Especially to the House Democrats in Republican-leaning districts who could have easily abstained or voted not to impeach, knowing that more than enough votes were already available. That is the kind of courage, conscientiousness and placing the country before party we need out of Congress but is sorely lacking. Some may be risking their seats but did their duty anyway. The country voted overwhelmingly for Congressional oversight of the president in the 2018 midterms – even in many Trump districts – and that’s exactly what we’ve gotten. Elections have consequences after all, as many Trump supporters are fond of saying. You can be sure that reasonable Republicans are afraid for their country and are glad to hide behind Congressional oversight from the Democrats and demonize them anyone. Kind of the best of both worlds!
And thank goodness for this new-found oversight. Under a Republican House, do you think Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day? And, it doesn’t even matter that Mr. Trump won’t be removed from office. The Senate Republicans who privately loathe Mr. Trump will not bring themselves to do that, of course. Call me naive, but I believe in his heart of hearts, Mr. Trump knows he is dodging a bullet and will no longer seek foreign help for his 2020 political prospects. A win for all of us!
But Senate
Republicans had better be careful. Many Americans will not put up with a sham
trial. Just ask Virginia Republicans who
made a mockery of a special session the governor called on gun safety earlier
this year. Their dereliction of duty cost them dearly at the polls and I
believe the same will happen to Senate Republicans in 2020. For all you Trump
supporters who find this entire affair a sordid miscarriage of justice, I have
just one question: if a Democratic president had done what Mr. Trump has
admitted to doing, would you still feel it is not impeachable? As a Democrat who supported the impeachment
of Bill Clinton in 1998 because we cannot permit anyone lying to Congress in
this country, I unfortunately already know the answer to that one.
“Well, I guess we’re all in this together,“ I said to the woman I was eyeball to eyeball with on Metro. I’ve lived in Frederick for 30 years and worked in the District, Northern Virginia, or Baltimore the entire time.
As a dedicated transit rider, I’m well versed in the sardine effect that takes place on so many Metro trips and the etiquette required to get through them. I’m sure you’ve experienced this, too. Many times I’ve been so uncomfortably close to someone else on Metro all I could do was smile and try to relieve the tension. You can’t just remain silent; that seems wrong. “I feel like I should at least buy you dinner or get your phone number,” I said to one woman older than I. She sighed and agreed. You’d be surprised at the kinship of the downtrodden.
I’ve seen
numerous perplexing events during my 30 years of commuting and been party to
more than I’d like to admit. There was the time I was asked by a male stranger
if I would like to have my portrait done. Now, you don’t get that kind of offer
every day but somehow it didn’t seem too unusual on Metro. I didn’t see any paints or photography equipment,
but the man did seem to be relatively sane and earnest enough. After some quick
calculations though, I politely declined.
He moved on to someone else.
After I relayed this story to my wife, she assured me that I had been
propositioned. The more I think about it, I guess she was right. But then I’ve always been pretty oblivious to
matters of the heart.
Occasionally, to get a little exercise, I will walk an extra 10 or 12 blocks to pick up Metro a couple of stops from my usual one. One day it was a little warmer than I thought, and I walked a little faster than I should have, so I got onto Metro a little sweaty and out of breath. Immediately a young woman jumped up and offered me her seat. I’m sure she felt I was a heart attack waiting to happen and wanted no part of that. This was the first time I had ever been offered a seat on Metro, and I took it as a sign that my working days were quickly coming to an end. Flustered, I refused the seat and stood up the rest of the way home — even after she departed and the train was almost empty.
I’ve seen more panhandling, fights, medical emergencies, and proud, loud, singing than I can remember. My most memorable subway person, as I like to call them, would have to be the wayward soul who was proudly relieving himself – complete with oohs and ahhs – on the Twinbrook Metro platform in broad daylight in front of God and everyone. The high arc of his stream was undeniably impressive, and I have to admit that I envied his carefree abandon.
Of course adventurous commuting is not limited to public transportation. You still have to get to the station. I estimate I’ve driven well more than a million miles to and from work in my lifetime and seen and had plenty of fun behind the wheel. I’ve been stuck in countless traffic jams, seen numerous fender benders and worse, and witnessed, but never participated in, terrifying bouts of road rage. I’ve seen other drivers (never me) do everything from reading the paper and shaving to applying a full day’s worth of makeup, and yes, making out with their front seat companion. I’ve even been booed by passing motorists after emerging dazed from an accident that flipped my car over and caused a severe back up.
But my favorite driving foible has to be the one on the back roads of Montgomery County. I’ve always done everything possible to avoid as much of Interstate 270 as I can. That makes me a devotee of southbound Routes 85, 355, and 28. One day, Barnesville Road was closed due to an accident. Drivers were detoured onto West Old Baltimore Road, a pleasant enough country road. After a few miles and much to my dismay I came upon a stream crossing without a bridge. Who knew such things still existed in Montgomery County? It is one of the richest counties in the country; you’d think every stream crossing would have a bridge. I carefully crossed the stream, got to work on time, and thought my grandpa who lived and worked in the mountains of West Virginia would be proud.
My fellow patriotic
Americans (and all you losers without MAGA hats),
I, President
Donald John Trump, am sacrificing a bit of my executive time with Fox News today
to announce that I hereby resign as your favorite president. It’s been a fun and perfect three years
demonizing the lefties, allies, Gold Star Families, and the so-called free
press but all good things must come to an end. Just ask my three Secretaries of
Defense, three Secretaries of Labor, three Chiefs of Staff, and of course my
personal fixer, Michael Cohen, who can be reached in federal prison in upstate
New York. I swear I was going to clean
up the swamp and appoint the best people but every person I appointed turned
out to be a crooked loser.
It has come
to pass that I find myself about to be impeached, and as much as I like to be
the center of attention, I don’t want to be lumped in with those phonies Bill
Clinton and Andrew Jackson, Johnson or whatever his name was. I’d rather
dramatically ride off into the sunset on my personal chopper, Marine One. No
one’s ever done that before and can you imagine the ratings! Plus, those
enemies of the people—the lamestream media, won’t have me to kick around
anymore! This I can tell you.
Can you
believe it? Me, impeached? The Chosen One! AND, I’M DOING SUCH A GREAT
JOB! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though. Bill’s economy in 1998 was even
better and we were at peace. You saw what they did to him. At least many of the
same senators who screwed him have come to see that impeachment is not the way.
I’m looking at you Mitch and Lindsey! It is serious business lying about an extramarital
affair and getting caught so I guess Slick Willy got what he deserved. Better just to be upfront about it. Hell, if
the evangelicals don’t care about extramarital affairs and grabbing female body
parts, why would anyone?
A lot of people are saying you just can’t trust those Dems to see things the right way. They’ve made up some malarkey about their congressional oversight duty and impeachment being in the constitution. SAD!!! When I smartly and bravely bring up words like “coup” and “treason”, WHICH IS MY RIGHT, they have the audacity to lie and point out that treason only applies to aiding and abetting a wartime enemy, not criticizing the president, and that coups are things that happen in sh*thole countries at the end of a gun, not in countries like ours that depend on that pesky rule of law. But I feel better now that my thirteen-year old son explained to me that Republicans will still be in charge. I could have sworn those Dem traitors Nervous Nancy and Crooked Hillary would take over. Why else would they do this? What’s in it for them? We all like a good civil war, of course, but if I can’t be Supreme Commander, why bother?
Okay, maybe I should have reported that Russian meddling thing in the 2016 election that I obviously knew about but did nothing to stop. But the Russians were for me and anyone would have taken that meeting. And by the way, I’m not a puppet. Hillary’s the puppet! I fired that giant Lurch Jim Comey to make it all go away and what did that get me? Just more grief and low-energy, sad sack Robert Mueller and his so-called investigation that dragged on for over a year. He had the audacity to not exonerate me and even charge obstruction. But no matter, I just claimed I was cleared and my loyal subjects ate it up. Plus, my fat personal lawyer, I mean Attorney General, Bill Barr, backed me up, too.
And sure, I
obviously asked Russia, Ukraine, and China to get some dirt on that scumbag,
Joe Biden, and in the case of Ukraine, withheld some military funds until they
did but that was my money anyway! And I
had to match the Dems before they meddled in the 2020 election by trying to
make sure every citizen, especially the Blacks and Hispanics, suburban moms, and
manufacturing workers whose jobs never came back, exercised their right to
vote. We can’t let low-IQ Joe Biden take over anyway. He’s not smart enough to keep America
interesting and on edge by constantly belittling half the population and
pitting them against each other. Can you imagine how boring things will be
under Sleepy Joe? And his family – what
a bunch of losers and hangers-on!
I’d like to take this opportunity to recap our accomplishments over the last three years. We didn’t get much accomplished, okay? Well, other than some tax cuts for the rich, executive orders that will get reversed when the Dems get their chance and of course all those federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Mitch sure pulled a fast one when he prevented the Obama/Clinton gang from having their choice back in 2016. That was my idea, by the way. I don’t know Merrick Garland but I hear he is a nice fellow – just not Supreme Court material like my guy Brett Kavanaugh. With me and Brett, I hope women have at least learned that their hysterical, lying, sexual misconduct charges will get them nowhere. We did have a fun government shutdown and took some money from the Defense Department to start on my beautiful Southern border wall. There are some bad hombres trying to get into this country and I’m proud to say we have slowed them down even without shooting them in the legs, WHICH IS MY RIGHT! If people want into this country so badly, they should just pay their way in at Ellis Island like my grandfather did!
I hope we can count on all those judges Mitch and I are appointing, but you never know. Some of those losers claim independence from their Dear Leader and rely on that pesky rule of law. Just ask that deep state flunky John Roberts who voted to keep the ACA intact even though we were sure to eventually come up with something much better. I did my best, though. I kept ACA underfunded so rates would soar and declined to defend it in court.
To tell you the truth, I wasn’t going to leave in 2020 anyway, no
matter what the crooked election said. Probably not in 2024 either as long as
my perfect health held up. It is just not possible for me to be voted out after
all that I have done for this country! You may have heard that I took a pay cut
to be your leader. No, as a stable genius and with more military knowledge that
all those generals of mine combined, there is no way I could be removed from the
White House. But just think of all the
fun we will be missing in January 2021 when that stiff Mike Pence has to turn
over the keys to Sleepy Joe. Wouldn’t you have rather had me up there saying “I
don’t think so, Joe.” My people were already
working on that speech.
But, in my great and unmatched wisdom, I’ve come to the conclusion that
you just don’t deserve me. That’s why I’m walking way. What’s next for me, you
ask? I have three words for you – Trump
News Network. That’s right, we’ll finally have media we can trust. I’ll be the only correspondent of course
because why would I share air time with anyone else if I don’t have to? Once I
became my own press secretary things went much better, don’t you think? Even those
ingrates at Fox News were starting to turn on me. They were starting to ask
some pushy questions and not doing the job they were paid to do. The last thing
I’ll do before I go is remove the Fox News line item from the Republican
National Committee budget. That’ll teach
them.
So, it is with a full heart, terrific hair and tan, and smokin’ hot daughter
and wife that I bid you farewell. Try to get along without me for a while. I
said this before that foreign loser Arnold What’s-his-name did – I’ll BE BACK,
which is my right.
Don’t worry about me, MAGA friends. I’ve already pardoned myself. Just waiting on that superb ass kisser Mike Pence to read it later.
Gary Bennett writes from an alternate universe where everyone, including President Trump, has come to their senses.
Of course it had to happen
this way. The impeachment hearings kicked off on the same week as World
Kindness Day. I’m ashamed to say that I had never heard of World Kindness Day. It
goes back to 1998 and is devoted to small and large acts of kindness. How quaint in
this day and age, right?
It’s difficult to think of
anything less kind than these impeachment hearings. Depending on your point of
view, the hearings are either a desperate witch hunt to overturn the results of
the 2016 presidential election or a sober, constitutional investigation of
reported abuses of power by the president. Democrats and Republicans are pitted
against each other in a death struggle of epic proportions—not so much in a
search for truth but rather to see who can come out on top. It’s always about
the politics now. For this impeachment go-round—they happen about every 20
years now—Democrats control the hearings and have positioned themselves as the
agents of truth. Republicans are left to mostly attack the process and rail
against the public servants who are providing the testimony.
The country went through the
same experience in 1998 but roles were completely reversed. Republicans held the House and controlled the
hearings. They went on to impeach President Clinton for obstruction of justice—lying
to Congress about his sexual escapades in the White House. The Democrats were
left to complain about a witch hunt and unfairness to the president. My how
things come around! Clinton was later acquitted in the Senate just as President
Trump will be acquitted.
In 1973 when the Nixon
impeachment hearings were dominating TV, things were much different. Politicians
and the American people seemed to be more open minded. There were such things
as moderate and liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Those species
have gone the way of the dodo bird, of course. There was no witch’s brew of
smirking talking heads on TV and, of course, no Internet. President Nixon was pushed
by his FELLOW REPUBLICANS to resign rather than face certain impeachment and
conviction. That has as much chance of happening today as a cold front settling
over Hades.
I can’t help wondering
where it all went so wrong. When did party start coming before country? Why
can’t politicians, and more importantly Americans, with different life outlooks
trust each other more and show at least a modicum of kindness towards each other?
There are many first-hand accounts of U.S. senators being very accommodating
and kind to each other behind closed doors. It’s a small, exclusive club after
all. But when the cameras start rolling you can forget all that. A politician can’t
appear to be a compromiser and not a fighter. I wonder how they sleep at night
sometimes. Does this all mean that we are the problem? Are politicians simply
playing a part that we demand? I don’t know, but I do know this ugly phenomenon
took a turn for the worse about 30 years ago.
I believe the election of Bill
Clinton in 1992 jump started the unkindness era. James Monroe ushered in the
Era of Good Feelings after the War of 1812. Clinton gets to own the start of
this new era. Back then a lot of people saw him for what he was and said so—a purely
political animal, sometimes unscrupulous, a little too slick, and a well-known womanizer.
He wasn’t highly respected, and like Mr. Trump, was elected by a minority of
Americans. It also didn’t help that this baby boomer, small-state Southern
governor defeated a highly respected war hero from the Greatest Generation. George
H.W. Bush adroitly guided America through the first Gulf War but was undone by
courageously bucking his own party by raising taxes when most economists agreed
they needed to be raised. He would have even survived that had he not welched on
his “read my lips—no new taxes” pledge. Just like Nixon, Republicans turned on
him. It also didn’t help that the country went into a recession in 1992. Mr. Clinton represented the possibility of an
improving economy so we took a flyer on him. Thankfully, he and the economy improved
enough to drive his reelection in 1996.
So if you think the never-ending
criticism of President Trump is unprecedented, you’d be sadly mistaken.
Presidents Clinton, the second Bush, and Obama all faced withering pockets of what
can only be called hatred. The only new thing now is that the current president
hates many of us right back. He gleefully insults and demonizes his detractors
and is unconcerned with being presidential and rising above it all. His fans
eat it up. I vividly remember the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon,
Ford, Carter, Reagan and all the rest. To my eyes and ears, none faced the
vitriol that has been hurled at the last four.
Another stake in the heart
of kindness is the rise of the so-called news channels with a point of view. Many
forget that Fox News and MSNBC did not exist until relatively recently. We had
CNN back in the day, and believe it or not, it was seen as a trusted, middle of
the road provider of straight news. In fact, I’m not sure the first George Bush
could have led American and the world through the first Gulf War without CNN.
Today, Americans, for better or worse, can get their news delivered through a
prism of like-minded talking heads who make no pretense at bi- or nonpartisanship.
I think it’s far worse.
Another factor is the
culture war. Up until the 90’s and
Clinton, divisive cultural issues did not play an unnaturally large role in
national politics. Sure, there was vigorous debate about Johnson’s “Great
Society” initiatives such as civil rights, Social Security and Medicare. The
Supreme Court upheld abortion rights in 1973 and even Republican stalwart
Richard Nixon pushed through sweeping environmental laws including the
establishment of the EPA that same year. But the country eventually came
together. Sure, many pockets of Americans did not like these measures but they
did not demonize the proponents. Now, many Americans, particularly conservative
Americans, feel like their way of life—the American way of life they remember from
their childhood— is threatened and slowly being taken away. To them, gun
control, abortion, equal rights, immigrants at the border, taking God out of
school, gay marriage, the me-too movement, and many other cultural touchpoints are
worth fighting against to their last breath. To them, collateral damage along
the way is just that.
Finally, I think the
biggest driver of discord and hatred is the rise of the Internet and social
media after the turn of the century. Even worse than the cable news channels,
social media makes no pretense at fact checking or ensuring the truth is told.
Anybody with a conspiracy theory or outright lie they want broadly circulated will
find their audience and it will be amplified to a degree unknown in the last
century.
And when the lies and
conspiracy theories come via social media from the highest levels of
government, what are everyday Americans to do?
It seems quaint now to suggest we turn off our phones or at least ignore
the worst of the worst. But I hope you will join me in at least doing this one
simple thing: do not forward or share
anything that demonizes or insults the other side. What good does that do
anyway? It only causes the other side to dig in more. Studies have shown that
it is nearly impossible to change the minds of the other side once opinions
have been formed and acted upon. It might make you feel good to share that
snarky post but to me it is the height of laziness. If you want to get a point
across, research it and write it yourself.
Oh, and you can also join
me in turning off or at least limiting cable news viewership. There is no doubt
they have a point of view, an agenda to support, and an axe to grind. And it’s also
undeniably entertaining. But, please consider getting your entertainment elsewhere.
You may not completely trust the network news and newspapers but they are
undoubtedly a better choice than cable news. I know first-hand that both entities
support highly stringent quality control measures, are bound by professional
standards and ethics, hire highly educated professionals, and try to present
both sides of every argument (as long as you avoid the editorials, which are
clearly labeled, by the way.) And no
doubt they sometime fail. But it’s not for lack of trying. These are simple
steps we can all take to help make us better, kinder, more thoughtful citizens.
There is no shortage of important legislation the country wants, the Democrat-led House has passed (much with substantial bipartisan support), and the Republican-led Senate refuses to act on. At last count, 127 different bills are languishing in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who has the absolute power to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate. Or not.
It’s the “or not” that has vexed Democrats and most Americans
of both parties who want something done right now about many issues especially gun
violence and election security. And it’s not even close.
In the case of gun
violence, a recent NPR-PBS Newshour-Marist poll shows that 89% of Americans
support enhanced background checks, including 84% of Republicans. Even the Republican
lieutenant governor in ruby red Texas who boasts a 100% NRA rating says we must
include private “stranger-to-stranger” gun sales in background checks. And,
according to a Fox News poll, two-thirds of Americans support an assault
weapons ban and nearly three-fourths support a national “red flag” law. That’s
right – Fox News. If you are a gun-loving Republican who thinks nothing should
be done about gun violence, you can be as stubborn as you want. Just know that
you are now in the minority of your own party.
In the case of election
security, a 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that over 75%
of both Democrats and Republicans favor such measures as keeping a paper trail
for each vote and performing a post-election audit even if it slows down results
reporting. Whether you hold President Trump accountable or not, the Mueller Report
makes it crystal clear, and politicians in both parties agree, that Russia most
certainly meddled in the 2016 election and intends to do so again in 2020. And,
individual states just don’t have the money or resources to combat this
themselves.
So, how can Mitch McConnell be a one-man roadblock to
the things Americans want? Very simply because he can. The Senate allows him
to. The Senate majority leader holds astonishing power, none of which is laid
out in the Constitution. Chief among these powers is the ability to set the
agenda for the body, decide when it is in session, and decide which measures
will be debated and voted on. One person decides all this and more. Whether by
design or neglect the Founders did not address how the Senate would run itself
or who would be in charge. Appointing leaders among Senate members and the
power they wield has developed
gradually and organically since about 1920.
Mr. McConnell has refused to take up House-passed legislation on hot-button
issues because he says the president has not told him what bills he will
support. This is a dangerous game to play with an erratic president who changes
his position from one day to the next. Mr. McConnell’s stance precludes
senators from debating and voting on legislation that is currently favored by
most Americans and effectively transfers more power to the executive branch and
away from Congress. This is not what the Founders wanted. Congress was
always meant to be a co-equal branch, and even “first among equals” in the
parlance of Thomas Jefferson.
To be fair, the Senate was always meant to be a calming
influence on the House and the vagaries of shifting popular opinion. George
Washington called it the “saucer that cools the tea.” The Founders provided
that senators would stand for election every six years while representatives
would stand every two years, making them more susceptible to short term swings
in popular opinion while the Senate could afford to take the long view.
So, in one sense you
can say that the Senate is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in regards
to gun violence and election security. It is cooling the hot debate emanating
from the House. But in another sense the Senate could just as effectively cool
the tea by working with the House on compromise legislation and then bringing
the legislation up for debate and subsequently voting it down if that is its
desire. That is how it is supposed to work. But in this dysfunctional political
climate in which we find ourselves, this is unlikely to happen. Many senators simply
do not want an unpopular vote on their record. It is more politically expedient
to simply not take up the issue. Mr. McConnell does not want to risk angering
this mercurial president by forcing a veto and possible override.
This idea that you can’t consider legislation unless
you know exactly how the president feels about it is a relatively new historical
phenomenon and not a very attractive one. The president typically sets the
broad national agenda and Congress attempts to follow it through legislative
action. When you go back in history to the introduction of the Senate majority
leader position in 1925 with Calvin Coolidge (R) in the White House, there have
been 30 instances of the Senate majority leader belonging to the same party as
the president. This did not stop Congress from doing its job and sending
legislation to the president he might not like. According to the Congressional
Record, in these 30 different Congresses, a total of 1,143 bills came to the
president from a Senate controlled by the same party and were vetoed.
Forty-four were overridden by Congress. Presumably the presidents didn’t like
the 1,143 bills sent to them, but Congress sent them anyway. This is how our
democracy is supposed to work. The president vetoed them as he had every right
to do. But Congress overrode some of them, which is their right. Under the
stewardship of Mitch McConnell, this Congressional right has been stopped in
its tracks.
The majority leader has no constitutional right to
withhold legislation from being considered. He has the right to do this by
Senate rule and Senate rule alone. Those rules can be changed. Because he has
taken political gamesmanship to a whole new level, it is hard to make the case
that Mitch McConnell is still a patriot. He may have enjoyed that status at one
time but no more. He is now derisively known as Moscow Mitch and clearly and
unabashedly puts party over country just like when he said that he would do
everything in his power to make sure Barack Obama was a one-term president even
before he took office. While most political opponents wish a new president well,
as was done with Mr. Trump, Mr. McConnell was proud to blindly sabotage Mr.
Obama’s agenda whether it made sense for America or not.
All of us had the chance to vote for Mr. Trump or his
opponent for president in 2016. Like it or not he is president now and has the
constitutional right to shape foreign and domestic policy and represent all of
us on the world stage. However, not many of us, and certainly no Maryland
citizen, got a chance to vote for Mr. McConnell or his opponent in the 2014 Kentucky
senatorial election. And we certainly have no voice on who the leaders of the
Senate will be. Putting it into terms that Mr. McConnell will understand, his
actions (or more precisely his lack of action) has made us disenfranchised
voters, and as such we now have every right to meddle in the Kentucky Senate
election in 2020.
Since Mr. McConnell is a leading proponent of
money-is-free-speech, which helped introduce dark money into politics and all the
vitriol that comes with it, I invite all Maryland citizens who feel that Mr.
McConnell has abused his power, is ambivalent to the will of the people, and is
kowtowing too much to this erratic president to join me and make a donation to
the campaign of his 2020 Kentucky senatorial opponent, Amy McGrath (D), a
former 20-year Marine Corps fighter pilot at https://amymcgrath.com/.
Then we should write to our own senators asking that the Senate curtail the
power of majority leader, no matter the party, starting with the next Congress
in 2021 before this sad spectacle repeats itself. The Senate gave the majority
leader this unfettered power and they can and should take it away. A better
model to guide the activities of the Senate would be a panel of three senior
senators from each party. Ties would be broken by the vice president. This
would still give the majority party the upper hand but take such crucial
decision making out of the hands of one person not elected by the vast majority
of Americans.
Labor Day has been the poor step-sister of federal holidays for a while now. Most people know it as the defacto last day of summer – one last chance for a picnic and pool party. But it wasn’t always that way. The creation of Labor Day in the late 1800’s was a big deal and the logical result of the labor movement that paralleled the industrial revolution. It paid homage to the men and women who built this country.
There is no doubt that the country needed labor to be
more assertive in the early days. The labor movement of the late 1800s
addressed vexing issues such as extremely low pay, unsafe working conditions,
12- and 15-hour workdays, 7-day workweeks, and most harrowing of all, child
labor. Because so much labor was needed
to power the industrial revolution, workers soon gained the upper hand with
management and did not shy away from demanding more money, less hours, and an
end to child labor. The first strike was called by workers of the Pullman
Palace Car Company in 1894 and was an unmitigated success for labor. Soon,
strikes all over the country led to the end of child labor, increased wages, a 40-hour
work week, and the advent of overtime pay. The old saying is absolutely true
that if you enjoy your weekends, you have labor unions to thank.
But today, only about 10% of all workers are covered
by unions. Most of us are “at will” employees, meaning we can be fired for any
reason or no reason at all. There are many reasons for this shift including
deregulation of many industries, technological advances, restructuring and
plant closings, and the availability of more and better foreign goods. So, what
would the founders of Labor Day and Grover Cleveland, the democratic president
who signed it into law, think about the current state of relations between
labor and management? I think they would be surprised that the pendulum has
swung so far in the favor of management.
Nothing drives this point home as much as the debate
over an increase in the federal minimum wage. With the passage of The Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, the
U.S. minimum wage was initially set at 25 cents per hour for covered
workers. Since then, it has been raised 22 separate times, most recently
in July 2009 to $7.25 an hour. The U.S. minimum wage has not been raised since
2009, the longest time the U.S. has gone without a minimum wage increase. It
took a democrat in the White House and a democratic Congress in both houses to
get this accomplished in 2009. It is also true that the federal minimum wage
has not kept pace with inflation. Its peak was in 1968 when the minimum wage was
$1.60 per hour. That is worth $11.39 in 2017 dollars. Since then, the minimum
wage’s real value has been in decline.
On
July 18 of this year, the Raise the Wage Act passed the U.S House of
Representatives, a bill that would double the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour
in increments by 2025. President Trump does not support this measure, and with
the dynamics of the republican-led Senate being what they are, it is extremely unlikely
it will be considered any time soon. But the measure is important politically
as a precursor as to what could happen with a democratic president and Congress
in 2021.
It is difficult to argue that all Americans should not
be paid at least a living wage that will pull them out of poverty. The main
argument against raising the federal minimum wage is the threat of job loss as
labor becomes too expensive especially for small business. Putting aside the
fact that federal minimum wage laws have always included exemptions for small
business (I remember I made 90 cents per hour at a small local theater chain in
1979 when the federal minimum swage was $2.30), job loss has just not happened
in an appreciable way over the long history of the minimum wage. A large body
of research that looked at 138 minimum wage increases at the federal and state
levels between 1979 and 2016 found they basically had no effect on low-wage
jobs. More and more nonpartisan economists and business owners have
increasingly accepted that some level of minimum wage can work well, coming at
a minimal cost to jobs. Most importantly, most Americans, including
republicans, support an increase in the minimum wage.
When you combine these facts with the estimation of
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that 1.3 million people will be
lifted above the federal poverty level by 2025 with the $15 minimum wage, it is
difficult to understand why we haven’t moved in this direction already. Political
scorekeeping is one reason, of course, but another is the possibility that the
same number – 1.3 million people – could lose their jobs. Past research is one
thing, but the U.S. has never contemplated doubling the minimum wage is such a
short period of time. The CBO acknowledges they are not sure what will happen,
also saying that job loss could be zero. Nowhere in their analysis, however, do
they talk about businesses failing because of paying an increased minimum wage.
That position thrown about by politicians and pundits is pure hyperbole, has
not happened in the past, and should not be believed by educated citizens.
Of course, most states have their own minimum wage
laws. There is a strong argument to make that states are better equipped to set
these wage floors because labor and job conditions from state to state vary so
much. Five southern states have felt it unnecessary to set a state minimum wage
at all – Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina – and have fought
vociferously to end federal minimum wages protections. Two states – Wyoming and
Georgia – have minimum wage rates below federal levels so they must adhere to
the federal rate. Fourteen states have laws that set the minimum wage at the federal
level. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia set their rates higher
than the federal rate. Currently, Massachusetts and Washington state have
the highest minimum wage rate at $11.00 per hour.
What about
progressive Maryland? Earlier this year, Maryland became just
the sixth state to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Maryland’s current
minimum wage is $10.10, and the new policy will gradually raise the wage floor
to $15 by 2025. The law was passed by the General Assembly overriding the veto
of Governor Hogan. The new law will benefit about 573,000 workers in Maryland
who currently earn less than $15 – about 22% of the state’s workforce,
according to the National Employment Law Project.
In my view an increase in the federal minimum wage is
long overdue. An economy that has been growing steadily since our recovery from
the Great Recession of 2008 should benefit everyone. When the economy grows and
unemployment is low and labor is tight, wages should increase. That has not been the case. Hence, the debate
rages over the wealth gap between rich and poor, white and black, immigrants
and longer-term Americans, and management and labor.
A handy measuring stick for the wealth gap in 2019 is
the CEO pay ratio, which many corporations now have to disclose as a
public-owned company. It measures the compensation earned by “average workers”
to their chief executive officer. Since it is so new, historical comparisons
can’t be made. But the ratios are striking, ranging from 100-to-1 to sometimes
topping 1,000-to-1 at companies like Walmart and McDonalds. You may argue that entry level-type jobs at
these companies were meant to be just that – entry level – and not meant to last
long term. I would argue these types of jobs are fast becoming the only types
of jobs that can be found in a certain segment of our population in this
outsourced, gig economy we find ourselves in.
The Peter Principal states that employees will rise in the hierarchy of a company or the economy in general until they reach a level of incompetence. Like it or not, we have to accept that for some people a job at Walmart or McDonald’s is the best they will do. Don’t they deserve a decent living wage? Free market capitalism just doesn’t do the job sometimes and needs a little help. I’ll go one step farther and say that companies that say they can’t afford to pay a living wage perhaps should not exist. And I say this as a small employer from earlier in my career who paid the federal minimum wage. Employers who pay low wages force their workers to turn to governmental safety programs at significant cost to taxpayers. Gradually phasing in a $15 minimum wage by 2025 would lift the pay of tens of millions of workers, reverse decades of growing pay inequity, bring new customers into markets they couldn’t afford until now, reduce costs associated with employee turnover, and lessen dependence on social safety nets. It’s time the Senate and president act.
With apologies to the Doobie Brothers who took What a Fool Believes to the top of the charts in 1979, here is what I believe moderates like me want. I’m not going to tell you what political persuasion I favor, but maybe you can guess by the end of this article. Hopefully not. The political fringes of both parties get all the attention, but I firmly believe that most Americans, largely silent Americans, fall somewhere in the middle.
As a moderate, I believe both sides get the benefit of
the doubt until they abuse that privilege.
How can they do that? By denigrating and demonizing the other side with
a wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth kind of glee. This is rampant today and gets
us nowhere. Clearly there are patriots on both sides that care deeply about
their country and fight ferociously for what they believe in. But unfortunately,
there are also politicians, consultants, lobbyists, TV and radio personalities,
and even ordinary Americans who see this as a big game that must have clear
winners and losers. I hope we can start to aim higher than that and that moderates
can lead the way. I’ll take a look at just three issues—gun safety,
immigration, and health care policy.
Moderates do not want to take guns away from
law-abiding citizens. Why would we? By
definition, they are good people. I don’t see the attraction in guns, but then
again I don’t see the attraction in kale and quinoa. But I have family and friends
that enjoy guns immensely for sport and self defense, and that is fine. What
moderates do want is sensible regulation of guns that brings ownership up to
the same standards as automobiles—meaning licensing and registration. It also
means closing gun show loopholes, universal criminal background checks, limiting
new sales of assault weapons and other guns of war, and emergency confiscation
of guns by family members of troubled individuals. Is that really too much to
ask? I guess I’m asking responsible gun
owners to take a small hit for the American people so there is a little less chance
of random gun violence and saying unexpected, sorrowful goodbyes to loved ones.
I believe the fact that the GOP-controlled Virginia legislature would not even
discuss gun regulation during a recent special session called by the governor
has sealed their fate in the next election. Moderates will put up with a lot of
nonsense, but not dereliction of duty when people are dying.
Moderates believe in an immigration policy that meets
migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers with kindness, not vitriol and hatred. It
is the height of arrogance to deny or forget that we are all sons and daughters
of immigrants that benefitted from open borders. There but for the grace of God
go I. We don’t want open borders but we don’t think a wall is the answer
either. We wish for the Statue of Liberty to remain the symbol of America, not a
steel wall. We want orderly immigration that is administered by more judges. We
want more aid to Latin American countries so that we tackle the problem at its
origin, helping their citizens have a chance at a better life in their own country.
Ask yourself how desperate people have to be to set off on a 1,000 mile trek
with small children to an unfamiliar land with no promise of a better life at
the end of it. Immigration is a vexing problem, but unsolvable? Of course
not. We simply need to take the emotion
out and demand our politicians meet in the middle.
Moderates believe that quality health care is a right
for all and not a privilege for only those who can afford it. We also don’t
believe that Medicare for All is the answer. Medicare and Medicaid are already
underfunded and rife with abuse. It’s difficult to see how this could be
sensibly financed and managed despite what the politicians say. Overall reform
of our health care system is sorely needed. It does not work well for many of
us. Obamacare, while not perfect, was a step in the right direction. Threats to
repeal Obamacare, with nothing in the works to replace it, are irresponsible.
Most Americans seem to sense this, yet the threats continue.
For all issues, moderates want our best minds to come
together and, in the best case, reach consensus or, if need be, compromise. We
are tired of all the rancor and political scorekeeping. Words are cheap. Reasonable
politicians who can show the level of maturity needed to build consensus and reach
compromise should get our vote no matter the party affiliation. It won’t just
happen. The message has to come loud and clear at the ballot box. Please join me
in telling the two political fringes that we’ve had enough. This won’t be easy
but as John Lennon said, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”
Search out candidates who don’t spout the party line automatically and don’t seem
to have all the answers already but show thoughtfulness and a willingness to
learn.
And one final thought–if you think your side is
always right and the other side is always wrong, I congratulate you for having
life figured out better than the rest of us. The freedom this affords must be quite
satisfying. But just consider for a moment all the damage you are doing if you
really are wrong after all.
As we mark the first trip to the moon 50 years ago on July 20, it is impossible to overstate how exciting this was to a war-torn and rioting country in the summer of 1969. Of course, not everyone was caught up in the excitement, but most were. Many Americans, especially those involved in the civil rights movement, rightfully pointed out the enormous cost they say could have been better spent right here on American soil combating poverty and any number of other social ills.
As a young boy, I was mostly oblivious to America’s
troubles but there was no mistaking the real-life heroes we saw almost every
month in 1968 and 1969 climbing atop the enormous rockets for their latest
adventure. The Saturn V rockets that lifted the astronauts off the earth may
have been enormous but commentators enjoyed telling us these men were traveling
nearly 500,000 miles round-trip to the moon in darkness in a vehicle the size
of a large Buick. The courage needed to do this was and still is breathtaking. All
this played out right in front of us on TV – small black and white TVs with
only a few channels – but TV nonetheless. For those of you not yet alive in
1969, trust me, you just had to be there.
In the late 1950s it was clear we eventually would
have to go to the moon. The arms race with the Soviet Union and the fear of
total annihilation was very real. The Soviets were developing larger and
stronger rockets that could easily carry a nuclear warhead to the heart of
America. When the Soviet Union’s first satellite called Sputnik launched in
1957 without any warning, Americans were shocked and afraid. NASA was founded shortly
thereafter in 1958. To keep the Soviets from weaponizing the moon, President
Kennedy, in 1962, set us on course to “go to the moon in this decade and do the
other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Wishing to survive and get ahead of the
Soviets, most of the country was with him.
The Mercury and Gemini missions carried on almost
uneventfully throughout the early and mid-60’s but then came the tragedy of
Apollo 1 in early 1967. The deaths of three astronauts in a fire in their
capsule during a training session saddened the nation to its core and almost
ended our quest for the moon. But Soviet danger persisted and quitting the moon
was never really an option. After pausing for almost a year to figure out what
went wrong, the Apollo missions began anew with a vengeance in late 1967. In unbelievably
rapid succession, nine successful Apollo flights – five unmanned and four
manned — were conducted over 18 months including Apollo 8, which took humans
out of earth orbit for the first time. It is not possible for me to forget
Frank Borman’s stirring reading of the book of Genesis on Christmas Eve 1968 as
he and his crew circled the moon. The photo of the blue earth rising over the
stark landscape of the moon was jaw-dropping and awe-inspiring. Most of us felt
very small and insignificant when we saw that photo.
The three men selected for the historic Apollo 11 mission
were all veteran astronauts, each having flown one Gemini mission, but could
not have been more different in temperament.
Neil Armstrong, as mission commander, was a shy
introvert, economic with words, not prone to suffering fools, and as cool under
fire as any human could be. He is credited with saving Gemini 8 through his
skill, calmness, and preparedness when his craft went into a violent, unexplained
end-over-end roll in 1966. The fact that he was a civilian played a large role
in him being named commander of Apollo 11. Unlike the Soviets, America wished
to signal that they came to the moon in peace and not for military adventure. Armstrong
died in 2012 at age 82.
Buzz Aldrin, the lunar module pilot, was arguably the
smartest of NASA’s astronauts. In addition to flying sixty-six combat missions
over Korea, Aldrin has a PhD in physics and astronautics from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, specializing in manned orbital rendezvous. More
loquacious than Armstrong, Aldrin has gone on to be perhaps the nation’s
leading global space statesman and a media darling. Also not one to suffer
fools, in retirement he famously punched out a critic who maintained the moon
landing was faked. Aldrin is currently 89 years old and still speaking out.
Michael Collins, the command module pilot, is good-humored,
thoughtful, lighthearted and loquacious. Of the three, he is the clear
extrovert and prime suspect behind any pranks or horseplay. These lighter
traits mask a smart and driven man who served in Europe after World War II, was
a decorated test pilot, and an expert in pressurized space suits and extra
vehicular activity or spacewalks. It also didn’t hurt that Neil Armstrong liked
him immensely. As the command module pilot, Collins circled the moon while his
compatriots on the lunar surface got all the glory. He didn’t mind, though. He
famously said that he was happy to be along for the ride. Was there anyone ever
more alone than Michael Collins as he orbited the moon 240,000 miles from home
in the darkness of space? Collins is currently 88 years old and in good health.
Apollo 11 departed for the moon on July 16, 1969.
Leaving earth orbit and heading for the moon was not news anymore. NASA had
successfully done it three previous times with Apollos 8, 9, and 10. But the
descent to the moon’s surface was another story. Hidden from most Americans was
the fact that we almost didn’t make it. Along with radio problems that made
communications with the craft difficult, the astronauts found themselves about
three miles off-target. Hovering over boulders and craters, the astronauts disconnected
from the computers that wanted to land there as scheduled and flew the craft manually.
The extra maneuvering caused fuel supplies to dwindle to almost nothing. The
world had little clue that this epic success was almost an unbearable tragedy. But
somehow, some way, we soon heard Armstrong coolly mention over a crackled
transmission “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” And almost
unbelievably, for the first time, there was a banner at the bottom of our TV screen
we never thought we would see – “Live from the surface of the moon.” The rest, as they say, is history.
Someday, maybe even right now, many people will see
this foray to the moon as quaint and even worthless. I can assure you this was
not the case at the time and is not the case now. Whether right or wrong, the
very existence of America was thought to be at stake. And, it’s important to
remember that we didn’t come back empty handed from the moon, and I’m not
talking just about rocks and soil samples. The technological advances needed to
pull off this enormous endeavor led to things like microwave ovens, compact
cameras, stronger fabrics for clothing, protective coatings for our vehicles,
improvements to firefighter suits, intruder detection systems, solar panels,
seismologic advances, heart monitors and pacemaker systems, and quartz crystals
used in clocks for precise timekeeping. This list can figuratively go to the
moon and back. One can argue that these items would have come along anyway but
assuredly not with the speed and rigor caused by the space missions.
So, what’s next? The Trump Administration has recently
announced plans for an orbiting lunar station, which is supposed to begin
construction is 2020. Whether this actually happens or not is anyone’s guess. George
W. Bush pitched something similar in 2004. New rockets from private companies
like Blue Origin and SpaceX are in the works. Other nations like China are
pursuing their own space agenda. It is not technology that keeps us out of deep
space; it is the cost and political will. It may take a national emergency – like
a warming planet that can no longer support its entire population – to get us
moving again like the national emergency of Soviet menace and adventurism in
1957.
But until then please join me in celebrating this
enduring achievement of mankind. The airwaves and book stores are currently
packed with information on Apollo 11 and the mission to land on the moon. I’ve
watched and read most of them.
I can recommend these TV specials: Apollo: Back to the Moon (National
Geographic channel), Apollo’s Moon Shot:
Rocket Fever (Smithsonian channel), Chasing
the Moon (PBS), Apollo’s Daring
Mission (PBS). Some of these have
aired already but DVDs exist for most. Last but certainly not least, you can
experience the moon landing in real time like I did in 1969 on July 20 with Moon Landing Live on BBC America. Check
your TV listings.
I can recommend these books: First on the Moon by Rod Pyle, First
Man by James R. Hansen, Shoot for the
Moon by James Donovan, Apollo 11
by Ian Passingham, and Magnificent
Desolation by the man himself, Buzz Aldrin.
With his stirring words in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (and his committee of Founding Father editors) assures us that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But in this time of great political strife, I was wondering who is generally happier – conservatives or progressives? And, what is it that makes us happy anyway? I was surprised to learn there is quite a bit of independent research on both counts.
Mr. Jefferson purposely referred to the ambiguous
trait of happiness in his document over the more conventional right to pursue
property, which many of his editors suggested. That is because the Declaration
was not only to be the starting point to create a new nation but was also a
call to arms against an oppressive ruler. It was agreed that the wide swath of
property-less Americans at the time would be more likely to take up arms for
the understandable concepts of life, liberty, and the chance to be happy. In
the late 18th century the opportunity to marry, raise a family,
practice the religion of your choice, and the chance to one day own property
were the key factors to a happy life.
But what about today?
What makes us happy? For many
Americans it is being surrounded by a loving set of friends and family. For
others it’s having a warm and welcoming home. For still others it may be the
opportunity to pursue riches or the desire to serve others. You may be surprised that the United Nations
pretty much agrees with this assessment. In their World Happiness Report, this
body rates lives from the “best possible” to “worst possible” and have found
that the most important happiness traits are the presence of a good social
support system, income security, and good health. You’ll note that income
security does not mean being rich. That is not what most people want. They want enough money to live securely and
have what they need and not necessarily what they want. One only has to consider the misery of many
well heeled celebrities to know that is true.
Of these three main happiness factors, it is clear
that governmental policy can greatly affect the latter two. Of course
government policy can vary widely from a progressive stance to a conservative
stance, and depending on how well your political and social outlook matches
these policies, personal happiness will increase or decrease.
Before deciding which political stance promotes the
most happiness for the most people, it would be helpful to revisit what we mean
by conservatism and progressivism. In general, conservatism maintains that the
free market with little or no interference is best at creating a robust economy
that pulls every individual to the level he or she deserves and in turn
promotes income security and the means to pursue good health. For many, free
market conservative principles do the best job of providing the best hope of
attaining both. Progressives believe in “free-ish” markets that must have the
safety rails of reasonable regulation to promote equity and justice not just
for themselves but for others who are seen as disadvantaged through no fault of
their own.
Minimum wage laws provide a good case study in the
different outlooks as they pertain to happiness. Conservatives are wary of
minimum wage laws and largely believe the free market and personal individual
talent drives how much you are paid. This inherent fairness makes them happy. Progressives
see flaws in this outlook because of the belief that all workers need the
guarantee of a minimum living wage because, after all, we are all human beings
and we don’t all start off from the same place. Conservatives want efficient
outcomes; progressives favor just ones. There is no doubt that minimum wage
laws have cost some jobs but it is also clear that the laws have promoted a
more secure standard of living for some and reduced poverty.
So, who is happier – conservatives or
progressives? Like a lot of things
today, it depends. There is a lot of research to suggest that conservatives are
happier if you simply ask them. The Pew Research Center says that conservatives
are 68% more likely to say they are very happy compared to progressives. Life
style differences such as marriage and religion are cited as the main reasons. Most
conservatives are married; most progressives are not. This is a matter of
record. And believe it or not marriage
and happiness have been found to correlate very highly. Further, conservatives
who practice a religion outnumber progressives four to one. Religious
participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy than
nonparticipants. Progressives maintain that conservatives are simply
inattentive to the misery of others, and if they were, they wouldn’t be so
happy. Progressives are less likely to wash their hands to the perceived
inequality present in society.
But, there is an equal amount of research that says
progressives are happier if you actually observe how they behave. One example
is from Sean Wojcik, a respected psychological researcher from the University
of California, who used linguistic analysis software and facial recognition
software to analyze 9 million words in the Congressional Record, 47,000 tweets from
4,000 Twitter users with ties to conservative or progressive agendas, and about
1,000 candid photos of Members of Congress from newspapers, LinkedIn, and other
sources throughout 2013 to judge happiness or the lack thereof. From these findings it was clear that progressives
displayed many more genuine smiles and overt happiness than conservatives. Of course, the recent presidential reelection
of Barack Obama may have had a lot to do with all the smiles.
So, how do you think Thomas Jefferson would think we
are doing on the happiness scale? I think he would be pleased that the American
experiment has largely succeeded and that most Americans are genuinely
happy. But, he would not be thrilled at
the inequities and injustices that seem to run rampant in America today and drive
so much unhappiness. Mr. Jefferson was a progressive of his time. He was a republican-democrat battling against
those such as Alexander Hamilton and other nationalists who wished to keep the
day’s ruling class in power and not yield too much of it to rank and file
Americans. Mr. Jefferson was also a pragmatist who did not shy away from
compromise or hold his political rivals in bitter contempt. Despite personal
loss, he was, without a doubt, a happy man and confident in the idea of
America.
It is not news to anyone that this presidency is emphatically different than ones we’ve known in the past. To be sure, ‘different’ is what many people voted for, and we’ve certainly gotten it. But, I can’t help wondering, is what we are getting now what we all bargained for?
There were high hopes that Mr. Trump would drain the swamp, give a voice to the voiceless, and put an end to political correctness. We are swampier than ever, of course, with many of his close aids either indicted or currently serving time, but there is no doubt that he has shaken the political establishment. Before he was elected, we were less sure about the actual policies he would pursue. After all, Mr. Trump is a former democrat who had no previous voting record and had previously espoused such non-conservative principles as the right to choose.
During the primary campaign and general election we heard him
talk about strengthening border security, lowering taxes, and bringing back
good-paying manufacturing jobs, to name a few. I think we can all agree that he
has tried to keep his promises but I also think we can agree that he has not
been very successful in enacting the legislation that would make them so. He
has done much better with executive orders, but of course they can be easily
reversed upon the election of a president with opposing views, and most
probably will be.
So, how did we get here? Is it just a recalcitrant
Congress that stands in his way? It can’t be that. The president’s party
controlled all levers of government in 2017 and 2018 and still not much got
accomplished. Is it obstructionist federal judges who can stop executive orders
in their tracks with the wave of a pen? To some extent, yes. But I believe the
biggest barrier is that we elected a businessman/television star with zero
political and governmental experience. He simply doesn’t have the wherewithal
to do well in this job and is not very good at picking people who can stay out
of trouble and help him. Mom always told me that anyone could grow up to be
president. But, that doesn’t mean anyone should.
To believe that someone with no government experience can get a
majority of Americans and a majority of Congress to accept or at least tolerate
his policies is to believe that there is not an art or science to governing. My
old political science professors at Frostburg State University would be aghast
and tell you otherwise. Horse trading, building consensus, persuasion, and good
old-fashioned compromise are the building blocks of good governance. This is
what our forefathers envisioned.
This president is woefully inadequate in all these areas.
When you combine these shortcomings with his penchant for insult and ridicule,
it is no wonder there is constant turmoil and few legislative successes to
point to. Would you go along with someone who constantly insulted you?
No, me neither. What may have worked well in a closely held business does not
work well in government.
Some may say that Mr. Trump has been unfairly scrutinized and
challenged at every turn. I say that is exactly what democracy is all about.
Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Clinton (you can go all the way back to Mr.
Washington if you like) were all challenged to the fullest extent possible.
That is what helps make America great and keeps us from becoming a dictatorship.
You can bet that if Mr. Obama’s closest associates had been indicted and
imprisoned like Mr. Trump’s, Congressional Republicans would be doing exactly
what Democrats are doing now. As citizens we should insist upon nothing less.
I’m old enough to remember the Clinton Administration being
continuously challenged at every turn by a newly energetic Republican
Congressional majority in 1994. What did they do? The Clinton Administration
redoubled efforts to look for areas of agreement and compromise wherever
possible. For the current administration, compromise seems to be a dirty
word. Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to want to play the game. For him, there can
only be winners and losers.
The reason that Mr. Clinton could rebound and govern
effectively, turning over a roaring economy and budget surplus to Mr. Bush in
2001 was that his presidency was the culmination of his government experience,
not the launching point. The same can be said for most presidents except the
current one. Experience does matter. If you don’t think so, try applying
to be the publisher of this newspaper.
I don’t blame the Americans who voted for Mr. Trump in the handful of key states that decided the election for the lack of legislative progress and the constant rancor and turmoil we now live under. Given the choice between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton – a highly flawed, unlikable, tainted candidate that represented the old guard — I can see where many Americans would want to take a chance on the exciting new irreverent star on the political scene.
What I don‘t understand and what I would love for my Republican
friends to explain to me is why they chose Trump as their nominee over the
better-prepared, better qualified conservative Republican candidates available
at the time. After all, most held similar beliefs to Mr. Trump but also had a
history in government and a record of getting things done in government that
Mr. Trump did not. Does anyone not think that John Kasich, for example, would
have fought hard for conservative principles but been willing to compromise to
move this country forward?
Please tell us all what it is about Mr. Trump that most
Americans are missing and leaves us embarrassed for our country at the end of
each evening. Is it the absurd political theater that Mr. Trump provides? Is it
the political incorrectness? Is it that he was untainted by Washington’s
ways? Is it his purported business acumen?
As a moderate Democrat, I will admit I was entertained by the
insults and name calling Mr. Trump leveled at the other Republican candidates.
Like most, I didn’t see any way he could be nominated. And after he was
nominated, I didn’t see any way he could be elected. Of course, like a
lot of people I was very much wrong.
But I’m wondering if after two years of constant turmoil and not
getting much accomplished perhaps even Republicans have had enough. I think
possibly some but probably not very many. My guess is, however, that most
independents who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 will not do so again. Words,
demeanor, grace, and yes results matter even if Mr. Trump is pursuing policies
you agree with.
If Mr. Trump showed up my door this evening I’m not sure I would
invite him in and show him the respect his office should demand. That is
because I’m not sure he respects the office himself. He certainly shows no
respect to those who disagree with him. And I do mean everyone and not
just opposing politicians. Just ask the Gold Star father. Rather, his
opposition is considered unpatriotic and presidential harassers.
I have lived happily through many presidents from both parties.
You could question their policies but never their good intentions, respect for
the office and all Americans, and their wish to bring us together. I
don’t think you can say that about this president. He doesn’t seem to want to
be the president for all Americans.
