Saturday, August 17, 2019

American Leadership - Ceded like a Child Who Couldn’t Play by their Own Rules


American Leadership - Ceded like a Child Who Couldn’t Play by their Own Rules


When I was growing up on Glencrest Avenue as a boy in the early 1980s, there was a spot on the street called the “water rights” where many a game was played among us kids in the summer and other times of the year.  This area was a grassy field under some high tension power lines and was a distinctive right of way for the local water authority that was never built on in the neighborhood.  This was a time where soccer was gaining traction in many places, but in the summer it was most often baseball that we played on the “water rights”.  We’d lay out bases using Frisbees or whatever else we had, and we would make up our own rules.

Back in those days I was not a leader, but more of a joiner, and given some semblance of athletic ability, often among the many kids playing on that field.  So when it came to defining things and making the “rules” it was most often one of the more popular, or bigger, or stronger kids that laid out how we would play, based on who all was there.  Many times the games went off without a hitch and we’d play until one of several things occurred:
  • “the street lights came on” which was the universal sign it was getting dark and we needed to head home;
  • Someone’s parents rang a bell or other such signal that it was dinner time and we didn’t want to miss that;
  • The inevitable case of someone sliding into a base, or running into each other to catch a ball, or a twisted ankle or some other injury caused us all to stop and recognize the situation and get the applicable person some help;
  • It became just too darn hot and we just decided we’d come back another day; or something else.
But sometimes, the game ended for other reasons.  Namely a fight would break out over the rules being broken in one way or another, occasionally ending in fisticuffs, but more often just yelling, harsh words, anger, frustration and resignation.  Now said rules issues could sometimes be solved by appealing to fairness and reasonableness, but the ones that were the worst kinds of altercations were of a distinct stripe.  The worst ones were when the bully was the one that had made the rules and he was losing by his own measures.  You see in those games, when he (and it was most often, but not exclusively, a he) was losing to the rules of his own making, he wanted to have universal and unfettered right to change the rules in his favor without consulting the rest of us playing the game.  The rest of us, however, would point out how he made the rules, he should have known the consequences, and the fairest thing was for him to live by them.  And instead of trying to find a way to get to a consensus rule change, said bully would stand their ground, insist on having it their way and look all the foolish for being so “babyish”.  As we grew, more and more said bully didn’t look like a leader, no matter his or her popularity, or size, or strength.  And given a few of these breakdowns, said person, even if they insisted, was not allowed to make the rules of the game anymore, as we appealed to true leaders who were fair, and would actually live by their own rules.

A former military compatriot of mine posted the following meme after a rally that occurred for and by President Trump in New Hampshire on 15 August 2019 that has me reflecting on things on Glencrest long ago:


As a play-by-play commentator on American foreign policy, I’ll just go ahead and call it:  Donald Trump just declared America is no longer the leader of the free world.

Now, many may try to debate this, but there’s times you just need to say what is true, even, especially when it hurts.  I have long been a critic of this President and especially his approach to foreign policy; with all of its showmanship over statesmanship, its bluster without tangible results, for its death defying (or perhaps not so defying) trade policies, for being completely unreliable, and for its forgoing strong long-term allies to cozy up with (what we would have called in another era) the tyrants of the world.  So it’s no surprise that I would pick out this meme and roundly criticize it.  However, it is not just the meme, it is the entire presentation given by Trump at this rally in regards to globalism, which hasn’t really changed much since he announced his run for the presidency before riding down an escalator.

What we are seeing folks, is the same as what happened on the “water rights” in my neighborhood as a kid.

After World War II, the United States was without question the biggest, the strongest, the most popular kid in the planet.  We were given the unparalleled opportunity to rewrite the rules for the world, and we did.  Given our historical development and our immediate recent past, we knew that leaving the world in the hands of an ethereal “balance of power” or the whims of ideological and manic power brokers was not only harmful for those outside our borders, but also devastating to our own interests and our own well-being.  We knew that the unique call of the Declaration of Independence was based upon universal truths that could not be left up to others to defend any longer.  We had to change the paradigm and ensure that the world never again saw the kind of engulfing conflagration of war that was wrought in the first half of the twentieth century, lest we be destroyed ourselves.

So we put into place a rules based system.  We established the United Nations, we created NATO as an alliance of defense, we launched the Marshall Plan, we created the GATT (now WTO) and so forth.  These were, first and foremost, our way of putting into the world a new American based order of things.  We literally wrote the new rule set and we submitted that this set of rules would be something we would not only impose on others, but also impose on ourselves.  Just like on Glencrest Ave, we put out the bases, we made everyone aware of the rules of the game, often by dictating them to the world, and we started playing ball.

Now as we started the game, it went relatively well.  From the Suez Crisis to the Berlin Airlift to the shift of powers in post WWII China, the world averted global war again and again.  As the communist ideologues pressed against the rules, even they had to submit and play the game the same as everyone else.  Tests to the strength of the system happened in Korea, and in several other places around the world, but it held.  Even in the midst of the possibility of world annihilation in the Cuban missile crisis, these strictures stayed the course.  American leadership from Truman, through Eisenhower, to the Kennedy/Johnson period all the way through to George HW Bush saw that the rule maker was reasoned and appealed to universality on the global stage, creating the longest sustained period of an absence of total war in history.  Were there times where folks were injured or killed?  Yes, but even then the rules stuck and global thermonuclear and total war were averted.  Were there times where various powers had to step back and reassess?  Absolutely.  Were there needs to change the rules now and again to keep up with new realities and circumstances?  Assuredly, and with that came things like START and the revamping of the GATT into the WTO, and so forth.

So like the games we played as kids, so long as the rules were fair and reasoned, the game was played, was generally enjoyable, and, while not everyone could win, no one sat out or pouted off in a huff or tried to unmake the game.  This was because the game was not rigged against anyone, and most often favored reasoned American leadership and prevalence.  And for the USA, it served, and continues to serve, us exceptionally well.  This rules based system, that we created and imposed on the world, has opened nearly every market to us, put us in the driver’s seat for most every crisis, and has enabled us to run the gambit to our benefit, wherever we look.  Now have all of the benefits been equally spread?  No.  Have there been sacrifices made?  Certainly.  Is there cheating here and unfairness there?  You bet.  But on the whole the fact that there is a rules based system means we can address and work to fix these ills by making others follow the rules that are set and are fair for all.  After all, these kind of rules-change efforts have been a part of the system that has made it so effective, so good for the world, and, especially, the United States.

But now has come the next game on the “water rights.”  This is when the least-mature, headstrong person realizes that they don’t like the rules, if nothing else because the flaws in the rules are of their own making.  And they are given the right to be the arbiter of the rules, for the game.  And they believe they have the right to just arbitrarily change things or, more simply, destroy the system of their own making instead of playing the game they created in the first place.  President Trump uttered these words at the rally, “Globalism enriches foreign countries at our expense.”  Even if that were true, and it isn’t[i], we have the power to fix that dynamic, after all we were the ones that created this system, and of any other nations, have the greatest influence in altering the rules to stop that from occurring.  But Trump isn’t interested in fixing anything, he just wants to cry about how the game that is of our own making is not allowing us a guaranteed win.  Wah Wah!  Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?

He then goes on to say that “America will never bow to a foreign nation like we were for so many years.”  Which years were they Mr. President?  When have we ever bowed to foreign nations as the USA?  Was that when we have dominated the Olympics for going on 5 decades?  Has that been when we have been the largest economy since the end of WWII without a break?  Has that been when our military could go any place, at any time, and defeat any military force it wanted to around the globe?  Has that been when we have bent every nation to our will of following an international set of rules that they had little say in creating?  The fact that the President of the United States has made this statement, when it is utterly false, is a demonstrable case of personal weakness and propagandizing in order to buy into his sham patriotism as he purports to save us.  Just like the bully who doesn’t want to play by his own rules (and ineffectually tries to convince the players that his arbitrary change really is fair and will help the players), Trump et al are trying to get us all to buy into the idea that America has failed before his arrival and that what he is doing is “saving” America.  The facts, however, demonstrate the opposite to be true [ii].  Over and over again, it’s clear that what is happening here is that Trump is changing the rules or utterly obliterating them for no other reason than to help himself, while doing irreparable harm to America[iii].  What Trump continues, as he’s done for a lifetime, is convince you he is the idol to follow and then ask you to continually feed into his idolatry as he lavishes in ill-gotten gains and leaves a wake of destruction behind him.  And now, that wake includes American leadership in the world.

He said the other night, “I love our country.  I'm the President of the United States of America.  I'm not the President of the world.”  He is, I am sure, in love with America, because he has continued to reap all of the benefits, exacted nearly none of the sacrifice and cost, and has solidified a cult of personality in his person that idolizes him.  He is indeed the current President of the United States of America, a mighty and powerful position that deserves a person of the strongest character, the utmost integrity, and the humility for the position it deserves.  Luckily, the fact that Donald Trump is POTUS is something that we have the chance to rectify in November 2020, as he shares none of those values.  And finally, he is right, he isn’t the President of the world; there isn’t such a position.  But he has certainly proven that the POTUS isn’t necessarily the leader of the free world anymore, and he has done almost all he can to destroy the American leadership in the world[iv] that we largely created.

“They respect us again, and you see it.”  Actually, no, Mr. President, I see the opposite and so does anyone who isn’t blinded by your narcissism.  You are making it so that the world is shaking their heads, or laughing, or worse at the USA.  You’ve ceded American world leadership just like a child who couldn’t play by their own rules.  And while I blame you for many things, it is ultimately “We the people …” that are to blame for allowing this to happen.  Luckily, we can opt to choose an actual adult to be the President in 2020, let’s hope, pray, and take action so that we make that right choice.  After all, the game being played is much more important than any I played on Glencrest Avenue, on the “water rights”, as a child.




[i] Trump continues to fail to understand how global trade flows and economics work, as Paul Krugman
[ii] See the numerous reports of economic, social and political harm that are being accomplished by this administration, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Richard Haas, among them.  And yes, the Mueller Report.
[iii] For instance the IMF treaty lapsing
[iv] E.g. stepping back form the JCPOA, haranguing allies, cozying up with despots

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

An Apologia for the Electoral College


An Apologia for the Electoral College

OK, so here goes my apologia for the Electoral College, or at least for the indirect election of the President of the United States.  Before we begin, let us make sure we are knowledgeable of what is and is not the Electoral College.  To start from the beginning, this is what is written in Article 2 of the Constitution as drafted and ratified:

“2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
4. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This was then quickly modified in the twelfth amendment, modifying section 3 of the above, which reads:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. - The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Finally, the twentieth amendment made a small adjustment in section 3 of its text, modifying the italicized section above, which reads:

“3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

First, the default way that the constitutional convention had thought about the election of the President/Executive, was to have it be elected by the Congress (Virginia (https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=7&page=transcript) and New Jersey (https://www.usconstitution.net/plan_nj.html) plans), e.g. a Parliamentary election of sorts.  That changed as the office of the Presidency took form, was given distinct powers, and the need for a truly independent executive was made clear.  Note:  the authors of the Constitution were cautious and wanted to guard against mob rule (as seen in the failures seen in the numerous Italian and other republics in the recent and ancient past as a result of too much pure democracy), while forming a government that would not fall into the travails seen in the British parliamentary system of that time.  They were forming a republic that had democratic and non-democratic features, to ensure protection of minorities (small states and other concerns) as well as still ensuring it found its sovereignty in the consent of the governed.  So while wanting the President to represent all, they were very concerned about the rise of a tyrant that could come to power by mob action and have nefarious character (Federalist #68, https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68), especially given the awesome and sweeping powers that were being granted to the executive in the Constitution.  As is well documented, the example of Washington himself was ever-present in this work, but the founders knew not all men were as scrupulous as the presumptive first President was in character.  To that end, they created a bridge called the Electoral College that would, in theory, consist of statesmen of renown and wisdom that would be electors for the Presidency based on a manner in which each State would choose.  Many things have changed between the late eighteenth century and now.  I still believe, however, that there is a protective function needed in the selection of the President, and before we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, let us try to fix that protective measure, or find a suitable replacement, rather than repeal it and create a potential deeper set of problems that will be harder to remedy.

Let me be succinct in saying that the Electoral College failed in the presidential election of 2016.  It failed for several reasons.  Let us be clear, however, that the failure of the Electoral College in 2016 was not based solely on its existence.  First, it failed because of the fact that the States put in legal measures that forbade electors from acting out of conscious (several spoke out against having to vote the way they did, and considered strongly being unfaithful electors), and, rather, forced to follow the particular State plebiscite rules for awarding presidential and vice presidential electoral votes.  Second, it failed because electors, by-and-large, are chosen by and with the potential candidates in mind, often with direct influence by those campaigns.  Thus, the selection of electors is not resulting in the selection of individuals that are independent in the process.  Next, the Electoral College failed because of the superimposed “winner takes all” plebiscite approach in most States in regards to the selection of the electors.  Finally, it also failed in that, because of the preceding, the fact we live in an instantaneous information age, and absent a few tight States, there was already a result presumptive winner well known, with lawyers lining up for suit and countersuit (with only the example of 2000 as an object lesson for which the Clinton campaign was wise not to repeat).

Note that in all of the above, save the fact we no longer have the need to currier ballots by horse and wagon, does this really effect the construct of the Electoral College as it is written in the Constitution.  I, for one, think we have let a person with limited, if any, respect for our republican form of government into the Whitehouse; we cannot let that happen again.  The fix from my perspective, however, is not to hand ourselves over to illiberal democracy (https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/FZakariaIlliberalDemocracy1997.pdf or his excellent book:  https://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Revised/dp/0393331520) by out and out removal of the Electoral College (or any protective measure in the election of the mighty and powerful office of President of the US) as is being advocated by some today.  Rather, we need to develop a fix for it that meets the following intents:
  • Providing for a way for a general expression of the people in the election of the chief executive of the nation, independent of the legislature
  • Providing a protection against illiberal populism in the election of the President
  • Restricting the States from imposing any strictures on those that have direct elective roles for the Presidency


To me this means we need to proceed with some measures, first to see if we can fix the Electoral College, and if that fails then coming up with an alternate indirect election schema that meets the above intents.  I would propose a series congressional acts or amendments (if needed), or develop through a compact through the numerous states, that do the following as ways to aid in the fixing of the Electoral College as it is already scripted (and amended by the 12th and 20th amendments):
  • Provide for the selection of electors for the candidates for the political parties, no later than two years prior to the date of election for the Presidency.  Rational: these electors would not be a part or party to a particular presidential campaign nor be those that ran/didn’t run for congress/senator that might be beholden to those that are.
  • Prohibit States from dictating, in any way, how an elector chooses to name on the ballot for President or Vice President of the United States.  Rational:  enabling the original intent found in Federalist 68 for electors to ensure “that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”
  • Prohibit States from allocating all of their electors en masse based on the plebiscite of their State for the election of President and Vice-President, but instead require them to allocate electors proportionally based on said plebiscite.  Rational:  this recognizes that the need to have the electoral college reflect a closer reflection of the national popular vote, but also returning to another facet of the value of the original design of the Electoral College in that it avoids the concentration of power. It also may have the effect of better avoiding regionalization of national parties as a path to the Presidency will have to be responsive across the spectrum of national issues.


In conclusion, I am a firm believer that before we go about changing things, we look back to the past and understand why things exist in the first place, and then discern the path forward.  In regards to the Electoral College, there are numerous reasons for its existence.  Some of these are indeed no longer valid, such as the need to transmit votes over long distances based on beasts of burden.  Others are still very much valid and should not be easily forgotten or tossed aside.  In this discernment one needs to consider, is it the mechanism that is the problem or the reason for the mechanism?  I argue that most of the reasons are still valid for having an Electoral College:  to have independence from the legislature, need to protect against tyranny and persons of uncouth character, to ensure equitable regional power sharing, and to reflect the general will of the governed.  Thus, if the reasons for its existence remain valid, before we remove the mechanism that may not be working well to meet its intent, we need to have a replacement plan.  To that end, I believe the above can get us to that point, if even only as an interim step.  Abolishment of the mechanism will not suffice, as abolishment will fail to protect against regionalism and certainly will remove any mechanism for conscious adjudication of poor character.  Certainly, we can reconsider the Virginia and New Jersey plans and have the Congress vote for the President and Vice President, as another way to make a change.  We would then need to say we no longer seek to have an independent Presidency in relation to the legislature, in that event.  There is some reason to consider this, even in my own mind, given that the legislature has ceded exceptional amounts of power to the executive by its own willing action.  Reconsidering and instituting Congressional election of the Presidency may counterbalance that trend, although it would certainly further entrench partisanship, which is also an ill we need to solve in our republic.  To that end, until we have a replacement, and even absent my proposed changes, we should keep the instrument until we do the hard work to find a replacement that serves our republic and ourselves well beyond the current crisis.  We should not and cannot expect less of ourselves in this regard, than those citizen-delegates in Philadelphia did themselves more than two centuries ago.


Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Never Trumper and the American Political Situation


The following is a long post in a thread on facebook which is at the following post:  https://www.facebook.com/erik.backus/posts/10217157757399230.


Returning to the main thread, on our political situation in the USA.  To recap, I offered:  “To clarify ‘never trumpers’ didn’t vote for Trump. Some, like Colin Powell, voted for Hillary. Some, like George HW Bush or John Kaisich, voted write-in or didn’t vote the Presidential line. The ‘never trumpers’ weren’t and aren’t enablers. The enablers are those that allegedly pinched their noses and still voted for him, those aren’t ‘never trumpers’ they’re ‘lesser of evils’ voters as they saw it. I’ll complete this post a bit later.”

To which Renie Jay replied:  “Erik C. Backus I know in our friend circle this will be an extremely unpopular opinion, but I think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in 16 is an enabler. None of the 3rd party candidates had a realistic chance of winning. Hell, 1000 votes for Harambe in NH almost cost Hillary that entire state! 3rd party and write-ins played right into Trump's hand.

People who didn't vote for either trump nor Hillary in swing States effectively acted as bystanders attempting to abstain.

‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.’”

From which, I began my replies with the following:

Renie Jay, the key point is swing states, which is where I was going next.  Trump won the popular vote contribution to the election on approximately 80,000 votes in 3 states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio), which was reflected in how the electoral college was forced to act (more on that in a bit).  One has to then delve into how is it that we have such a divide, that such a marginal popular vote action could ultimately decide the result we had?  I'll get into the structural piece (the Electoral College), but what I am really first getting at is the way the popular will was swayed in just the right places.

To that, one cannot but see that we have an ever stronger emerging rural to urban divide, not too dissimilar to the stratification and "sectionalism" that existed in the mid-nineteenth century.  Both major parties have capitalized/enhanced this stratification in that the Dems who were historically supported by labor and working class politics, in part due to the new democrat movement that was embraced by Clinton, have lost or weakened that support and have not often delivered for that demographic as they have focused on cultural liberal issues and turned from protectionism without actually building a sustainable alternative path to economic prosperity (traditional liberal new deal government largess has been accurately condemned as problematic).  With regards to the Repubs, the strong embrace of the traditional southern political culture from Nixon through Regan to Trump (populist, protectionist, xenophobic, reactionary, etc.), put them in a position to capture those left behind in rural and working class centric areas, even as they continue to only offer a mirage of a solution to their economic ills.  They've been largely lost, and as I articulated prior to the election still holds:  http://backusec.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-trump-phenom-abridged.html.  You can blame them all you want as "enablers" but that doesn't solve any problem, nor will it convince them of their choice; frankly it'll galvanize them more.

So the answer, in part the reason this has happened is that the hardening partisanship/stratification, has hit in enough places that we need to really look at what the real underlying issues are that would drive a person to make such a tragic choice.  And those are largely cultural and economic. 

On the social front, it’s one thing to celebrate the broadening of rights and supporting the furtherance of egalitarian efforts to pull people out from the shadows (e.g. LGBTQ, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, etc.) to allow them full(er) social equity (which I support), but when it’s done as an assault on traditional norms writ large, or perceived as such, and includes rhetoric and actions that are as intolerant towards traditional folks as those that imposed the former conditions felt by those that were in the shadows, its harmful and counterproductive.  There is a way to both hold people accountable, not accept backsliding or bigotry, but also not assault them personally and seek their utter demise.

We also have to recognize that there are not one-size-fits-all answers for every community.  Yes, we hope to continue to raise the bar and get ever better at our baseline of tolerance and acceptance, but there have always been different speeds at which social change has occurred in different contexts.  So long as there is indeed progress, and we have to always press forward towards equality and justice, we can’t fault Russell, NY for not having a robust LGBTQ support system in the same way Boston, MA has one, it’s just not realistic nor is it healthy in the end to force it upon that community en masse.  Rapid social change in society leads to backlash and potential devastation, the Middle East is a case-in-point in this regard.  We need to emulate an advanced version of the Jordanian model in terms of pace and methods towards change in society (not its starting point, of course) and not end up with the Iranian model that led to the revolution of 1979 or the Whabbi model that has brought us Al Queada and worse.

So looking at the social question, the problem is we can’t even talk about a reasonable way forward, because we continue to trip on purity and litmus tests on social questions.  On abortion, it’s pro-life without a single exception or it’s pro-choice without inhibition.  How about we seek the end of abortion, not by making it illegal, but by doing all we can to create respectful relationships, use fact based education, and try perpetrators for their sexual crimes?  How about we ensure women have control of their bodies, not by developing more medical procedures and pharmaceuticals that seek to reject life at it’s creative point, but by ensuring contraceptives are available, that we empower women in relationships, and we hold fathers accountable as full partners in every sense?  And how about we ensure we value life after birth as sacred as life in the womb, we ensure that religious beliefs that value chastity and responsibility in relationships aren’t mocked, support adoption more fully as an option, and we seek to recognize that there remains imperfection in the world and that there are often horribly bad personal choices people have to make and seek to help people through those challenges?  All of these, for just this one example, are much harder, they don’t fit into sound-bites, and we have to contend with one another as neighbors and friends, not as “us” and “them”.  It’s not utopia, it’s a realization that the more we hurt ourselves, the more we will all suffer.

On the economic side we need to continue to have an innovative and dynamic economy to be able to compete on the world stage, turning back to protectionism and isolationism will undermine, significantly, the general economic growth (even with the Great Recession we have seen a general upward glidepath world-wide) and security stability we see in the world (we haven’t seen a major symmetric great power ground conflict in over 70 years).  But we have yet to fix the fact that there are many left in the wake and we need to find a way to give them the bright future that has often been promised them throughout our nation's history.  This really requires a partial re-definition of the American dream which will continue to hit some resistance until those that have been left behind the most can see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.  Neither liberals nor conservatives have even attempted to really lay down any track to make that possible.  So this needs to be the priority, figuring this out, lest we continue to fail, not only for any party, but as a nation long term.  And we are already seeing the drag this is on all of us.

I have spoken to this, we need to encourage trade development as a co-equal path with collegiate education.  We need to purposefully make investments in communities that have labor pools that have been left out and left behind.  We have to see this just like we saw the efforts to revitalize the large urban center cities in the 60s through the 80s which has brought renaissance to the like of NYC, Washington DC, LA, Chicago, etc. etc.  This is making an investment in rust belt and rural America in a way that is unprecedented, both in scale and in method.  This can’t be another big New Deal type government program nor can it be a hand-out to companies in hopes they deliver.  It has to be a strategically engaged development strategy that develops underlying infrastructure (badly in need of repair and of upgrade), incentivizes and pushes industry along a path that is sustainable, and creates opportunity for a new generation of workers.  It’s unscrewing the personal tax code, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share for what they have been privileged to get out of the economy, protects our long term resources (conserving them for when we really need them), and unleashes innovation and corporate action to solve the biggest world-wide problems.

But no one wants to do this.  Dems want to pile on the success of the megalopolis cities of the coast, enhancing programs, and assaulting corporations as the enemy.  Repubs want to strip all regulations, cut taxes for even the things we need, and prove that government can never work.  No one really cares that LeClaire, WI or Flint, MI, and Akron, OH are atrophying in so many ways (people, infrastructure, housing, employers, and more) that people are eating rats.  Roger & Me is real, and there is a reason Michael Moore predicted, to his own sadness, the outcome in 2016 correctly.  People are desperate in these locations, and choosing change, even despotic, racist, authoritarian, fascist, immoral, repugnant change, is felt by them to be better than where they are now.  Unless we create change that answers the mail, Trump will be a reality.

I long ago stopped using the term “GOP” for the Republican party.  GOP stands for “Grand Old Party”, deriving from the “Grand Old Army”, which was a nickname for the Civil War era Army of the Republic.  They are no longer the party of Lincoln, and any association with the soldiers that stood shoulder to shoulder to fight against the Confederate Army who defended slavery, is practically gone.  They’ve embraced the flag of the CSA, its intransigence on race relations, and its long history of fighting for equity and freedom for all humankind.  I have an “I Like Ike” hat that was given to me and I often wear it, because gosh, wouldn’t it be nice to have a President more like Ike.  Ike was hardly perfect, but he did pass the first Civil Rights act and he made damn sure that the Nazis got punished for genocide.  And the 1950s were not even close to perfect, we were still in Korea, segregation was at its high water mark in the south, and the coming storm of the 1960s was upon us.  Ike though, didn’t stop the progress, he edged it along, he didn’t go along with the British and French on the Suez, but he made sure we airlifted into Berlin.  He was brave enough to make Rockefeller the first Under-Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare even if he had to turn to Nixon as his VP (who brought us the EPA mind you).  The hat is a piece of nostalgia for a party that was, and no longer is.

The Dems, however, aren’t the party they were.  In some ways they are much better.  They ejected the Dixiecrats and have embraced much of the social justice agenda.  They stopped with their protectionism, and started to see some parts of corporate America (tech companies, organic farmers, and so forth) as acceptable to even good.  But all the while, they gave up on the working class and they’ve lost their patriotism.  They’ve ceded liberty to “libertarians” and freedom to the “freedom caucus” without even a fight.  They seem to have gotten so lost in fighting “the man” that they forgot that they’ve crippled Uncle Sam with both government largess and a willingness to perpetually leave behind the farms from which they get fed.

In the end, I think neither party survives in their current form; we are at the nexus point of a new party system in the next decade.  There will be in the end, two, I think, from the ashes and flotsam of the present situation.  For some time I have thought that pro-business Dems would leave the party to join the “establishment” Repubs.  But now, I see that Ron Paul, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Trump are all conspiring to tear apart the Repubs.  Rather than attack “never trumpers” these are those that you need to court.  They weren’t willing to give in.  But you need to actually embrace what they see as the needs and adopt some of their solutions.  John Kaisich was the one Repub candidate that you need to listen to.  He, or his type (Ben Sasse, etc), will not win as a Repub on the national stage, but they can pull enough strings to do one of two things: 1) attempt to take the Repubs back from Trump (less likely) or 2) Do a Bloomberg one better and try to build an alternative center right party using neo-liberalism and a worker centric platform hoping to get enough independents to force the Repubs to come back to them.  This is speculation, but I am certain things are going to change.  This Fall will bespeak not a win for Dems, that should not be mistaken, it will be a reaction and rejection of Trump should the House and Senate flip.  There is much more to come, and the point is don’t think that traditional labels mean what they once did.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Immigration Justice?



“May you live in interesting times” – Ancient Chinese Proverb

The last couple months in regards to immigration in the United States of America has certainly been “interesting”.  President Donald Trump and his team ramped up border security, with Attorney General Jeff Session announcing a “zero tolerance policy” on 7 May 2018[i].  After extensive reporting and a sizable public and international outcry (inclusive of criticism by Pope Francis), on 20 June 2018, the President signed an executive order ending the policy that his Attorney General had put forward in May in regards to separating families[ii].  The saga is hardly done[iii], but it did bring to the fore a lot of discussion on what has been a core issue for this Presidency and for the USA for some time around immigration.

To that end, this tweet by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA[iv] was emblematic of many a retort I saw on many social media platforms regarding the outcry against the policy of separating families at the US southern border:



The numbers quoted certainly should be verified[v], but they aren’t far off the mark.  An initial reaction to this post and its juxtaposition of comparing children of inmates and those in foster care, to those being separated at the border, might very well be indignant rejection.  After all there is a significant difference between a person who is awaiting a hearing or trial (those being separated at the border) and one that has been tried and convicted of a crime that resulted in a prison sentence (parent in prison; even though one could speak to the various injustices within the legal system).  Likewise, children in foster care are there for many reasons, inclusive of voluntary decisions made by the birth parents themselves.  And while these facts are true, that there is an apples to oranges comparison being made here, there is an underlying set of questions being asked, or at least should be.

For instance, one question that needs to be asked, is do we consider the welfare of a parent’s children in the process of sentencing for crimes?  Law and order focused efforts often narrow the band of consideration for sentencing guidelines to simply relate to the crime committed, and rarely desire to look at other circumstances.  And even if it were true that sentencing guidelines enable broader consideration (and many in truth do), one question that needs to be asked is shouldn’t a parent who really cares for their child consider that before committing a crime that will potentially cause them to be separated?  And arguably, this is a very valid question.  Good parents simply shouldn’t commit crimes, not only to model good behavior or their children, but also to avoid the possibility of incarceration and separation, never mind economic impacts and social stigma.

So this line of questions leads us to perhaps the better question and better response to this whole debate and discussion.  Why or under what circumstances would a parent justifiably take this risk and do something illegal?  Are there any?  For those in the strict law and order camp, the answer may well be that there are no such circumstances or reasons.  For others, there may be.

To that point, I had a fellow US Army officer[vi] share a few thoughts with me related to the topic of illegal immigration:  “There is a way to stop [illegal immigration].  Stop crossing border illegally.  We can't let our borders leak with a constant flow of immigrants putting a strain on society[vii].   Response dumbed down for Democrats to understand.”[viii]  Simply, from a law and order perspective, it’s about us protecting ourselves from whatever real or perceived threat that might exist; so be it that it damages “them”.  The thing is, however, that is the opposite of what Charlie Kirk’s assertion is trying to say, it’s trying to make a morally equivalent argument based on a notion that is more sophisticated than protection, it’s appealing to a sense of justice.  The point is, why is it we concern ourselves so much with 2,000 separated illegal immigrant families, and not concern ourselves with the literal millions that are separated within the US citizenry?  That simply seems unjust.  Well that depends on what justice means, doesn’t it?

“jus-tice
noun: justice; plural noun: justices
  1. just behavior or treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms:       fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality
"I appealed to his sense of justice"

·         the quality of being fair and reasonable.
"the justice of his case"

·         the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.
"a tragic miscarriage of justice"

·         the personification of justice, usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.
noun: Justice”[ix]

Prudent to this discussion is “a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people”.  To that end, then there has to be some nuance, some broader construct in discussing what might justify (note the root of justify and justice are the same) making an illegal act, especially if you have dependents in your charge.  The presumption is that if you are a parent, you have taken upon the sacred responsibility of caring[x] for and providing[xi] for your child, until such time as they are able to care and provide for themselves.  So, it follows, that if for some reason you can’t care or provide for a child or children in your care[xii], you have to make accommodations to do so; that would be the “just” thing to do.  One can clearly state that one should do so by every legal means possible.  But does it end there?  Does the duty of a parent end at “legal means” especially if, by so limiting ones care and support, one would inherently would harm the child or children, or worse?[xiii]

Today I read an account from a firsthand viewer of things on the southern US border.[xiv]  Mike Harlos, as you can read in his own post (https://www.facebook.com/MikeHarlos/posts/2179883425362049), speaks to what is happening in Tornillo, TX is on the US/Mexico border.  He makes a comparison between the plight of those that he’s accounted for and seen and those fleeing from a hurricane.  A more apt analogy might be those fleeing from Raqqa, Syria in 2013, where violence was and is so strident that leaving and fleeing to another country for the sake of the safety of your children, certainly seems to be the just thing to do.  Is it likely that you care much for the laws governing such cross border actions?  Are you in a situation where it might not matter much to you even if you did, as the choice to remain is so horrible that no matter the consequences, they have to be better for you and yours that you’ll take that chance?  To that end, I think one has to contemplate this in the sense of what justice really would be in this case.

In some sense the real comparator is if you are poor and destitute and unable by legal means to feed your family, do you steal?  That, fundamentally is a part of the equation here and the real pushback comes in the assertion that illegal immigrants are stealing.  But is it just?  Is it just to tear apart families as mechanism to punish the guilty, domestic or otherwise prior to their having an opportunity to defend their action?  This really is at the core of the questions we need to ask ourselves, especially if we are going to compare those incarcerated within the USA to those trying to enter the US without going through the rather byzantine process that one must go through to do so by the rules.  While the assertion by Charlie Kirk was meant to push back against the indignation of those speaking against the “zero tolerance” policy, his use of justice as his underlying moral point takes it in a very different direction.  It does not mean we should throw out the rule-book, but we need to look at this with more careful eyes.  And that should make us really think more and care more than missives back and forth; lives, quite literally, are in the balance.



[vi] In the spirit of comradery of arms and based on a general policy of non-attribution of those who share thoughts in private with me, I will not name him publicly
[vii] This part of the argument is an interesting one.  What strains are they putting on American society today?  Earlier today I posted this statement made through Facebook that helps put this in some perspective:  https://www.facebook.com/eric.pavri/posts/10156217680941180.  That said, it leaves out the fact that illegal immigrants are “taking away jobs” from US workers.  Or is that really so?  This article puts forward the idea that there are more jobs than available workers:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html.  But then again, as I pointed out in a comment to Mike Herman who posted this on Facebook (where I originally saw it), this article is comparing unemployment to job availability rather than comparing labor participation to job availability (meaning there are folks who’ve left the workforce and aren’t looking for work anymore that should be considered).  As best I can figure the core “strain” they are putting on society is an identity based one, in that they are not white Americans with common culture, traditions, or shared values.  Yes there are other factors, but statistics don’t bear out more than average criminal rates, rates of poverty, rates of social benefit needs, and so forth, so largely it’s an identity issue.  That said, it being an identity issue is certainly still an issue, and one that we really need to focus on, in an open and honest and just discussion.  That, I think is very much what Eric Pavri is hoping will happen.
[viii] Via Facebook messenger 20 June 2018.  I left the portion on “Democrats” in this posting as it illustrates two points: 1) the author is clearly not self-identifying as liberal or a democrat and 2) the perplexing fact that tribalism is alive and well in our politics to a great degree and may be beginning to really effect such institutions as the military which are beholden to be non-political (which is a subject for another post)
[ix] Definition found from google.com search “define: justice”, retrieved on 2 July 2018, taken from the first definition
[x] Caring:  love and affection, discipline, physical interaction, teaching, etc.
[xi] Providing:  provision of food, shelter, water, clothing, footwear, opportunity, etc.
[xii] It is an underlying assumption that a parent has the means to care and provide for their children
[xiii] I would posit that legal does not always mean good or that it means just, it just means that it subscribes to a body of law.  Laws in and of themselves can be good, neutral, or evil depending upon the intentions of and resultants of the laws and their enforcement.