Month: February 2017

Loyalty to a person, a party, an ideology, a concept, or a source is a position of simple comfort that does not require thinking.

Those who demand loyalty know this.

-30-

Thos

It’s called Oath of Office or Oath of Enlistment. It’s just a bunch of words that one needs to say in order to get a Really Good Job…or is it?

The words have some variation among the Really Good Jobs that use them, such as the President, members of Congress, members of the military, state Governors, state Legislators, appointed government officials, and some police officers. Typically, however, the Oath of Office contains the concept, if not the exact words, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

A quick look at one source of definitions reveals:

en·e·my

noun

1. a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
2. a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
3. a thing that harms or weakens something else.

The someone or something in definitions 1 and 3 applies to the American public and what we have come to know as the American way of life (even if leaving out the American Dream, which has already been decimated).

Given that definition, we find that protecting against all enemies is not limited to some other country that the government has declared to be an enemy so that military action can be pursued. Enemy can include

• Those who pursue the elimination of environmental protection,
• Those who pursue the elimination of public education,
• Those who pursue the elimination of the general availability of healthcare,
• Those who pursue the elimination of social services and programs that have generally benefited society and contributed to what we know as the American way of life,
• Those who pursue the limitation of the ability of journalists to report on the activities of the government,
• Those who pursue the violent repression of dissenting viewpoints,
• Those who pursue voter suppression and/or other means of election fraud,
• Those who use their government positions to accumulate personal wealth.

Those acts are either directly in violation of the constitution or by definition are enemy actions. Both are covered by the oath of office of many government positions, including the military.

The Oath of Office is generally treated as the pro forma words needed to get a Really Good Job. However, violation of the oath of office is, in many cases, literally a crime.

The application of the words in the Oath of Office is not limited to the individuals perpetrating unconstitutional or enemy (be definition) acts. Protect and defend includes doing anything possible to prevent others from violating the constitution. The roughly 4,000 US military veterans who went to Standing Rock to help protect the Native American and other protestors against the police and mercenary forces involved in the illegal construction of a pipeline, illegal suppression of speech, illegal suppression of journalism, and so on, were being true to their oath. Most of them who said anything publicly said exactly that.

The application of the Oath of Office applies to those in government and the military who sit idly by while police brutalize and even kill civilians, prevent expression of ideas (e.g., protest movements), obstruct and limit the freedom of journalists to document the activity of the government and government agencies, ignore existing laws in order to promote private infrastructure projects, imprison political opponents without charge or on false charges, imprison political opponents in cruel conditions, and so on. This is all happening now, all around us.

We must hold all of our elected and appointed officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for the crime of violation of the Oath of Office whenever possible. This applies not only to those who are engaged in the unconstitutional activities. It applies to those who see and know about the unconstitutional activities and to the activities the fall under the definition of enemy and fail to do anything about it.

We pay our elected officials quite well in exchange for their faithful execution of their duties, which includes those contained in the Oath of Office. That 4,000 military veterans have the integrity to do so on their own, without the benefit of a Really Good Job (which, in terms of government positions, they never had in the first place), and even give up their not so good jobs in order to participate in an action against enemies, as required by their oath, under harsh conditions, is remarkable. Why do we not expect those we pay to fulfill the Oath of Office to do so?

Insist on that protection against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Demand accountability and compliance!

-30-

Thos

As the election for Chair of the Democratic National Committee draws near, there is still a great deal of contention around the effect of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic Party. There are loud, passionate voices crying out the woes of the Bernie or Busters cause all of the Party’s problems by splintering the party when unity is required. Why, Bernie Sanders is not even a Democrat! Just who does he think he is?

What Bernie did not do

Bernie did not splinter the Democratic Party or cause disunity. The Democratic Party has done a fine job of that themselves. Yes, the Millennials are an obvious substantial part of Bernie Sanders’ support. However, another large part of his support remembers the Democratic National Debacle of 1968. Democratic Party, if you want to see what is causing what appears to you to be dissension in the ranks, look in the mirror, or maybe read history if you aren’t old enough to look in the mirror and see the problem.

In 1968, the Party ignored the choice of the majority and chose to install their pro-war candidate instead of the popular anti-war choice (if you were there or know the history, you will see quite a similarity between the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the 2016 Democratic National Convention). That was the event that splintered the Democratic Party, NOT Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

You, Democratic Party, haven’t changed (at least for the better). Those who you think should be your party’s constituency haven’t either.

Maybe you just haven’t noticed the splintering because so many of the people who were vocal in 1968 just gave up and quit participating. Many just couldn’t see the point of expending the effort. Many continued to vote Democrat just because the candidates that the Democratic Party offered were not as objectionable as the candidates that the Republicans did.

Every once in a while, some of those folks who remembered 1968 decided to join young people (folks who were at the time of the age group that protested the Democratic Party actions of 1968) in supporting a non-establishment candidate (e.g., Nader, Stein) with the hope of developing an alternative to the Democratic Party, an alternative that would serve their best interest. Many who didn’t join those movements didn’t refrain from lack of interest but rather from an understanding of the Democratic political machine that the young people didn’t understand.

So, again, Democratic Party and diehard Democratic Party supporters who claim party loyalty and self-identity (I’m a Democrat; My parents were Democrats; their parents were Democrats, and so on), look in the mirror if you are old enough or in history if you are not.

Remember, Democratic Party, that YOU brought us banking deregulation that led to millions losing their homes, their savings, and their jobs. YOU brought us the endless war of regime change. YOU brought us corporation-friendly trade agreements. YOU brought us disregard for environmental law (which was effected by Nixon, a Republican) and associated regulations, providing precedent for the Republican Party to eliminate environmental regulations altogether. YOU brought us uncontested and even sanctioned police violence. YOU brought us the corporate prison and mass incarceration system.

No, Bernie Sanders did not splinter the Democratic Party. There was nothing left to splinter.

Remember, Democratic Party, that YOU elected Nixon and YOU elected Trump.

What Bernie did

What Bernie did is better described as the effect of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign instead of what Bernie Sanders did. The effect is the result of a combination of an honest, hardworking, passionate individual and technology that had not existed effectively before the 2016 campaign.

• We have become more aware than ever that the Democratic Party is a private club representing the elite members of the party and their donors, not a voting constituency.
• Although many were aware of the corruption in US politics, we became aware of the magnitude and extent of the corruption.
• We became aware of the institutional corruption of the Democratic Party as well as among individuals.
• We became aware of the widespread interest in change, interest that we didn’t believe existed.
• We became aware of the ability to generate a powerful political movement that could counter the system, even in spite of the opposing corruption.
• We became aware of the corrupt Democratic Party-corporate media relationship.
• We became aware that innovative use of new technology could make a movement powerful without the use of the corporate media.
• We became aware of the revolving door effect of politician/government official – corporate – politician/government official – corporate career moves, lucrative career moves.
• We became aware of the need to be aware of what the government is doing to us and realize that whatever is being done in our own situation is being done to many people throughout the country.
• We became aware of the importance of passionate interest in and effort for change, creating a movement that is continuous rather than once every four years.
• We became aware of the possibility of being a career politician who is sincere about representing the best interests of the constituency instead of being corrupt.
• We became aware of the ability to free ourselves from establishment politics and develop a government that represents out best interests.

No, Democratic Party, it is not what Bernie Sanders did, and particularly not what Bernie Sanders did to the Democratic Party. He didn’t do anything to the party. He had an effect. He awoke many of us who had given up, many of us who didn’t know, and many of us who had hoped for decades that someone could find a way to defeat the system that we know is corrupt and working against our best interest.

-30-

Thos

The best defense is a good offense. That phrase, in various forms, has been used with reference to military operations and more recently in business (which often takes the form of warfare).

The Progressive movement has an offense being used as a defense, The Anti-Trump movement. There are marches. There are protests. There are calls for filibuster. There are meetings and phone calls. All of this to at least delay what is very close to inevitable.

However, that an offense, but not a good offense. (Many sources, but this Thom Hartmann clip explains well in 11 minutes)

The country is on the verge of a right wing takeover. The Republican Party is just short two states of a sufficient majority of states as well as Congress to amend the Constitution with impunity.

The good offense includes a strategy to immediately begin taking control from the Republican majority in all branches and localities of government instead of merely obstructing them. The 2018 election is what may be the last opportunity if we don’t make a radical change from the status quo.

The turning point for the Democratic Party is coming in the form of the election of the Democratic National Committee Chair February 24-26.

The Democratic Party has shown clearly that their current policies and position do not meet the approval of the people, the working class, the middle class, the disabled, the young, and the elderly. For the Democratic Party to enable a good offense, it must make fundamental changes, beginning with the election of the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

With a progressive Democratic Party, the effective strategies of

• Justice Democrats,
• Brand New Congress,
• Our Revolution, and others

Can be consolidated into a powerful offense.

Should the Democratic Party choose to continue the status quo, it will have no effective offense, and therefore no effective defense. Should that be the case, the only path to an effective offense would be the creation of a new party that has policy and practices consistent with the values of the many voters that the current Democratic Party has disenfranchised.

Is that realistic? It can be and if the Democratic Party does not change radically and immediately.

This four part interview (listed in the fourth item on the page, bold italic heading: Four Part interview with Nick Brana) explores the details and possibility of success.

The election of the Chair of the DNC will be an important turning point. Everyone will be best served by paying attention and expressing opinion to the Party with the same vehemence that is applied to opposing Trump.

-30-

Thos

We are at war right here in our own country. The war is going on somewhat unnoticed because many do not realize the extent to which it is happening. It is generally a war of subversion rather than direct armed takeover, but it is war on the American population nonetheless.

There are two elements of the conduct of war activities (which in the instant case is the war on the American Population by the Corporate Oligarchy).

• Strategy:

The action that you plan to take against the opposing forces based on your guess of what the opposing forces will do.

• Tactics:

The action that you actually take against the opposing forces based on what the opposing forces actually do.

In war, sometimes a well-considered tactic can be effective and sometimes not.

Ineffective Tactics

An example of ineffective tactics was the ill-fated action of the British and French Forces in northern France in 1940.

• Strategy:

The German army advanced on France in World War I, resulting in a long, costly stalemate. As the German army advanced toward France in 1940, France and England assumed the same German strategy and decided to be ready for them, sending a substantial force of French and English troops to northern France.

• Tactics: The German army didn’t do the same thing that they did in 1914 (Surprise!), ran virtually unopposed through central France and virtually surrounded the British and French forces. Having seen what the opposition was actually doing as opposed to what was expected, the British and French tactic was retreat as fast as possible with however many soldiers survived.

Effective Tactics

An example of effective tactics was the Doolittle raid on Japan in 1942.

• Strategy:

Conflict in Asia, like the conflict in Europe had been boiling for years before what was, for the US, the beginning of World War II in December 1941. The US was sort of watching what was going on in Europe and Asia with the attitude that it is too far away to affect us. That was the plan; watch what is happening and avoid involvement.

• Tactics:

The Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor as well as come coastal areas in California and Oregon and invaded a couple of the Aleutian Islands that were part of the Alaska Territory (before it became a state). The US was in no position to repel a serious Japanese attack on the west coast, but didn’t want the Japanese military and government to know that. The US government needed a tactic that would be effective until a strategy for winning could be developed and implemented.

The US was seemingly too far from Japan to launch a counter attack, but some sort of counter attack was needed in order to demonstrate capability and leave the Japanese military questioning their own ability as well as ours. Were the remaining US navy forces to come within striking distance, they would have been swiftly overwhelmed.

General Jimmy Doolittle, the architect of the counter attack on Japan said:

The Japanese people had been told they were invulnerable … An attack on the Japanese homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the Japanese people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders. There was a second, and equally important, psychological reason for this attack … Americans badly needed a morale boost.

The tactic involved figuring out how to do the impossible. The planes associated with aircraft carriers were small, had a short range, and lacked substantial attack capabilities. They were intended to be used against other airplanes. A plan to modify long range bombers to be launched from an aircraft carrier was devised and implemented. On April 1, 1942, the US planes flew a seemingly impossible bombing raid on Japan, getting the full attention of the Japanese population, government, and military as well as the American population. The purportedly invincible Japanese military might was not invincible. This tactic put sufficient pressure on the Japanese military to prevent further attacks until the strategic plan was ready to implement.

How does this apply to us now?

We are engaged in a war with a seemingly invincible Corporate Oligarchy. The strategy must remove the US government form control of the Oligarchy.

Strategic Options:

1. Elect Democrats to Congress in 2018 to the extent that is feasible and regardless of the fact that some Democrats are typically merely another name for Republicans. Prepare for the 2020 elections and obtain control of the White House. That, folks will look like the British and French strategy in 1940. If that is the goal, there may not be a 2020 election in which to do battle.
2. Prepare for the 2018 election. There are several movements engaged in starting the battle against the Corporate Oligarchy in 2018. Among them are Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, and starting a new party to effectively replace the Democratic Party.

The ineffectiveness of the first strategy should be obvious. The Republican Party controls almost enough of the US to effect changes to the Constitution that would be disastrous for America as we know it. We are surrounded as the British and French were in northern France in 1940. The only available tactic will be the equivalent of retreat into the sea, hoping for someone to rescue us from the water.

The second strategy consists of two sub-strategies with the same goal.

• Recruit progressive, non-corrupt candidates for the 2018 election, taking over and reforming the Democratic Party in the process. The Democratic Party will demonstrate the likelihood that this action is possible by the result of their election of a party chairman at the end of February 2017. There is a substantial part of the Democratic Establishment who are actually in the employ (virtually, figuratively, or literally) of the Corporate Oligarchy. If they remain in power, they will continue to use their current tactics of selecting their candidates for office and prevent progressive “outsiders” from challenging them. Many in the Democratic Party consider progressives to be the enemy. The parties run the primaries, so they are automatically rigged for the Establishment parties.
• Start a new party to replace the Democratic Party. Merely electing status quo Democrats is not sufficient when the Democratic Party is effectively a branch of the Republican Party, controlled by the Corporate Oligarchy. Starting an effective new party is not a trivial activity. It can be done. It has been done before (the current Republican Party replaced the ineffective-for-its-constituency establishment Whig Party over a period of six years 1854 – 1860). A new party was a bad strategy during the 2016 primary election and Democratic National Convention debacle. It may not be an effective strategy now. We will know much more at the beginning of March, 2017.

Right now, both sub-strategies can be pursued concurrently, with an alliance forming, or not, after the Democratic Party shows its intentions. The second strategy promises victory, albeit after a very likely long and exhausting effort.

Tactical options:

We are not in a position to deflect the war that the Corporate Oligarchy is waging against us. The tactic we need looks like the Doolittle Raid. We demonstrate that we are united, have strength, will power, and the means to overcome them. That involves protests, boycotts, publicity, vast attention-attracting marches, and other resistance activity until we can implement the strategy for the first real counterattack in 2018.

We can prevail if we know that we can win and we apply ourselves to the mission. Division between the two strategies is not a way to win.

-30-

Thos

WAR!

We are all aware that we are at war. We have been in one war or another continuously for decades. In its history, the US has been involved in 100 wars. However, sometimes military operations aren’t called war. They may be called police action, peacekeeping, intervention, or some other term that distracts the population from the fact that there is a war going on. The US has been involved in 325 military actions, which includes the 100 wars. The list of allies and opponents is impressive. It involves most of the world. Many countries are on both lists, sometimes repeatedly on both lists.

However, we are in a war that is overlooked. It isn’t happening in some other country. It is happening here. It isn’t happening to or affecting others in their homes, it is happening to and affecting us in our homes. Many of us (especially those who are in a more advantaged lifestyle) don’t notice that we are engaged in a war; a struggle for survival.

A common definition of war is

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Are we in a state of armed conflict right here at home? Yes.

Who is the opponent? The corporate oligarchy.

How is this an armed conflict? Let’s have a look.

As people protest against the actions that are effectively a conflict between the poor, working class, and middle class against the donor class

• Police act brutally against protestors and demonstrators.
• Violence is perpetrated against protest action and is being sanctioned as acceptable activity.
• Armed police are rounding up journalists who are recording and writing about protest and counter protest activity, charging them speciously with crimes.
• Police regularly act violently to individuals, generally among but not limited to the poor or low end working class.
• Police sweeps round up individuals who may have committed some illegal activity.
• Mercenary forces act in conjunction with police agencies.

The war in which we are engaged has developed new, non-violent weapons. In a wars, particularly since 1915, there are many casualties among the innocent civilian population. Over the history of war against civilians, the means of destruction have generally been bombs, guns, and poison gas. Other than a couple of individual attacks by opponent forces, the US has luckily not experienced such destruction. However, the war in which we are engaged is taking civilian casualties and will continue to do so until the conflict ends.

Who are the casualties?

• The poor, who live in deplorable conditions, generally lack opportunity as corporate profiteering takes their employment to countries where the poor are more-or-less happy to be a little less poor.
• The working poor who do have employment, but employment that does not compensate them sufficiently, cannot afford health care, healthy food, communication technology, time off work.
• The working and middle classes who are expected to work excessive hours in a hostile environment in order to maintain their ability to live a somewhat healthy lifestyle, are forced to ignore their susceptibility to serious health problems from stress, exhaustion, and poor diet (associated with the need to quickly consume fast food in order to keep up the pace).

If we are at war, who are we at war with?

We are at war with the Corporate Oligarchy. For their own short-term gain, they are content with genocide (police violence, enforced poverty, unavailability of healthcare for the majority of the population, which all lead to illness and death), destruction (construction of industrial infrastructure), and ultimately the potential end of life as we know it (pollution and unrestrained climate changing activity).

The Corporate Oligarchy has taken over much of the government with the infiltration of the two major political parties, both of which, with some exceptions on the part of individuals within those parties, gladly approve whatever the Corporate Oligarchy wants.

Were some foreign power to lay American cities to ruin, leave the population homeless and in poverty, and use weapons that would cause untold sickness and death, the US government would spring into action immediately, unleashing the full power and fury of America’s military might on the perpetrator, even if they had to make up a plausible perpetrator on which to unleash the military might. However, the US government is complicit in this attack, is the actual perpetrator of war upon our own citizenry.

Our government will not protect us in this war, as would be the case with any government that commits genocide upon its own people.

Discounting the possibility of leaving the US, we have one course of action in fighting back against this war upon our own people:  Resist the continuation of the genocidal practices as swiftly as possible in as many ways as are feasible. Many members of the progressive movement want to influence both major political parties, and reform the Democratic Party, which is supposed to be the ally of current and future victims of the slow-motion genocide.  Other progressives want to replace the Democratic Party with a new party that demonstrates a, swift, effective, and ongoing response to the urgency of our situation.

There are disadvantages to both approaches, but one MUST be taken now, perhaps resolving the differences between the two when victory is in sight.

-30-

Thos

 

 

Donald Trump has been the subject of virtually continuous parody and mocking. It’s so easy to do. He will be the source of material for comedians for some time to come. He is a fool, a clown. It’s obvious.

However, it may be too obvious. He, as was Ronald Regan, is an actor (Regan in movies and TV, Trump in TV). What you see may be in the script, including the apparent stupidity and ignorance.

Trump’s February 16 press conference has been derided as unhinged and a meltdown. Thom Hartmann has another opinion that seems quite well founded.

His analysis is convincing considering that Trump is indeed an actor, is comfortable with being on camera, comfortable with a script, and  managed to convince a lot of people during his campaign that he is something that he is not.

Thom Hartmann says that Trump is not as stupid as he appears. I agree. Yes, he has had many dramatic business failures. Every one of them has managed to take down someone else, not him. That is probably not an accident.

Many have called Steve Bannon the president, the puppeteer of Trump’s character. That appears to be more likely and serious than many have thought. Thom Hartmann’s opinion is that Steve Bannon has scripted this entire show in order to raise support from the right wing and basically put the Republicans, who may not be with the program, in line with the program.

Right after the press conference, Trump was off campaigning. The next presidential election is three years away. What’s the point of campaigning now? To us it looks cocky, self-aggrandizing, and actually kind of dumb or at least a waste of time. It isn’t. Trump (and/or his script writer) is consolidating support. Why does he need support?

Hartmann cites specific reference to Indivisible group strategies and right wing methods of countering them. That is the point of Trump consolidating his support. Part of the script is claims that the activists are paid to do so. We don’t believe it, we know that is false, but Team Trump, the army of his supporters, does. That gets them even more aggravated and ready to do battle.

Mocking Trump helps consolidate his support. He has a vast array of ultra right supporters. They will jump into action in support of their hero. The more he is mocked and derided, the more effective the strategy behind him.

We are in for a battle. We knew that. However, this is going to be a much more serious and protracted battle than we expected. We are not mobilizing against stupid or distracted people. We are mobilizing against a serious political machine.

Indivisible started with the use of Tea Party tactics against the Republicans. Steve Bannon now appears to be using Tea Party tactics against the resistance.

There can be no letup in the effort we expend; we can’t become complacent, and we can’t afford to assume we are only opposing just a clown and his crew. We need to pay attention to what the apparent clown show is doing and give serious consideration to why. We are doing battle with a very serious and dangerous opponent.

-30-

Thos

That the boat is full of water is obvious.

The President is acting completely unhinged, communicating with the public by tweet, making policy statements that come directly from material in Fox news programs, legislating by edict, refusing to disassociate his business from his elected office, calling federal judges “so-called judge” when he loses a suit over one of his edicts, selecting candidates for cabinet positions that are beyond unqualified, a better description being destructive, and so on. The legislation by edict generally involves some illegal action, the curtailment of civil rights, or both.

The list is long and he has only been in office for a few weeks. For some time, the media has insisted on judging a president by accomplishments in the first hundred days. It is obvious that 100 days are not needed for an assessment of the performance of this president.

What to do about the boat is not obvious.

Since the boat is the country we live in, abandoning ship is not really a realistic solution. Emigrating is not as easy or pleasant as it sounds.  We have a lot to learn from South Africans who are fleeing their country.

That leaves saving the boat.

How to save the boat is a matter of contention.

There are two parts to fixing a boat that is full of water.

• Remove the water from the boat.
• Prevent water from getting into the boat.

In the instant case, remove the water from the boat would be a complete change in the government. We’re stuck with the executive branch until January 2021 and literally can’t do anything about it until November 2020.

We can begin to change the legislative branch in 2018. Success in that regard can render the actions of the executive branch ineffective, effectively starting to fix the holes that are letting the water into the boat. The administration can do a lot of damage in two years. Various forms of activism can help mitigate the condition of the boat by bailing water out, perhaps as fast as it is coming in, but if not, hopefully fast enough to prevent sinking until a rescue mission arrives.

The nature of the rescue mission is in strong contention. Some believe that the harbor is the only place for repairs. They have their focus set on the 2020 presidential election. Most of these folks always have their focus set on the presidential election. They turn out to vote every four years, while Congress is taken over by the opposition party two years later.

There is a lot of contentious discussion about how and why we got here. It was Sanders. It was Stein. It was Johnson. It was the voters. It was Clinton. It was the DNC.

If the point of the contention over blame is vendetta, scapegoating for personal satisfaction, or self-righteousness, it is a useless endeavor. There is an applicable three word phrase for this kind of action:

Get Over It.

There is no time nor purpose for that.

The point of determining what happened is prevention. Given that, let’s look at the situation:

• Trump won the electoral vote. Clinton won the popular vote.
• 45% of those eligible didn’t vote.
• Of the 55% who voted, the votes were distributed:
  • Trump – 45.94%
  • Clinton – 48.03%
  • Johnson – 3.27%
  • Stein – 1.06%
  • McMullin (Independent) – 0.53%
  • Castle (Constitution Party of the United States) 0.15%
  • 26 others combined – 1.02%

The first and most obvious suspect is the Electoral College, a procedure set forth in the Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and modified by the 12^th Amendment. Lots of folks dismiss this subject with We just need to get rid of the Electoral College. Well, folks, it isn’t all that easy. A constitutional amendment must be introduced in Congress and passed by a two thirds majority, then sent to the states. The legislatures of 38 states must then ratify the proposed amendment. That takes a lot of homework that hasn’t been done, so like it or not, that’s what we live with.

There have been opinions that the problem was Stein, Johnson, or Sanders (as a write-in) siphoning off the votes that should have been Democrat (as far as the Democratic Party is concerned). There are scenarios offered in which any of the three cost the election. These scenarios are similar to a sports commentator observing that If this team loses to that team and this other team loses eight of their next twelve games, we still stand a good chance of being in the playoffs. If it will take that much luck to make the playoffs, the team probably isn’t championship material anyway.

There were some number of Sanders supporters and perhaps others that voted for Trump. Trump was perceived as the lesser of two evils. That’s not a really good reason to vote for someone, but that kind of choice has become normal over the past five or so decades. Perhaps these people gave Trump the election, but if so, it would have been another what if what if what if situation.

The Democratic Party has said that the election was lost due to voters that should have stayed loyal to them. There is no should have. Party loyalty is a concept that the parties expect; however, they seldom provide anything in exchange. Our elections have too frequently been choices between bad and worse, or put another way, the lesser of two evils.

Forty-five percent of eligible voters did not vote. That can readily be attributed to voter apathy: people too lazy or disinterested to bother voting. There has not been a lot of thought given to the cause of the apathy perhaps being the poor offering of candidates to vote for.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are affectively the same party. Both parties accept enormous amounts of money from rich people and corporations and perform their duties as expected/instructed by those rich people and corporations. Both parties offer candidates that they (and/or their donors) select. That the term donor class has entered common usage is disgraceful. That the donor class runs the country is despicable. Part of those who voted for Trump or for other non-Democrat candidates, those that might not have under different circumstances or as some might state, should not have, were voting against the status quo and what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils. However, they failed to put a lot of thought into associating their intentions with their actions.

(part 2: Fixing the Boat)

Fixing the boat.

The boat needs two distinct actions.

• Repair the holes that let the water into the boat.
• Bail the water out of the boat.

Bailing out the water

Bailing the water out of the boat must begin immediately. Unfortunately, the bailing will have limited effectiveness because the situation is so dire, but the situation will be direr and perhaps irretrievable without bailing. Bailing involves activism. Mocking Trump and others may be fun and provide some satisfaction, but may produce the opposite of the intended result. More effective activism involves making obvious what we want and how many we are.

• Marches and peaceful demonstrations (non-peaceful demonstrations can alienate people who otherwise would be supporters and in our current society, may invite police brutality),
• Phone calls, cards or letters, email, and social media contacts, all providing the simple message We want this or We want you to do this. All political offices should be inundated in contacts. Petitions may be effective if signed by thousands. A petition that contains a dozen signatures is a joke.
• Attend the town hall meetings of elected officials, Write letters to the editor of local papers (they will typically not publish letters from outside of their circulation area), write op ed articles.

Repair the holes

It seems pretty obvious that the cause of a significant portion of the holes in the boat can be traced back to the parties, particularly the Democratic Party. There are two options:

• Fix the existing Democratic Party.

There are at least two major movements to recruit non-establishment, non-corrupted candidates in an effort to replace establishment, non-progressive Democratic incumbents and as well to replace Republican incumbents. The goal is to change the party from the inside. There are several good reasons to pursue that approach.  The Democratic Party has the substantial organizational infrastructure that a nationwide party needs and name recognition. Many consistently vote Democrat because they identify themselves with the party. They have always voted Democrat, their parents did, their grandparents did, and on and on. This is the party loyalty that both parties have come to expect.

Reforming the existing party will not be easy. Regardless of the quality of candidates that grassroots efforts provide, the party often decides who may run and who may not. The party is in turmoil. A substantial and powerful part of the party wants to keep the status quo, which generates money and power for them. The selection of leadership for the party is in contention, with most of the candidates for DNC Chair seeing no problem with the status quo (other than the voters who should be loyal and aren’t), there are a few somewhere between status quo and progressive (one more progressive than others), and one vocal progressive. The results of the decision during the selection of the DNC Chair during the February 23-26 weekend will be an indicator of whether the party can be salvaged for the benefit of the ordinary citizens instead of the corporations and donor class.

• Replace the Democratic Party

There is new movement that intends to start a new party to complete with or replace the Democratic Party.

Conventional Wisdom is that a third party will not work. Conventional Wisdom, like Party Loyalty, is good for those who don’t want to think. There are many examples of failed parties, about 92 of them throughout US history. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party both stay around but with insignificant effect. Third parties have been blamed for unsatisfactory election results, although those results have been more a case of the established parties not really presenting candidates to vote for, as was the case in the 2016 election.

Times now are different than they have been for a long time. It is a case of, as that great philosopher Yogi Berra said, déjà vu all over again. In the mid-1850s, the Whig party failed to support their own constituency, or what should have been their constituency. A new party, the Republican Party (which was progressive at the outset and later turned conservative while the conservative Democratic Party became liberal), was formed in 1854 from former Whig members who thought that the status quo of the Whig establishment could not be sustained. In six years, the Republican Party was in control of Congress and the White House. The Whig party disbanded.

Today’s situation is similar to that of 1854. The Democratic Party is not responsive to its historic constituency. There is a substantial opposition that is in position to usurp the Democratic Party in the same way that the Republicans usurped the Whigs. The movement to start a new party is centered around the very popular policies and positions of Bernie Sanders. They are actively trying to recruit Sanders to lead the party. With Sanders, the party has an overwhelming chance of success. If he declines to lead the party, the pursuit of his popular policies and positions still stand a very substantial chance of success. The vast majority of Americans are tired of endless war, poverty, declining lifestyle, and the other oppressive elements of life in America today.

By the end of February, the Democratic Party will have decided if it wants to reform and become a party of its constituency, or if it wants to remain a party of corporations and the donor class. That decision will drive how the holes in the boat are fixed. If the party decides to reform, the organizations who are looking for non-establishment candidates has the best strategy. If not, the new party is the best strategy. The organizations looking for new progressive candidates can offer them as candidates in the new party.

Just before the 2016 election was the wrong time to consider starting a new party and seizing power from the Democratic Establishment. If the Democratic Party does not become responsive to the progressives that were once their base with their choice of leadership this month, the time to consider starting a new progressive party is now.

Time is short. We are in more of a crisis that we have ever been, inclusive of the Cold War and World War II. Not only does the Republican Party and the associated oligarchy control Congress and the White House, they are dangerously close to holding enough power in the states to allow them to amend the constitution with impunity. If the Democratic Party continues its losing ways, pandering to the corporate and wealthy individual interests and ignoring the other 99 percent of the population, they may lose enough in the next election to allow a complete takeover of the country by the powers of oligarchy. At that point, the country that we know may be irretrievable.

• 30 –

Thos

On the birthday of Charles Darwin, and immediately following the confirmation of Betsy DeVos to the US Department of Education, who got a failing grade in her Senate hearings on every subject besides money accumulation, I offer just a word regarding the intended (if you read her history) ‘Christianization’ of schools. I leave the question of her quest for privatization of schools for later.

I believe firmly in the separation of church and state, and that if we insist on teaching ‘religion’ in public schools, we ought to require that we teach, or make available and support, inquiries into all religions.

I have never felt any contradiction between evolution and any of the main religious versions of creation.  If one believes in God (or Spirit, or the Great Spirit, or by another name), one understands that God dwells intrinsically and perpetually deep within the infinitesimal layers of everything.   Whether or not we feel, know, or discover this pulse or consciously ascribe it to the indwelling of God, is a personal choice, a family and cultural matter, not to be questioned, ever, by the state.

Of course, this is also applicable to the “Muslim Ban”, the irrational, reckless attempt by the 45th President to exclude “all Muslims” from entering the US.  Leaving it there for now.