prior to the debate prepping themselves on Wikipedia about the issues facing our country. Clinton and Sanders are some powerhouse intellectuals with some stellar political skills. I imagine we're in for a treat.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Economic Inequality (Part One): Why We Hate Socialism but Use It Everyday
It’s safe to say, based on our political dialogue, the terms our candidates throw around with no explanation (or understanding) of their meaning, and Americans’ thirty-plus year record of voting against their own best interests, that we have forgotten Junior High-level social studies class. Let’s review.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Economics
Every country has choices to make based on allocating resources. As a country, we have certain natural resources within our borders--oil, gas, minerals, metals, lumber, water, etc. In order to use these, and service-based, resources in a way that benefits our country, we have to decide three things:
1) What to produce with these resources?
2) How to produce using these resources?
3) For whom to produce with these resources?
Every country has choices to make based on allocating resources. As a country, we have certain natural resources within our borders--oil, gas, minerals, metals, lumber, water, etc. In order to use these, and service-based, resources in a way that benefits our country, we have to decide three things:
1) What to produce with these resources?
2) How to produce using these resources?
3) For whom to produce with these resources?
How a country chooses to answer these questions is a reflection of that country’s values and places it somewhere on the economic spectrum between Laissez-faire Capitalism and Absolute Communism. The main choice to be made is who will own the means of producing goods and carrying out services.
In a Communist Economic System (also called a Planned Economic System or a Command Economic System) a public body, usually the federal government, owns all means of producing goods and providing services and decides based on the needs of the country, who will work in which industries and what goods they will produce, and who will get these goods. In Communism, all industries are nationalized, but here’s the catch. Karl Marx, who conceived Communism, envisioned a Utopian society in which people of higher thinking and high moral character created systems to share all necessary work and provide equal resources for everyone in the country. Such a society, in theory, would eliminate the need for currency and dissolve caste systems and social classes, making all people equal on a social and economic level. He laid out a progression to get to this point, which started with Socialism (which we'll get to) and led into a vanguard "government" that would basically keep things organized until they could dissolve completely. This, of course, has never occurred, though variations on Communism have been tried. Most of the industrialized world uses some form of Socialist Economic System (usually market socialism or democratic socialism, which combine principles of Communism and Capitalism).
The problems with Communism (Collectivism)
Here's the thing: Communism has never been practiced as it was envisioned by Marx. Rather, it has always been imposed by a dictator as a means of isolating power, which is why Communism is often associated with dictatorships and tyranny. In an absolute Communist society citizens must give-up nearly all personal freedoms in exchange (theoretically) for getting all of their needs met. Communism is often referred to as the belief that each person gives according to his ability and receives according to his needs. It is a very idealistic economic system based on the idea of putting the greater good before oneself, which is hard to argue isn't a very American value. We all know Kennedy's famous, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
However, it is not difficult to see where human nature causes problems in such a system. A highly intelligent, hard-working individual doing a time-consuming and laborsome job is not going to be happy with receiving the same financial and social payoff as a person putting in the minimum effort to receive the same financial and social rewards; i.e. Communism removes incentives to work harder and innovate for the betterment of society. It's hard to say what all the issues would be in a Communist society because we have yet to witness a true Communist Economic System in practice, though one would never know it based on how often this term is thrown around in American politics.
However, it is not difficult to see where human nature causes problems in such a system. A highly intelligent, hard-working individual doing a time-consuming and laborsome job is not going to be happy with receiving the same financial and social payoff as a person putting in the minimum effort to receive the same financial and social rewards; i.e. Communism removes incentives to work harder and innovate for the betterment of society. It's hard to say what all the issues would be in a Communist society because we have yet to witness a true Communist Economic System in practice, though one would never know it based on how often this term is thrown around in American politics.
Now, let’s look at the opposite extreme: Laissez-faire (unregulated) Capitalism. In this economic system all means of production--everything from mining to creating social media websites--are owned and operated by private individuals and businesses. Unlike Communism, Capitalism cannot function as an Economic System under a dictator. Though, like Communism, in theory, centralized government does not exist in a truly free enterprise; rather, the needs of society are met and regulated by the market. That is, if a need arises in society, say, garbage is piling up everywhere, theoretically, an individual starts a business to fulfill this demand and charges customers accordingly. If a business charges too much for a service or product people refuse to buy the product and thus the company must lower its prices or go out of business. The market sets its own prices based on what people are willing to pay. This creates innovation and competition. If one business fulfills a need and another company can create a faster or cheaper or more effective way of fulfilling that need then customers will naturally gravitate to that company. In theory, when individuals and companies have a financial incentive to compete, society benefits, goods and services improve, and people work harder to create new ways to fill societal needs.
The problem with Capitalism is that personal freedoms are valued over financial and social equality. Such a system gives boundless incentives, but does not provide equal means to citizens to compete for resources. Thus, resources are allocated unfairly, a problem that, if unresolved, may lead to class warfare.
A less ominous, but equally troubling problem with Capitalism is that some needs of society, say, monitoring and regulating chemicals in our drinking water, are not marketable. In fact, they aren't even possible. One company cannot tell another company, “You must stop polluting our drinking water.” Such a command can only be given and enforced by a central agency of some kind, ideally, a government of elected officials. One may argue that customers would stop buying a product from a company who is polluting and thus the market would again solve this problem. However, if no one is making a company disclose this information, the people will never know who not to support.
Another problem is that resources are allocated based on who wins this free enterprise competition. He who comes up with the best/ cheapest way to fulfill a societal demand, gets more money, a more enjoyable lifestyle, and a higher social status. Thus, social classes form and the system creates a resource snowball effect. If one’s great-grandfather comes up with a brilliant idea for a product and makes a fortune from this product, not only is his company then able to draw all the best workers and innovators to continue dominating their industry, but the original creator will be able to pass his personal wealth, and his company, down to his children. Those children will then be able to afford the best education (remember, in a true Capitalist system, public education does not exist), the best healthcare, the best food, housing, etc and receive connections and assistance that people born to poorer families cannot access. After a couple generations, resources become isolated in the hands of a few families creating a large gap between those with the resources and those without. Many problems can arise from this division. One being that the economy will fail if customers cannot afford even the lowest prices available; and, two, the lower classes become, essentially, indentured servants to the higher class. Those with the means of production can work the lower class employees endless hours, pay them unlivable wages, abuse them, discriminate in their hiring processes based on societal biases, etc.
Many problems can and have arisen from unchecked Capitalism. To deal with these problems, the U.S. and other wealthy countries have adopted a third, and as of yet, more functional and fair economic system: Socialism.
I can hear the outrage exuding from my American readers: “We absolutely are not Socialists!” The problem is, we are Socialists. The reason we think we’re not (and why this term gets thrown around on the same level with sonofabitch) is because Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini called their political parties Socialist. What they actually practiced was some bastardized version of a Communist dictatorship. Regardless, Socialism, Communism, and Tyranny became interchangeable synonyms in the American political discourse.
Socialism and Communism are different economic systems, especially with regard to how Socialism is practiced today. Socialism allows a central government to take control of some essential industries, such as education, healthcare, banking, energy, etc, while allowing other less essential industries to function on the free market system. While it is true that the United States has resisted nationalizing certain essential industries, like healthcare, that literally every other wealthy nation in the world has nationalized, the federal government does control a fair number of industries and competes in and/ or regulates nearly every industry in the U.S. Transportation (airports, roads, railways), education, social services, police, fire departments, EMTs, public health clinics, the postal service, etc are all nationalized industries. Thus, we practice Socialism in the U.S. everyday. Do we also practice Capitalism? Of course. In fact, we fall much closer to the Laissez-faire Capitalism end of the spectrum than we do to the Collectivism end. As a result, we both reap the financial benefits of free enterprise and suffer the consequences of an ever-widening economic gap and dearth of public benefits.
Socialism and Communism are different economic systems, especially with regard to how Socialism is practiced today. Socialism allows a central government to take control of some essential industries, such as education, healthcare, banking, energy, etc, while allowing other less essential industries to function on the free market system. While it is true that the United States has resisted nationalizing certain essential industries, like healthcare, that literally every other wealthy nation in the world has nationalized, the federal government does control a fair number of industries and competes in and/ or regulates nearly every industry in the U.S. Transportation (airports, roads, railways), education, social services, police, fire departments, EMTs, public health clinics, the postal service, etc are all nationalized industries. Thus, we practice Socialism in the U.S. everyday. Do we also practice Capitalism? Of course. In fact, we fall much closer to the Laissez-faire Capitalism end of the spectrum than we do to the Collectivism end. As a result, we both reap the financial benefits of free enterprise and suffer the consequences of an ever-widening economic gap and dearth of public benefits.
What we seem to have forgotten--or arguably have been bullied into not believing--is that we have a choice. Regardless of where we fall on the economic system spectrum, we are a democracy. The public gets to decide how we will allocate resources in this country and demand these allocations from our leaders. If they do not abide, we can vote them out. However, be it because of tradition, or lack of information, or fear of change, misinformation, or a collective idealistic hope that one day we too will be billionaires, we continue to vote in favor of allowing resources to be allocated to a handful of individuals. Most of these people inherited their wealth and are not using it to innovate or fulfill new societal needs, or provide more affordable options in essential areas of society. A significant majority of the wealthy are using their wealth to assure that the people in government are their people. They spend billions every election cycle making sure their taxes stay historically low and that funding of regulating agencies remains scant. They inject misinformation into our discourse through their privately owned media sources and they pay seven figure salaries to lobbyists to push laws that will make it even easier for them to make even more money.
Meanwhile, for the lower classes, quality education is becoming more unaffordable; healthcare is either unattainable or unaffordable for tens of millions; it’s becoming more difficult to get a loan for a house, or a car, or a college education…And these are just the problems affecting the middle-class.
Meanwhile, for the lower classes, quality education is becoming more unaffordable; healthcare is either unattainable or unaffordable for tens of millions; it’s becoming more difficult to get a loan for a house, or a car, or a college education…And these are just the problems affecting the middle-class.
The problems we have are present because wealthy business owners use our federal government as an extension of their power as industry leaders. They have no problem with greater governmental control so long as it is benefiting their bottom line. They do not fear bigger government; we do. They are using the government to protect their resources from the people, rather than the people using the government to reallocate those resources to the middle-class in the form of healthcare, education, affordable housing, paid maternity/ paternity leave, etc. We have a choice. We should use it. A fear of the word Socialism is destroying our country. We’re already a Socialist Democracy. We already give up certain personal freedoms to gain certain essential resources. We give up many more to the wealthy when we let them play the role our government is meant to play.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
I Love Bernie Too, but It Ain't Gonna Happen
It's as simple as, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Bernie Sanders won't be the 45th President of the United States for the same reason that a basketball team can't walk on the court and start playing soccer and expect to win. It's the same reason that Wilco will never be as big as Justin Bieber, and why more people read John Grisham than Earnest Hemingway. There are games that must be played in every area of life and while these games are often demoralizing, dehumanizing, and focused entirely on something other than talent, intelligence, and discipline, they matter. At least until they don't. Bernie's not playing the game to win; he's playing a different game to highlight how stupid the game of running for President is and share ideas that are completely possible but ahead of their time.
In 2008, Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination saying many of the same things that Dennis Kucinch said in 2004. Kucinich was more or less laughed for his platform, which in 2004 was far too progressive (or, as Americans like to call it, Socialist) for the country. Just for years later, the very same ideas took Obama to the White House. So, why did Obama gain traction where Kucinich couldn't and Bernie Sanders won't?
All of this being said, circumstances do change. None of the three most likely candidates are spring-chickens. Health could become an issue and shift things suddenly. Also, they have all been in politics a very long time and have lots of votes and deals and public records to sift through. Scandals are still possible. But, all things considered, I think Bernie is a long-shot candidate. I, personally, would love to see Bernie win. I agree with everything he's saying. However, if he gets close enough to Hillary and/ or Biden to start getting head-to-head polls run against Republicans and Hillary is up 10% over the field and Sanders is polling even or down 5% to Bush or Rubio, is anyone going to go with Sanders on principle? I doubt it. I would argue that it is much more likely that Hillary adopts some of Bernie's policy positions to get his constituency on-board and/ or considers him for VP. I also would not count-out talk of a Biden/ Warren ticket, which honestly sounds like a powerhouse to me. Between the two of them they cover the gambit of necessary skills, knowledge, and experience in the areas Americans care about most in a President.
Only time will tell...
In 2008, Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination saying many of the same things that Dennis Kucinch said in 2004. Kucinich was more or less laughed for his platform, which in 2004 was far too progressive (or, as Americans like to call it, Socialist) for the country. Just for years later, the very same ideas took Obama to the White House. So, why did Obama gain traction where Kucinich couldn't and Bernie Sanders won't?
One: Charisma and Charm
Obama is a handsome, clever, articulate, Harvard-educated black man with an oratorical style that moved the world to tears every time he gave a speech. His content was no different than Kucinich's, but his style was leaps and bounds beyond Kucinich's skill set. Bernie Sanders, while as passionate as Kucinich about his message, is about one step ahead of Dick Cheney on the charisma and charm scale. He comes across as very serious and angry, which is great for progressives in the primaries, but will not sway swing voters or moderate conservatives in the general election, nor will it get him the absolutely necessary free air time to make up for his righteous, though flailing fund-raising efforts. Let's be honest, Hillary's no Beyonce when it comes to charm and charisma, but if it's between the first woman President with no charisma and a cranky old white man with no charisma, who's going to win that fight?Two: Money
This is that ugly part of the game that everyone, but progressives especially, believe shouldn't exist. I certainly agree it shouldn't exist the way it currently exists in a post-Citizen's United (the Supreme Court decision deeming corporations are people and can contribute to campaigns as though they are individual donors) world, but until this decision is overturned and real campaign finance reform occurs, money is perhaps the most important factor to winning a Presidential election in America. While Barack Obama did an amazing job of energizing young people and small donors to contribute, he became a real contender because he courted big donors as well. He played the money game and while Hillary Clinton won the money game in 2008, Obama hung in closely enough to remain a competitor in the media battle. Where he won the media battle was again with his moving speeches and charming personality, which brought reporters swooning every time he opened his mouth, thus giving him endless TV time for free. Bernie is not this magnetic, thus, he better find a way to get some big donors in his corner, or he's going to get crushed when the media battle heats up closer to Super Tuesday.Three: Timing and Message
Obama was running at the end of one of the most failed presidencies of all time. The economy was in a tailspin, we were fighting two costly and senseless (if not illegal) wars with no exit strategies, we were torturing people with no evidence as to it making us safer, we felt our personal freedoms had been encroached upon with the Orwellian-esk Patriot Act, environmental regulations had been lifted everywhere and were having real effects on both industry and the environment, the financial sector had been deregulated to the point of...well, watch "The Wolf of Wall Street" if you want to see what a party they were having at the middle class' expense, and our infrastructure and social systems of care were being left to crumble. So, people were ready for Obama's message and he did a phenomenal job of delivering his message in a inspiring way. He could have easily drawn upon the public's frustrations and fears and presented his ideas in a serious, angry way. Instead he went with a lighter, sports' fan, Little Engine that Could message: "Yes we can!" Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have no "Yes we can!" They have "This shit sucks; let's eat the rich!" They are not running for President on the heals of a staggering failure of a president. They should be highlighting the progress Obama has made and re-energizing people to take his policies to the next level in the coming eight years. The public is very easily influenced. Obama's less-than-impressive favorability ratings could skyrocket tomorrow if Clinton and Sanders started reminding people how a Democratic president halted The Great Recession in mid-free fall by bailing out the car industry and passing a ginormous stimulus package, how he got tens of millions of people health care who have never had it, how he ended two wars that were costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and doing nothing to make us safer, how he ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, how he gave the DREAMers executive order to allow young immigrants here illegally some safety to come out of the shadows, how he gave an executive order to double gas mileage on all vehicles by 2025, how he gave the order not to crack down on the legalizing of marijuana in 5 states that are profiting hugely from it's tax revenue... I could go on all day, and they should too. Americans have a very short memory span and love to focus on the negative. They need constant reminders of what party is looking out for them. Bernie's plans are inspiring. His narrative is not.Four: Polling
Polls this early in the game are not great predictors of who will win the primary, but trends from now until the end of the year will be. As of now, Hillary is polling, on average, 24% higher nationwide than Bernie Sanders (some polls have her as far as 35% higher). To put that in perspective, Sanders is only leading Joe Biden by 9% and Biden isn't even in the race (yet). In fact, Sanders is so far down that pollsters aren't even running head-to-head polls on how he would match-up against Republican candidates. By contrast, Clinton is ahead in match-ups with every Republican candidate in the race. Of course, this could all change if something damaging, or illegal, comes out of the Clinton email "scandal," or if Biden gets in the race (which seems likely at this point). A Bernie optimist might say, "Hillary's lead over Obama was very similar at this point in the 2008 primaries and Obama won." A pessimist might say, "Yeah, but the Obama/ Hillary match-up came down to superdelegate voting to break a virtual dead-heat by the country as a whole, and Bernie is no Obama." This pessimist may go on to say that Bernie is the only alternative to Clinton right now and if Biden gets in, that could change very quickly. There's also the fact that Clinton has a 75-80% favorability rating among Democrats. So, it's really only the far left who don't feel she represents true progressive values, which Sanders champions, or that she has too much baggage and too many ties to Wall Street.All of this being said, circumstances do change. None of the three most likely candidates are spring-chickens. Health could become an issue and shift things suddenly. Also, they have all been in politics a very long time and have lots of votes and deals and public records to sift through. Scandals are still possible. But, all things considered, I think Bernie is a long-shot candidate. I, personally, would love to see Bernie win. I agree with everything he's saying. However, if he gets close enough to Hillary and/ or Biden to start getting head-to-head polls run against Republicans and Hillary is up 10% over the field and Sanders is polling even or down 5% to Bush or Rubio, is anyone going to go with Sanders on principle? I doubt it. I would argue that it is much more likely that Hillary adopts some of Bernie's policy positions to get his constituency on-board and/ or considers him for VP. I also would not count-out talk of a Biden/ Warren ticket, which honestly sounds like a powerhouse to me. Between the two of them they cover the gambit of necessary skills, knowledge, and experience in the areas Americans care about most in a President.
Only time will tell...
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Abortion: Supporting It is the Only Way to End It
A Brief History of an Ancient Issue
Abortions are nothing new. Not by a long shot. To give you some idea of how long we've been going round and round on this issue, Aristotle wrote in 325 BCE that "[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."--a debate we're still having today about when human life begins.Early, if not ancient, methods of aborting a fetus included physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving. Additional methods included irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, sitting over a pot of steaming water, and lying on a heated coconut shell. Other physical means of inducing an abortion such as battery, exercise, and tightening of the girdle were still often used as late as the Early Modern Period among English women. After a wave of miscarriages in England were attributed to lead poisoning from the metal pipes carrying the water supply, women began using diachylon, a substance with a high concentration of lead, to intentionally cause a miscarriage. This substance was used up until WWI. Perhaps the more gruesome methods are recorded during the 19th century in the U.S. when relatively safe procedures actually existed, but were outlawed (more on this in a minute). During this time, the use of candles and other objects, such as glass rods, penholders, curling irons, spoons, sticks, knives, and catheters were used by women to abort their own pregnancies.
In the early days of the United States, abortions were only mildly regulated. A post-quickening (feeling fetal movement) abortion was considered a misdemeanor, but very difficult to enforce due to the mother being the only one able to determine whether there was fetal movement. During the 19th century, surgery, anesthesia, and sanitation used in terminating a pregnancy improved significantly, however at the same time the laws prohibiting abortions became more harsh. In 1837 abortion became illegal completely in the U.S., and in 1861 simply obtaining poisons or instruments with the intent to have an abortion became a crime. Despite these laws, abortion services were still available in New York, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Louisville, Cleveland, Chicago, and Indianapolis; with estimates of one abortion for every 4 live births.
In 1873, a guy named Anthony Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that same year, Comstock successfully influenced Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made it illegal to deliver by U.S. mail, or by other modes of transportation, "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material, including any methods of production or publication of information pertaining to the procurement of an abortion, prevention conception, or the prevention of venereal disease, even to medical students. These laws continued into the early 20th century and by 1909 the penalty for breaking these laws was $5000 and 5 years in prison. Writer George Bernard Shaw remarked at the time that "Comstockery is the world's standing joke at the expense of the United States. Europe likes to hear of such things. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate country-town civilization after all."
Meanwhile, in the early part of the 19th century in France, abortion was becoming more accepted as a last resort for pregnant unwed women. The ethos gradually evolved to see the modern medical procedure of abortion as a viable alternative to ineffectual contraception methods with regard to family planning. The thinking in France changed in large part because both medical and non-medical providers of abortions agreed upon the relative safety of the procedure.
Abortion in the Modern Era
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th a movement began in support of birth control, which some would deem the beginning of the debate concerning a woman's body and her right to make choices concerning her body. A movement against contraceptives and abortion was, of course, launched in response. During this period, abortions were illegal in every U.S. state though some offered exceptions in the case of preserving the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest. Despite its unlawfulness, licensed physicians in the 1930s performed an estimated 800,000 abortions per year.
It wasn't until the 1960s and 70s that the reproductive rights issue reached boiling point in the U.S. Women who were dying from illegal abortions became the poster-children for women's rights groups, who began learning to provide abortions themselves for women who could not receive them safely elsewhere. In 1965, the Supreme Court struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws. This allowed married couples to begin legally using contraception and a free flow of information about contraception and abortion to the public. Following this decision the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a medical bulletin accepting a recommendation from 6 years earlier which clarified that conception is implantation, not fertilization; and consequently birth control methods that prevented implantation became classified as contraceptives, not abortifacients. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1968 to fight for the renewal and continuation of regulations on contraception and abortion. The National Abortion Rights Action League-Pro Choice America began in 1969 and called for extending access for contraception and abortion. In 1972, the Supreme Court extended the freedom of legally using contraception to unmarried couples as well.
In 1973, the famous Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade occurred. In this decision the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy (in the sense of the right of a person not to be encroached by the state). In its opinion it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.
Abortion Today
From 1973 to 2003 no further regulations were placed on abortion. It was in 2003 that Congress passed a bill banning what abortion opponents dubbed "partial-birth abortions." The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law was challenged though upheld by a narrow margin by the Supreme Court.
Today, despite a plethora of safe and effective (and legal) contraceptive options for both males and females and sex education being taught starting in elementary school, half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are still unplanned. Of these, 1 in 3 will be terminated by the mother. This sounds like a large number, but today we actually have the lowest rate of abortions since Roe v Wade made abortion legal in 1973 (which is when the U.S. started recording concrete numbers rather than estimates). From 2008 to 2011 abortion rates dropped 13%, something a Guttmacher Institute study attributes to new long-acting contraceptive methods. In 2011, there were 17 abortions for every 1000 women of child-bearing age, nearly half of what this number was in 1981 when abortion rates were at their highest (30 abortions for very 1000 women of reproductive age). This study also shows a long-term downward trend in abortions.
Why are women having abortions today? Guttmacher did a study in 2004 asking women this very question. These were the results:
At what point in their pregnancies are women having abortions? According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2011 (the most recent data available):
Why are women having abortions today? Guttmacher did a study in 2004 asking women this very question. These were the results:
- 74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
- 73% Cannot afford a baby now
- 48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
- 38% Have completed my childbearing
- 32% Not ready for another child
- 25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
- 22% Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
- 14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
- 13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
- 12% Concerns about my health
- 6% Parents want me to have an abortion
- 1% Was a victim of rape
- less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
How old are women/ teens having abortions? Nearly 75% of them are under the age of 30.
- 18% percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers
- Teens aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions
- Women aged 18–19 obtain 11% of all abortions
- Teens younger than 15 obtain 0.4% of all abortions
- Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions
- Women aged 25–29 obtain 24% of all abortions
At what point in their pregnancies are women having abortions? According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2011 (the most recent data available):
- 64.5% abortions were performed prior or equal to 8 weeks' gestation
- 91.4% were performed prior or equal to 13 weeks' gestation
- 7.3% were performed between 14–20 weeks' gestation
- 1.4% were performed at or after 21 weeks' gestation
Why We're Still Talking About This?
We're still having this debate in the 21st century--a debate that's literally been around since the first abortion laws were recorded in 1075 BCE--because no matter how long we debate it, no one is going to be able to codify when human life begins. It's a matter of opinion. Doctors disagree, theologians disagree, philosophers disagree, and the general public sways its beliefs on the matter from one election cycle to the next. Even the Supreme Court when passing Roe v Wade said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law unborn fetuses have never been protected as full humans and chose not to change that precedent.
I agree with the Supreme Court of 1973. We don't need to answer the question of when life begins to address this problem. When an argument has occurred for thousands of years in societies all over the globe and reached no consensus, it's time to start focusing less on the morality and more on problem solving. No one likes the idea of abortion. No one is thrilled to get one. No one walks away from one without experiencing grief around their loss. And, we all want them to become unnecessary. So let's start there. How do we make them unnecessary?
The answer to this question is: We do exactly what we've been doing, but on a much larger scale. If you're morally repulsed by abortion, you shouldn't be picketing in front of Planned Parenthood, you should be donating to them. They are a large part of the reason that abortions are happening with less frequency than ever before in history. Not only this, but their happening safely and can be regulated and measured. We can collect data and thus we can make informed decisions on who is having abortions and when and why and focus our efforts toward reducing unwanted pregnancies in these populations of people. If we go back to pre-Roe v Wade days, if we de-fund Planned Parenthood, as many republicans are now calling for, we aren't ending abortion, we're increasing it. We're shutting down the people disseminating information about contraception--the people who are educating youth and under-educated populations about how reproduction works and how to avoid ever needing to consider an abortion. Take away these resources and we will face increases in unwanted pregnancies, increases in abortions, and increases in mothers dying due to abortions carried out in unsafe conditions. We know this because it's exactly what was happening for thousands of years before 1973.
Finally, this is not just an issue of when life begins and the morality surrounding this unanswerable question. Unintended pregnancies are many times unwanted pregnancies and just because a woman doesn't choose to terminate her pregnancy does not mean she intends to take care of the resulting offspring. The Brookings Institute estimates that American taxpayers pay $12 billion a year on publicly financed medical care for women who experience unintended pregnancies and on infants who were conceived unintentionally. They go on to say that though it is difficult to monetize the cost of increases in crime, higher high school drop-out rates, and dependency on public entitlements programs, these all have strong correlations with levels of unwanted pregnancies. Meaning, children being born into the world with parents who don't want them and/ or can't afford them are making us less safe and burdening our economy, not to mention living very difficult lives that often lead a person to a life of depression, addiction, and crime. Those who are given up for adoption may spend their entire childhood bouncing around foster homes before (if they ever) find an adoptive home. 30% of the U.S. homeless population and 25% of our prison population were once foster children. And, 28% of children in foster care will be abused by their foster parents (many believe this number is much higher). Is it not just as morally troubling to consider fates worse than death?
So, I say, if you're against abortion, support it, because being pro-life means more than being pro-fetus. If you want higher taxes, bigger government, higher crime rates, higher rates of abortion, higher rates of mothers dying due to abortion complications, and children growing up in abusive foster situations, than reverse Roe v Wade and de-fund Planned Parenthood. It's not a black and white issue of when life begins. It's a problem that has an answer that we should all be focused on and supporting. We all want abortions to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)