Death by Rhetoric

First off, I have links to all my statements so you can analyze the underlying data yourself.

In case, you've been watching the news and you are able to maintain some emotional distance from the events, I wanted to point out that my wife knew the cop who was killed at Planned Parenthood. You can read about him here. The first thing that I thought when my wife said she knew Garrett Swasey is how close to home this tragedy struck.  While statistically, you may be in little danger of being gunned down, you will probably know someone.  I mean, assuming nothing changes.  There may be good news on that front, but even as people move towards positive change, there's a group that is standing in the doorway, and blocking up the hall: the GOP.

This story refutes so many GOP truisms, that I don't even know where to begin.  Good guys with guns get killed unnecessarily by bad guys with guns- that's because guns democratize violence.  You can be a horrific killer without a lot of training.  Here's one simple fact for anyone opposed to common-sense gun-legislation: the fewer guns in a country, the fewer gun related-deaths.  Now, if you really want a gun that bad, you should be willing to jump through a few hoops.  In KY they have made it harder to get a drivers license since when I was 16, and the teenagers continue to get their licenses, but there has been a significant drop in traffic fatalities.

But even before we tackle legislation, we need to change the tone politically, and that can happen as soon as people demand it. If it seems unfair to put this on the shoulders of the GOP, I'm using their own standards.  Not a day goes by where a Republican doesn't tell moderate Islam to rein in their extremists.  How well do they follow their own advice?  Do you get a feeling that they are reining in the right wing extremists, or are they fanning the flames of their hatred?  When "moderates" like Jeb Bush say that we should only allow Syrian refugees if they are Christian, they are espousing bigotry.  But they are also espousing stupidity.  People are not dying on a daily basis in our country because of Muslim extremists.  They are dying because of crazy white guys with guns. The irony here is that white Christians often end up in the crossfire.  A smart bigot would want to focus on the more pressing danger of angry white guys with guns.

Terrorism is in the news constantly. You'd think that jihadists were pounding on our back-doors daily, but if you compare gun-deaths to Americans killed by jihadists (or Muslim extremists), you see that the gun deaths are much more pressing danger.  And ever since 9/11 we've found domestic terrorism is the bigger threat. Yet we as a country continue to empty our pockets to chase down every jihadist. Where is the sense of proportion and risk management?

Terrorism is a tactic.  It is used by weaker players, against more powerful ones.  The whole purpose is to get the powerful players to overreact.  If you can make the strong man afraid of his own shadow, you win, but it only ever works when the strong man plays along and subscribes to irrational fears.  Right-wing extremists are trying to intimidate people they disagree with using violence, but we don't have to let them.  And we don't have to tolerate people and politicians who give safe harbor to such terrorists with their inflammatory rhetoric.

Democracy Part Three

So, yesterday I came out and called people who do not embrace democracy as un-American.  It might seem odd to be a self-identified progressive and liberal and to use that term "un-American."  Isn't that the term that self-proclaimed patriotic blowhards use to condemn people who don't agree with their narrow interpretation of what it means to be an American?  Yes.  Isn't this a free country and shouldn't we refrain from creating a singular idea of what an American is?  Yes, but... the thing is that being a proponent of democracy won't in any way determine who you are as an individual.  You can be pro-life and a proponent of democracy, and you can be pro-choice and a proponent of democracy.  The principle of democracy is a bed-rock principle.  It is nothing more than the canvas on top of which we paint our identities.  

Our country is dysfunctional, and I think the reason for that is that we've lost our sense of democracy.  See, I've been racking my brains to find one thing that we can all agree on, because only then can we become the country that we want.  Whatever that is.  Of course, the second I say "abortion," you have a reflexive judgement, and nothing I can say will change that.  Can anybody tell me about the time they witnessed a pro-life proponent change the mind of a pro-choice proponent or vice versa?  No, you can't.  Can you get a person who favors gun-rights to accept gun control?  No again.  The battle-lines have been fixed for decades and this makes change impossible, but democracy changes that.  Democracy is really the only thing we should agree on.  It is what America is all about. 

But, wait, Dewey, you say, the history of America isn't all that democratic.  I mean, the extermination of Native Americans and slavery and the denial of equal rights to women and minorities... at what point where we ever truly democratic?  Okay, okay.  I teach U.S. History, so I don't need a history lesson, but I'd like to make a distinction between America-in-practice and America-as-an-ideal.  All the terrible things that America as a country has done like stealing one third of Mexico is an example of America-in-practice.  We are not now, nor should we ever be beholden to that America.  America-in-practice dies every generation.  Once upon a time America-in-practice allowed slavery, but that America died.  Once upon a time, America-in-practice banned gay marriage, but that America died.  What American wants to be defined by a dead America?  But here's the thing: America-as-an-ideal can never die, and that America has been around since the Declaration of Independence. 

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal," he owned slaves, but whether he meant to or not, he gave birth to an ideal that ultimately abolished slavery.  Sure, the wording needed to be tweaked, but I think it's telling that in 1848 the Declaration of Sentiments promoting gender equality modeled itself on the Declaration of Independence.  They could have simply written a new document, but they didn't, because the American ideal is so powerful that it transcends momentary hypocrisy and short-sightedness.  

A cynical person might argue that the founding fathers were a bunch of rich people who wanted more money and power and they convinced poor people to fight and day so that they could have the country to themselves and they wouldn't have to share it with England.  These guys thought created a rhetoric of freedom that motivated a lot of colonists to join their cause.  There is a lot of truth to that, but regardless of their motives, the rhetoric- the ideal- continues to inspire.  And let's be fair.  While America was not all that progressive in the beginning, we didn't have much competition in that regard.  

But here's the thing about the American ideal: it's impossible.  We will never fully realize a totally democratic state. America-as-an-ideal is a straight line that America-in-practice veers closer and closer to, but will ultimately never touch.  That means that no matter what we achieve, there's more to achieve.  That means that American exceptionalism is a dangerous lie that makes you think you've done it, when you need to keep working.  And some people might be depressed by that notion, but we can certainly reach a point where the distance between America-as-an-ideal and America-in-practice doesn't really matter.  I don't think we're there, but we can get there. 

But the only way we can get there is by embracing democracy.  Teddy Roosevelt said, "The government is us; we are the government, you and I."  So if the government doesn't seem to reflect who we are, then we need to look at ourselves to see how we can change it.  Democracy isn't just about voting, but actively making the change you want to happen, happen. I'm trying to do my part, and I don't care what you believe in, I hope you do yours too.  But the only way we can succeed is if we we allow our country to be as democratic as possible. If our government can't reflect the will of the people, than it isn't our government. 

Democracy Part Two

In part one I basically presented an unimpeachable argument for why democracy is the best form of governance and why the United States Constitution is out of date.  I argued that democracy ought to be the value that is most enshrined in the United States.  Not only is democracy the best form of organizing people, it's also a reflection of how we view people in general.  In general, people who don't like democracy tend to not like people.  If all people are to be valued, then all interests of these same people ought to be equally valued.  Some people dislike democracy because they suspect that there are a lot of uninformed people out there who are negatively impacting the outcome of a particular vote.  Thus, people are secondary to "correct information."  It's not enough to be a person, you must labor to uncover the "truth."

As anybody who has studied history can tell you, the "truth" can be unstable, and subject to revision.  To some, the flatness of the world was true, or the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Many a philosopher has come to the conclusion that stable truths are few and far between.   We must all accept that we've been wrong before and we'll be wrong again. For some of us, that's not too hard to accept, but there are those among us who have found their holy grail of truth, and they simply cannot accept that it is not true for all.

So, let's say you're someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong.  Well, this is going to be a problem for you, because you're in the minority.  You can be a good loser, and decide that the burden of change is upon you.  You must change hearts and minds in order to create a majority (you might also want to consider the possibility that you're wrong, but you don't have to).  You could also be a bad loser, and decide that the majority decision reveals that there are a lot of dumb people out there, and you shouldn't be beholden to the rules created by these dumb people.

At this point, you will have become a renegade.  We tend to think of renegades as being cool, but those are usually just the ones they make movies about.  I mean, how pointless would it be to show a movie where the renegade bucks the moors of society only to be proven that he was wrong all along? And even in the movies the path of the renegade is hard, and it should be.  How can a democracy function if everyone thinks it's okay to bend the rules and that they are the ones who can truly see the truth?  And getting back to the movies, the ones that truly inspire us are about renegades who go to great lengths to show people the truth, rather than imposing their truth on others.

Another reason people don't like democracy is because they think that there are a lot of "bad" people out there.  This problem is similar to the correct information problem.  It's not enough to be a person, you have to be a "good" person.  Well, good can be just as ephemeral as truth, so there's that.  But it gets a little thornier.  We have courts, and they do pass judgement on people, and while most would argue that the courts do not deem people "bad," but that certain behaviors are bad, they also sentence people to death and life without parole.  But I'm going to table that discussion for another time, and focus on the notion of people being "basically bad."

When you say people are "basically bad," you're saying that they don't need to have demonstrated any bad behavior, they are certain to be as bad as their choices allow them.  This flies in the face of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty," but a lot of people don't actually subscribe to that notion.  They truly believe that people are one step removed from wild animals and that the role of society is to keep them in metaphorical cages so they don't go out raping and killing. Of course, this isn't a loudly trumpeted viewpoint.  While there are people who hold this view, they tend to not come out of the closet with it.  Clearly, if you were to hold this view, the idea of allowing "the people" access to the levers of governance, would seem like a terrible idea, but I've often wondered: do people holding these views also see themselves as basically bad?  That would seem likely, because what other insight would allow them to know the hearts of "the people" so well?  And if not, how did they escape their basically bad status?

While I would argue that both the "people are basically ignorant" view and the "people are basically bad view" have a significant impact on our democracy, the most dangerous view is the one that simply takes little notice of the nature of others.  It is difficult to articulate this view into an ideology of any kind, because the disregard for humanity is incidental to whatever it is these people truly believe in.  For example, if the most important thing to a person is acquiring money, then it isn't necessary to formulate a view on humanity.  You have no reason to give much thought to whether people are basically good or bad or whatever, unless it has some direct connection to your bottom line.  And this ideology doesn't have to be money. It could be a narrow religious interpretation, it could be a quest for fame.

The point is, that these people don't care about people.  They don't hate them or love them except on an individual level.  This shouldn't really matter in a free country.  As long as people aren't harming others, they can disregard them entirely.  What makes them so dangerous is that to these people democracy is irrelevant.  Rather than changing hearts and minds so that they align with their own particular beliefs, they would rather game the system.  If they're going to lose at the ballot box, then maybe they'll need to find a way to disenfranchise certain voters by making a big deal over "voter fraud."  If they can't win a majority in the Senate, they'll simply resort to the filibuster.  They will over-ride and democratic process as long as they can get their way.

Let's be clear here: if you don't trust the democratic process, then you don't trust people, and why should people trust you?  I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy is the most American value there is, and anyone who would try to finagle the system and thwart the democratic process, because whatever outcome they are trying to achieve is so important is un-American.  That's right, I said it.  If you don't like democracy you're not a patriot and you shouldn't call yourself an American.  Whatever idea you've been exalting as the most important thing in the world (God, money, Springsteen) must bow down before the altar of democracy.

Democracy Part One

If there is one ideal that can be said to embody the American spirit, it is democracy.  The United States currently holds the title for longest-running democracy in the world.  Woo-hoo!  The Greeks tried it, but we pulled it off and never looked back.  I think for this reason alone, we should be the experts in democracy.  We've been doing it longer than anyone else.  Our democracy should be an exemplar to others around the world.  Every child should look upon their democracy the way an Italian might think about pasta (or wines) or a Swiss person might think about cheese (or watches).  The ideal of democracy ought to (and sometimes does) define what it means to be an American, and it should be something that we are proud to pioneer.

But the pioneering days are over.  We've allowed our democracy to become dusty with cobwebs.  We've allowed something that was once a shining beacon of hope across the world, turn into a fossilized institution.  The underlying ideal of democracy is lost amidst a web of political intrigues.  Presidents can get elected without getting the most votes.  We have a Senate that disproportionately represents rural interests by a wide margin.  Large populations in our country (Washington D.C., Puerto Rico) have no representation in Congress.  All of these undemocratic phenomena are protected by an ancient artifact that is raised to the status of holy relic: the Constitution.

There is a tendency to revere the Constitution as a document forged by sage men, despite its allowing for the enslavement of others and its denying the right to vote to women.  The truth is, it was a stunning achievement at the time that it was crafted, but so was the ability to access the Internet via our landlines in the early 90s.  While much has changed since its creation, we are still saddled with a dial-up democracy to face a world that is racing along at 1 G per second. Our democracy is slowed down with arcane rules that were formulated at a time when people rode around in horse-drawn carriages.

What I like about the concept of Democracy is that it is easily defensible. The underlying idea of it is clear and to the point.  Government should rule at the consent of the governed.  While we don't agree on everything, a government that reflects what most people agree on is the best possible one.  A government that represents the interests of its people is a stable government. And doesn't it seem that most people will come up with a good system?  Maybe not "the best," but good is way better than the alternative.

And what exactly is the alternative?  I've never heard anyone seriously advocating for rule by philosopher-kings.  Historically speaking, the alternative is to concentrate power in fewer hands.  Sometimes you get lucky, and you have a benevolent autocrat, but by the same token you might end up with a crazy loon with unlimited powers.  Sure, revolutions can eject tyrannical rulers, but what an inefficient way to run a government.  All that starting from scratch seems pointless.

Let's take a look at the Senate where Senators representing just over 3% of the population of our country have the power through the filibuster to block legislation proposed by the other 97%.  Clearly this phenomenon doesn't exist to support any democratic ideal.  So what ideal does it exist to support?  Well, initially the idea was to protect smaller states from the wanton bullying by bigger states, but most people don't elect their representatives to represent their state, they elect them to represent themselves.  Furthermore, we don't see this principle show up at any other level.  In mayoral contests, all citizens get one vote. We don't group them by district and try to ensure that each district receives equal representation regardless of population.

One of the historical arguments in favor of the United States' undemocratic practices is the idea of "protecting the minority."  This is a lot like the big state versus small state argument.  We don't want the majority to trample the rights of the majority.  Well, we don't want the minority trampling the rights of the majority either.  This suggests that most people (the majority) are against the trampling of rights.  Great.  Now we can take that argument off the table.  So now, what's the selling point of the minority?  Seriously.

Oh, wait.  I know: the minority could be right.  While the notion of "right" is always debatable in nearly any context, let's simply take this argument as a given.  The minority could be right. So?  There has never been a government in the history of humanity that did not make mistakes.  I think the majority should be allowed to make mistakes, just as I think they should be allowed to correct their mistakes.  Unfortunately, neither of those things can happen, because the mechanism of governance allows a minority to impede the will of the majority, but thus far there has been no case made as to why that should be.

Many of our founding fathers warned of allowing "the rabble" to participate.  They feared it would lead to a "mobocracy."  Who knows?  Maybe it would have.  You can complain about public education all you want, but try living in a time with no public education.  You might not want "the rabble" to vote either.  But this can only ever be a temporary argument.  It's a bit like parents not wanting their children having a vote.  Eventually, they will be able to make rationally informed decisions, and if that's not the case... well, it's the parents fault, isn't it?  Thus, if we still can't trust "the rabble" to vote, then the power structure in place has done a poor job and it's time for a new one, and (I hate to keep coming back to this) the only group with any legitimate authority would be the majority of people.

Our founding fathers were perfectly capable of making decisions that were in the best interests of all people, but they were also overwhelmingly of a class. They were wealthy and educated, and like all people they were also conscious of their own narrow self-interest.  Which means that when they weren't making altruistic choices, they were making self-interested choices, and this led to a government that protected their narrow self-interests above others (even if only a little).

Look, I'm not arguing that there is no appeal to the argument that some voters will make bad choices. If I had to choose between 42 year old me and 18 year old me going into the voting booth, 42 year old me wins every time, but it's a very slippery slope once you start denying the right to vote to people because of intelligence and ability. People can't mature and make better decisions, if they're not permitted to grow and make bad choices.  Thus, I think it's time we take the training wheels off of our democracy and ride it like grown-ups.

Suck It Up

Are you tough enough? Have you been asked recently to suck it up?  Is America full of wimps who just don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with reality?  Have I asked enough questions to begin with the actual analysis?  There are clearly times when we as people would probably benefit from thickening our skins, but there are also times when being asked to toughen up is really code for something else: accepting less than what we want.

Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked.  If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off.  If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic.  Why would we blow a gasket?  Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.

Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising.  Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling.  That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied.  A little bit of deception might be involved.  Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.

Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing.  Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic.  No, you can't have a pony for your birthday.  No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation.  As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers.  No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper.  You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss.  This all makes sense.  Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.

But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up?  Is that kind of the same thing?  I happen to think it isn't.  See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote.  It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue.  So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people?  Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?

This might make sense in an aristocracy.  Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants.  Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power.  You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.

Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule.  They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage.  They are too busy planning their next war.

Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic.  So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket.  If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books.  If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you.  They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.

Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more.  Check out this handy dandy graphic:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality

In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979.  At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more.  That's not so bad, right?  But then multiply that by every year that you have been working.  That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s.  Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy.  You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have.  You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.

That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you.  That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet.  FedEx had nothing to do with it.  Coke had nothing to do with it.  Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers?  No.  Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.

When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road.  We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you.  Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact.  Use what voting power you have to make things right.

Your Parenting is Not the Problem

Being a parent is never apparent. This morning I found myself unable to determine whether to drop my car off at the shop and walk the dog with the kids home, or to wait until my wife got home.  Each option required that I think several moves in advance, like a chess-player, because of the parent-ripple effect that I am consumed by on a daily basis. At one point, I found myself moving to put the stroller in the car, and then stopping myself and getting the stroller out opting instead to walk the dog and wait for my wife.  Then I found myself frozen for several long seconds on my lawn.  Paralyzed. The ultimate decision I made is relevant.  It was the wrong one, but I realized the other option would have been wrong too.

Every time you make a decision you must go through a logical step-by-step process wherein you way the pros and cons.  We have limited energy, and that includes mental energy.  When I read a friend who has shared a long-read about how I'm parenting wrong (again), I can't help but assume that my friends posting these clearly can afford domestic help, because by the time I've gotten through the first paragraph I find that there's another fire to put out.  I have a 16 month old son, who is utterly disinterested in toys, and absolutely interested in anything that breaks, or that has the power to make an adult drop everything they are doing and devote all their attention to him. I have a six year old daughter who loves her screen time, and I am fighting a constant battle trying to keep her occupied without having her watching the iPad, television or computer.  Oh, and there's the dog who successfully manages to escape the yard on the daily basis.  When I have all three, someone inevitably gets the shaft- I mean, in addition to me.

I wish I could view my efforts as heroically going where no person has gone before, but most of my friends could paint a similar picture.  Which is why I find the plethora of parenting how-to's so grating. My first complaint is that a lot of these reflect the parenting style of the person sharing it.  If you are already utilizing attachment-parenting, then you are likely to share an article on the subject talking about how great it is, but if you aren't chances are you will never read this article.  If you are the type of person who is afraid to leave their child unattended for one minute, you are not going to read the article on free-range parenting.  In my estimation, the biggest problem with this approach to sharing "nuggets of wisdom" is that what you are really doing is affirming yourself as a parent, and while I can relate to that, I've also come to the conclusion that there is not a single one-size fits all mode of parenting.  Parenting is entirely subjective.  We do our best parenting, not when we are adhering to some external formula, but when we are being our truest selves. Unless, of course, you are the type of person who excels when adhering to an external formula (you know who you are).

Of course, the subjectivity doesn't end there.  Every kid is different.  When I hear about studies that say, "kids need," or "kids must have" I cringe.  Really?  All kids?  I'm a teacher, and as such I understand all too well, that what works for one kid doesn't always work for another.  True, you do have to teach to the class, but you can't always teach to the class.

One of the more frustrating aspects of all this focus on parenting techniques is that there are a lot of backseat parents out there.  I try not to pass judgement on how my friends (or strangers) parent, but I am well aware that I'm in the minority in that regard.  To some extent, this is completely understandable.  When you work really hard at something, you need to feel that your efforts are warranted- i.e., you're doing it right. Anytime, I get to the point where I have successfully navigated several hours with my children without a meltdown or any serious accidents, I find myself patting myself on the back.  I rock.  That usually lasts about a half an hour. The calm in the storm simply allows me to reflect on my parenting, which makes me realize that I could be doing a better job.

Why is parenting so hard?  To some extent, it's simply because it's always been hard.  But I think there's more to it now.  My parents didn't sweat the small stuff so much, because the stakes didn't seem quite as high.  The world has become hyper-competitive, and as a result, many parents worry that if their kid doesn't get a head-start in life, their child is going to be left behind.  Your kid ate the one cookie instead of waiting 15 minutes for the two cookies, and now your child is going to turn into a drug addict working retail (and yes, that's actually from a study that I refuse to cite for you).

My friends and I are having a hard time attaining the standard of living my parents enjoyed, and this is leading some of us to recoil in fear as what the future holds for our children.  How is this even possible?  If you watched an episode of Mad Men, then you probably have marveled at how little that generation got done in the course of a day.  Today, we can write and read more correspondence more quickly than ever before.  We can deal with all sorts of work-related surprises even before we've set foot in the office.  Despite being more productive than any previous generation, many of us find ourselves falling farther behind.  We are getting paid less for doing the same job better.  The problems we face as parents are not the problem, but they symptoms of a systemic social failure, and many of us are too busy trying to provide for our children and taking care of them to notice this systemic failure.

Ultimately, when we think of parenting as an effort to give our children every possible advantage, we're essentially saying that we're okay with a system in which that's required.  You're child should not require an Ivy League education in order to enjoy a happy and productive life.  You're child should not be top of the class just to enjoy what this world has to offer.  You're child should not need to go to the Olympics in order to be considered an accomplished athlete.  You're child should not need to make a million dollars before they're thirty.  I'm not arguing that children should not aim for the stars, but I do think that they are more likely to succeed if failure isn't a life sentence.  I'll leave it at that for now.  Not because I don't have more to say, but because I have other things I have to do right now.

It isn't Radical if a majority of people agree

I'm going to quote heavily from the following article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_majorities_back_bernie_sanders_on_the_issues_and_disdain_donald_trump/

I decided against simply reposting because, there's a word in there that really scares people: socialism.  Frankly, I hate labels and regardless of whether you are a conservative, liberal, communitarian or libertarian, chances are you don't fit neatly into a category.  Instead, what I'd like to highlight are the various issues that a majority of people in this country actually want that Bernie Sanders supports.  These numbers are taken from the "Big Ideas" poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute.


Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)

Obviously, you don't need to agree with each of these, but if you take a moment to go over this list, chances are you agree with most of these ideas.  For proposals like this, Bernie Sanders is being labeled as "extreme"?  How is it extreme to advocate for issues that most Americans want?  When did it become radical to reflect ideas that your democracy embraces?

Now, you may ask, "How is this possible"? Well, we know how.  First, a lot of people who share the above values don't vote.  Part of the reason is that there is no candidate who actually represents what they want, and when they have voted for a candidate that they believed held the same values that they held, they later felt burned because that candidate didn't seem to reflect what they wanted at all.  To those voters I say: Bernie Sanders does reflect what you value and voters in Vermont haven't felt burned by him. 

Next, a lot of people are simply fooled by Republican talking points.  Frankly, I don't have a problem with people who genuinely don't want the government to negotiate drug prices, or universal pre-K, this is a free country and people are allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want.  But if you allow a Republican candidate to sway you with talk of values, be they of the family or small town variety, I think you are basically getting swindled.  Let's take the attention off specifics to sell people on vague notions that most of us do agree on.  For example, I agree that lazy people should get off their asses, but I also know that lazy people in general have a very small impact on the world, because, well, they're lazy.  

Finally, there are a lot of people who agree with Bernie Sanders' platform, but they will vote for a "safer" candidate, because the knowledgeable experts have warned them that Sanders is "extreme" and "radical."  And so we have come full circle.  If you know what you want, don't be afraid to vote for it.  That is how you change America.

Electability Part 2

It's not easy being a Bernie Sanders supporter.  All the time I hear people say, "I agree with what he says, but..."  They tend to ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds than any candidate in either party.  The main reason is that most people agree with what he's saying.  When I go line by line and issue by issue in Sanders' platform I get total agreement not only from my liberal friends, but a lot of centrist friends as well.  His ideas are not all that radical, and most people agree with them.  So what's the knock?  He can't win.

It's hard to predict the future, but this attitude seems like an attempt to do so.  My first response is to say that, I disagree.  I think he can win.  He has consistently closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton.  He continues to draw bigger crowds than any candidate and he's raising money from more people. Not more money, mind you, but from more people.  Given that you already agree with his platform, why not take a positive view?

Now, let's assume that his likelihood of winning is slim, then I would make a different argument.  The issue ceases to be about "can vs. can't" and becomes about "must."  To illustrate the distinction, I want you to consider the life of the abolitionist, Frederick Douglas.  I'm sure that he concluded many times that any given moment a particular effort might fail, but at no point did he give up the fight?  Why?  Because it was never about whether the eradication of slavery could happen, and it was always about that it must happen.

When we turn the issue from can/can't to must, it changes the stakes considerably.  If you had asked me ten years ago whether marriage equality could happen, I would have probably said that I had no idea.  But I knew for certain that it must happen, and I'm sure that millions of others felt the same way, because that is how change is made. It doesn't come about because people get lucky and things go their way.  It comes about because people make it their mission to make it happen.

At what point in our democracy did it become okay to malign candidates for espousing views that we ourselves hold?  What is so wrong with the concept of truly representative democracy?  There is a large group of people who seem to think that we need candidates who treat us like children, who use coded language that only people in the know can crack, and who always seem to have a "superior" approach to what we, the people, want.  "Trust us," the candidates tell us, "We know best. There's a good reason you're not going to get what you want."  They're right. There is a good reason.  We've put our trust in candidates who do not reflect our convictions and our values, but instead have opted for candidates who simply wear the blue uniform.  Anything in blue is better than anything in red, right?

Here's the thing: there is a majority of people in this country who want what you want, and there are candidates who reflect those values to their very core, and they are not interested in placating powerful interests, because they genuinely believe that a politician's job is to safeguard our democracy against powerful private interests-  candidates like Bernie Sanders.  America used to be more liberal, so of course, it's possible.  But even if the possibility seems unlikely, it's not about can or can't it's about must.  We must elect a president who reflects we, the people.

The Anti-Democratic notion of Electability

            Democracy is a very simple concept.  Voters get together and they vote for the outcome that they most want.  You don’t need a degree in political science to understand that concept.  Unfortunately, there is a concept that has invaded our democracy in my lifetime, and over the years it has developed a strangle-hold on the very simple ideal of democracy, and that is: electability.  At first glance, the term seems self-evident.  Electability is a collection of traits that a candidate has that makes it possible for him or her to win an election.  That seems simple enough, right?  The longer I’ve peered at this idea of electability, the more I have come to the conclusion, that it is a pernicious means of thwarting the democratic process.

            In the 2004 election democrats who liked Howard Dean best were shepherded towards John Kerry because of his electability.  He lost.  More recently, most Republicans were resigned to having Mitt Romney as their candidate because of his electability.  He lost.  If a person were asked to define “electability” based on the outcome of elections, it seems that the term is most often applied to candidates who don’t win.  I never heard George W. Bush or Barack Obama described as electable.  They simply got elected.

            So, how is this a case of “thwarting the democratic process,” as I mentioned earlier?  Well, who determines electability?  I honestly have no means of doing so myself.  I can only pick the candidate who speaks to my principles the most.  In order to determine electability, you would need some insight into the collective thinking of the electorate.  I would argue that most people do not possess this insight, and therefore making “electability” an issue for a given candidate is essentially an effort to rob the people of their preference and put it in the hand of so-called experts who know best. 

            For a long time, party bosses nominated their candidates behind closed doors, and the people were simply expected to support them.  I’d like to think that we’ve moved on from those days, but I often feel as though the party bosses (who should be retired by now) are unhappy with the general public making decisions that they used to make.  Enter electability.  Electability is how pundits allow their “know-how” to influence elections. 

            I’ve picked a candidate this election: Bernie Sanders.  I’m told that he lacks “electability.”  I’m taking that as a promising sign.