Finally! Can We Jettison this Clown? - Then Repair our Democracy?

 Tuesday is a huge fork in the road.

We might continue this self-destructive experiment with a “president” who cares nothing for law, ethics, tolerance, democracy, or honor (including honorable military service). He ignores the nation’s interest, if it conflicts at all with his.

Most Republican leaders have jettisoned ethics, convictions, and independence to cater to his whims. Somewhat understandably. He’s attacked his own appointees for letting some vestige of ethics impede their slavish obedience. Think Attorney-General Senator Jeff Sessions, first U.S. Senator to endorse Trump in 2016, who had to recuse himself from pretending to investigate his boss. Trump insulted him repeatedly, then fired him.

Sessions’s eventual replacement, far-right William Barr, has lied repeatedly for Trump. By misleadingly “summarizing” the Mueller Report before it was made public, Barr conned people into believing it “whitewashed” Trump; Barr tried to have the U.S. Justice Department defend Mr. Trump in a personal lawsuit by a woman Trump allegedly raped; and federal prosecutors, in an unprecedented move, tried to un-convict Trumpist Michael Flynn, who had pled guilty to perjury. Now Trump wants Barr to investigate Biden. Investigating political adversaries to help the Leader is for dictatorships. It’s not done here. So far, Barr hasn’t done it. Despite all Barr’s dishonest actions to help Trump, Trump is publicly scolding him like a misbehaving dog.

But Mr. Trump is a distraction from the very real issues we face.

The pandemic is one. As we experience record numbers of COVID-19 infections, far beyond what we’d seen, Trump is proclaiming we’re past it. His science officer recently listed “ending the pandemic” as one of Trump’s top accomplishments. The U.S. suffers infections and deaths at a disproportionate rate, as 4% of the world population experiencing more than 20% of the world’s pandemic dead. Trump offers no colorable explanation for our poor record. His poor record.

We’re already seeing global warming’s effects. Ask the military how it’s tryuing to adjust. In Florida, Iowa, and a few other spots, even Republicans are deeply concerned. We’re past being able to prevent warming, but can try to mitigate the damage. Doing so, while balancing that urgent work with economic and other problems, will require creative solutions and bipartisan political will. Trump thinks warming is another hoax.

Maintaining our best possible position among the world’s nations is another significant but complex issue. The increased international respect that Barack Obama brought us is gone, but this problem isn’t just Trump. We’ve been the preeminent nation since World War II; in my youth we were 6% of the world’s population and had about 60% of its goods. That would have changed under any leadership. The problem has been to maintain the best position we can, remaining an influential world leader. But we can and should be one of the most influential nations. That work can resume after Trump, but was never going to be simple.

Political differences (larger or smaller government, how much to protect consumers or the environment) aside, Trump and his Republican enablers threaten our democracy. Of all the traditional safeguards – separation of powers, Supreme Court, FBI, the congressionally-created Inspectors General, the free press, the State Department, objective government scientists, the rule of law – can you name one Trump hasn’t attacked and significantly weakened?

I believe we will stumble out of the woods in the right direction. I believe we will choose decency, fairness, and competence. But I’ll be sweating it out.

                                                            - 30 - 

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 1 November 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper’s website and KRWG’s website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG and KTRAL-LP (http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will be available on demand on KRWG’s site. ]

[We should never imagine that Trump is our sole problem; and I share concerns that, Trump or no Trump, our democracy is not as fair or democratic as so many believe it to be; but Trump’s weakening of the safeguards our parents depended on, and his inability or unwillingness to recognize boundaries created by law, ethics, or common humanity, are extreme and dangerous, particularly when so many aid and abet him. I recommend the book How Democracies Die, which is not about Mr. Trump and rarely if ever mentions him; and a recent piece, to which I’ve lost the URL, looks at the last four years through the eyes of a national security export whose career has involved examining other countries’ governments’ levels of actual democracy. She runs through all the standard red flags – the leader’s lack of respect for law, the subservience to him of other officials, and several others she would normally review in assessing a country, and concludes that if she saw conduct similar to Trump’s in some other country she’d report that democracy was in trouble there.]

 

Our Schizophrenic Times

Writing a column requires maintaining, at least briefly, illusions that one understands something that matters and that one can shape that understanding into an effective, engaging communication.

I can’t manage that this morning.

There’s plenty that’s true and worth saying: Joanne Ferrary is a dedicated, caring, incredibly diligent public servant and Isabella Solis seems mostly devoted to Isabella Solis. Xochitl Torres-Small, a smart and moderately progressive young woman representing a sprawling, varied district, is hearing progressives say she’s too nice to gas and oil and gun owners and conservatives say she’s the second coming of Karl Marx.

Still, I feel paralyzed. By awareness that many more than usual are dying. By the vast weight of misinformation and disinformation on the Internet. By the rancor of contemporary political discourse. By amazement that we’ve elected a narcissistic conman to the Presidency, that he’s trampling on our democracy, and that good and decent people smile on him, or shout “Hillary Clinton’s worse!” or “look at Hunter Biden!”

Life feels schizophrenic. We are both more isolated (most of us, physically) and far less so (the isolation, compounded by nervousness and extra time, drives us to spend longer periods on “social media.”

Some are racked by grief for loved ones taken by this pandemic, while others shout about our personal freedom to spurn masks and infect whomever we infect. Some are fighting boredom and others fighting exhaustion from working feverishly in hospitals or meat-packing plants. Some of us are glad that large numbers of whites may finally understand the toll it takes on a person to be black in this country, while others are infuriated that too few express outrage at killings of police officers. (Can’t I hope for better understanding, demand that we face our racism, yet also deplore ANY unjustified killings?)

I feel the dissonance between the dispiriting rancor of Internet communications and the warmth of some more personal communications. While I recognize the threat Donald Trump is to our democracy, and the viciousness of some Republican policies, and feel that our country could be at an important turning point, I can’t manage to hate the Trumpists I know.

I play pickeball with several Trumpists. “I see you’re still writing columns to piss people off,” one said recently when he returned from traveling. “Hey, one thing,” I urged another Thursday, “Don’t vote!” Mostly we acknowledge our differences with a laugh and play ball. Discussions do happen, without anyone convincing anyone of much, but with one notable exception they’re amicable. Still, sometimes, as I’m praising a great shot by my partner, my mind recalls he’s part of the threat.

That one fellow Las Crucen believes George Soros funds Antifa, doesn’t keep me from feeling and expressing sorrow for his loss of a family-member to drugs. Another funds political candidates I oppose, but I’m sorry the pandemic has caused him to close a business I sometimes patronized.

Thursday an acquaintance I greatly respect, a lawman’s lawman, remarked that he truly liked and respected our current sheriff, Kim Stewart, adding: “She’s got good people in good positions, and knows her people. She and I don’t agree on political things, but I love her. She’s honest and she’s police.”

I particularly enjoyed our conversation, and appreciated his ability to work with others despite political disagreements.

Yet it’s schizophrenic. Those deep divisions ain’t going away. Which enhances the importance of talking across the canyon to each other. With mutual respect.

                                              – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 25 October 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website. A radio commentary will ait during the week on both KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM, http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and will be available on demand on KRWG's website.]

[However all this comes out Tuesday, we sure need a national conversation about healing. If the Dems win, they had better not forget that a whole lot of people are sick enough of “the system” that they’ll vote for a Donald Trump, twice, while latching onto some pretty odd sets of allegations presented as facts. We need to ask “Why?” and face up to underlying problems. If Trump wins again, things will be pretty hopeless; but that conversation will be even more urgent, but it’ll be less in our power to make it happen – and many of us will be in despair. ]

[I mentioned Ferrary and Solis. Aside from generally preferring Ferrary’s stand on the issues to Solis’s, I’ve watched both at work.

A, who has spent much of her career working to curtail drunken driving, decides to run for State Legislature, feeling that her views better suit the district’s voters’ views than do those of the incumbent, a well-liked doctor with funding from oil companies and such. He wins. Two years later, she tries again. The doctor prevails, after a recount, by eight votes. Two years down the road, she runs again, and wins. She approaches her work with the same fortitude it took to run three times for the office. Throughout the year she’s extremely busy with interim committees and less formal work. She’s extremely active solving problems that aren’t necessarily left vs. right issues, but human ones, like adult guardianship, drug courts, etc. She busts her ass at the job, and seems gnerally friendly to and cooperative with everyone.

B, a former FEMA employee, runs for County Commission as a Democrat, and ends up chairing the Commission. She looks kind of lost on the dais, apparently hasn’t bothered to master Robert’s Rules of Order, and sometimes behaves oddly. Maybe she started with good intentions, but forgets them. While she reams out another commissioner for voting on a solar-industry-related issue after accepting campaign contributions from a solar power company; she herself votes to legalize fireworks sales after accepting a large contribution from THE main company that’ll benefit from the change. Maybe the decision was right. Maybe it was wrong, given that we live in a desert and we’re experiencing a deep drought. Either way, it raises questions of hypocrisy when she criticizes another commissioner so vociferously for his conduct. She also changes her registration from “Democrat” to “Republican.” (Doing so while Donald Trump is the head of the Republican Party is either a big plus or a big minus, depending on one’s viewpoint.)

Before serving out her term, she pushes herself before the voters in the Las Cruces Mayoral Election. She comes in 5^th. Then she announces her candidacy for the state legislature. I know she feels strongly about some issues. But it sure appears that she cares primarily about pushing herself forward, in whatever manner proves feasible.

Solis’s top ten contributors, after the Republican Party, are mostly from the Yates family (owners of a petroleum company, which also donated), Bowlin Travel Centers (fireworks friends), and local businessfolks Lou Biad and Marci Dickerson. Ferrary’s are trial lawyers, environmental entities, and education-related entities, including the NM Federation of Teachers. Ferrary is also supported by the New Mexico Education Association and the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. ]

 

 

We Should All Vote -- then All Discuss What's Gone Wrong!

The late breaks don’t seem to be falling Donald Trump’s way, so perhaps even Republican vote-suppression tactics won’t save him.

Polls have him well behind Joe Biden. Trump’s base still loves him; but he’s no longer a newcomer promising change. People have seen four years of mismanagement and illegality, beneath a thin veneer of bluster. He has a record now, notably his abject failure to deal with the pandemic; and Biden isn’t as unpopular as Hillary Clinton was.

The debates seemed a potential “Hail Mary,” but Trump aided Biden by feigning doubt Biden had sufficient stamina. That enhanced the effect of Biden’s energy and focus. Then Trump turned most everyone off by interrupting Biden and Chris Wallace constantly, without actually saying much, in what may have been a failed effort to induce Biden to stutter. Then Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, whose mere civility made both seem winners, yakked to sort of a draw. Harris “won” in the polls, though likely because she had more supporters going in.

Trump ducked the second debate because it would be “virtual.” But he needed it. Biden didn’t. And many folks might have felt like the friend who sent me a cartoon showing a mother working virtually at her computer, and a small child at her feet attending “virtual” school, and Trump saying he wouldn’t debate virtually. “If it’s good enough for my wife and daughter, why not for Donald?” my friend commented. The third debate might come too late, even if Trump could reshuffle his playbook.

Trump can’t reshuffle his playbook, to his party’s chagrin. While his base cheers his every mention of Hillary Clinton’s emails and Hunter Biden, he’s losing Independents and crossover Democrats who know him better now. The “Best Hits of 2016” won’t cut it. Trump’s response is to waffle on white supremacy, feign ignorance of Q-Anon but praise its stand against pedophilia, and now float the idea that the raid that killed Ossama bin Laden was a hoax. Really?

His key points don’t appeal to non-base voters. The truth value of each is highly questionable. More important, they’re all in the past. They won’t help keep a virus-infected parent alive, or feed any of the millions who’ve slipped into poverty since the last stimulus payments.

Meanwhile, a lot of “red” states are giving Biden a look. They too have people dying. They too may be tired of the sheer noise of a Trump Presidency, more than any other in recent memory. They may have relatives and friends in the military, or themselves have served.

But the effort to skew or undermine the voting has many facets. Many swing states have “purged” more voters than they should have. In California, Republicans have insisted on using apparently illegal “voting collection boxes” which allegedly bear misleading “official” labels and lack safeguards against chicanery. In Texas, courts had to overrule the effort to allow only one absentee ballot box per county. In New Mexico, Republicans put out misleading voting information, perhaps accidentally.

The pandemic mandates more voting by mail. Trump and far-right groups are suing numerous states to make voting harder. As one conservative once told a group of evangelical leaders, “I don’t want everybody to vote [because] our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” Repeated studies show “voter fraud” is extremely rare.

Whatever your personal take on the last four years is, please vote!

                                                   – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 October 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG’s website. A radio commentary based on it will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will be available on demand at KRWG’s site.]

[Trump knows right-wing “militia” members were arrested recently for trying to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and “try” her themselves in an undisclosed location. What astonishing lack of grace or good sense would allow him then to hold a rally in Michigan Saturday and enjoy his partisans’ shouting “lock her up!” and not raise a hand to say, courteously, at least that though we disagree completely with her, these are civil governmental matters, not justification for criminal violence against here? If one of these clowns shoots or “locks her up” next week, maybe this time is is legally an accessory.

Trump’s response to the “lock her up!” chant? “Lock ‘em all up!”
Some people in the audience then started chanting, “lock her up!”  He didn’t add, “Be careful, though. No violence!” Rather, he added, “be careful of her because you know they're like in charge of the ballot stuff. How the hell do I put my political and our country's political life in the hands of a pure partisan like that?" ]

[I have friends at pickleball (and elsewhere) who will vote for Trump. We kid each other, and mostly don’ actually argue. But it mystifies me that they seem not to see that this guy is a serious danger to our way of life. Not because of some crazy theories about what people allege, but simply from his own words and actions right in front of us. This is not Obama vs. Romney or McCain. This is not Clinton vs. Dole, or the elder Bush. Even George Bush, though an unqualified and lousy president, seems to have been a decent guy inside. Trump is not; and his policies are weakening the U.S. as a country in many visible ways.

Further, despite my experience with my Trumpist friends and acquaintances, Trump is personally making our political dialogue far more rancorous and hate-filled than it should be. He’s not the only cause of that. Probably we’re all guilty of contributing to that, or most of us anyway. But for him, spewing hate and insults is a way of life.]

[The quote is attributed to Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation: “I don’t want everybody to vote [because] our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” The Heritage Foundation is one entity shouting out the voter-fraud myth; but apparently its own research shows that in the past 20 years, 0.00006 percent of all mail-in ballots cast were fraudulent. Greg Abbott sure saw it that way, mandating that each Texas county have only one drop-off box for absentee ballots. Some Texas counties are bigger than a lot of countries. A federal judge nixed this obvious vote-suppression move, but a three-judge panel of Trump-appointed appellate judges put the rule back in place. ]

[But all this is easy to see and say. What is harder to discern is just how we bring ourselves back from where Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party have brought us. Or, where we have brought ourselves. We elected a con man, a carnival barker, a known racist. We need to look inward, as a nation. Trump didn’t just happen; and that folks who helped him, including the Russians, weren’t well-meaning doesn’t explain or excuse us. What was the disease or infection we mistakenly hoped Trumpism might cure?” Maybe that’s my next column, but I can’t promise “The Answer.”]

 

This guy showed up yesterday.  Expressed no interest in Trump or Biden

The Harris-Pence Debate

I wish candidates would answer the questions.

The vice-presidential debate reminded me of moderating candidate fora where candidates take any question as an invitation to cover the next few talking points.

The first question to Mike Pence was why the U.S., with advanced medical learning and technology has seen so vastly more COVID-19 cases and deaths than other nations? It ain’t close. We’re 4% of the world’s population and have suffered more than 20% of the world’s COVID-19 cases. Some folks blame governmental incompetence.

I think other factors contribute. For example, our junk-food-driven obesity epidemic. But with many citizens listening to a leader who mocks disease and doctors, spurns masks, lies, and thinks he knows more than the experts on any subject, . . . well, you do the math.

Of course Pence didn’t attempt to answer. Not even the red herrings of “We count better,” or “The doctors call everything COVID-19 to sabotage Trump.” Pence just made a bunch of false statements about Trump leading the biggest mobilization since World War II.

Harris should have noted the widespread conclusion that there was mismanagement and Pence’s failure to offer any alternative explanation, and yielded him 20 seconds of her time to explain why we’ve suffered so much worse than other nations. The moderator should have told Pence, “Gee, perhaps I didn’t word my question clearly: with all our advantages, we’ve suffered way worse than almost anyone else. Democrats blame Mr. Trump. What is your explanation?”

Both Harris and Pence declined to answer the good question, “Given your presidential candidate’s age, have you conferred with the head of the ticket about what should be done if he’s incapacitated? If not, should you?” Good question, but one I’m guessing the debate-prep teams might have missed.

Of course, this debate was much more civil and watchable than the first presidential debate. (What wouldn’t be?) But uttering ridiculously false statements in reasonable tones doesn’t move them into the same zip code as the truth.

Pence said many things that contradict the available evidence. About the pandemic and about Trump’s disregard for military people. He said, “We’ll follow the science” on global warming. He reiterated the claim Trump has some magical health care plan. When a fly landed, and lingered on Pence’s white hair, the Internet lit up with suggestions that some of Pence’s answers smelled like a substance flies are known to favor.

Harris exaggerated some, and substituted some stories from her life for actual answers, but didn’t seem as prone to flat misstatements; and she too evaded questions. One tough question the Democratic candidates understandably duck is their position on possible court-packing or other measures if Trump successfully adds yet another far right Justice. Tough question. The answer either becomes an instant headline (“BIDEN WON’T RULE OUT COURT-PACKING” ) or seems a broken promise if the court is later “packed.” But I’d sure try to fashion a more presentable way of waffling.

I think Harris reassured skeptics that she is not wild or weird, but well-spoken and calm and thoughtful. That was her task, as the first lady of color on a national ticket. Pence came off as far more reasonable and articulate than Mr. Trump, although some women critics accused him of “man-spaining.”

Polls showed a majority thought Harris won, perhaps because a similar majority already preferred her ticket. Probably the whole thing will matter little more than the fly.

                                                                      - 30 -

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 October 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper’s website and KRWG’s website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL (www.lccommunityradio.org), and will be available on demand at KRWG’s site.]

[Law students love the old Latin phrase, “Res Ipsa Loquitur.” “The thing speaks for itself.” Here, that’d mean that governmental incompetence must be the explanation of our country’s higher death rate. Add to that the many known and alleged ways that Mr. Trump has (or allegedly has) screwed this thing up.

However, journalists and lawyers try to consider all possible explanations for anything. It certainly seems that our obesity epidemic could be a factor. I’ve wondered if our medical ability to keep folks alive for a very long time could be a factor, but other countries have longer life expectancies but lower COVID-19 death rates. So I’d really be interested in ANYONE’s explanation of why we’re being hit so bad, if it’s not negligent leadership. And the fact that Democratic-led states, on the whole are doing better than Republican-led states tends to support (but doesn’t prove!) the incompetence theory. ]

[Being a moderator is frustrating, particularly when the pandemic precautions mean Walt and I are talking to candidates over the phone. We don’t tend to give people set time limits; and, because facial expressions don’t cut it, and we can’t indicate with a facial expression or nod that “yeah, we got it, wind that answer up, please,” I end up interrupting, often after minutes of battling with myself. Some mornings I hate all political candidates – particularly the ones I like. ]

[By the way, vote! I’ll vote this week. I had ordered an absentee ballot, but likely will hand-carry it to the polls. By the way, if you have ordered an absentee ballot, but want to vote in person because of concern that the absentee ballot could get lost in the mail or be disqualified for some technical reason, you’ll save a hassle by taking it in with you. My understanding is that if you don’t, you can still vote, but yours will be a provisional vote, counted only at the end once they know your absentee ballot never came in. That’s fine, and your vote will be counted, but it takes a little extra time. ] 

 

River Thoughts

Our community is illustrating Aldo Leopold’s remark that our "paradoxical mixture of appetite and altruism for our recreational lands” requires tough decisions among opposing interests.

Organizers of the 4^th Annual River Run (October 17^th, with a smaller event October 10th) proudly proclaim they expect thousands of people, many from outside New Mexico, for a rally in which jeeps, trucks, and off-road vehicles race up and down the Rio Grande. They hope to donate funds raised to a charity and to needy families. They’re particularly excited about organizing a fun event after months of relative isolation.

Unfortunately, the rally would be disastrous. A huge gathering of strangers in town, eating, drinking, and laughing together, could easily become a COVID-19 “superspreader” event. State officials in charge of enforcing the Public Health Order, New Mexico State Police, and Doña Ana Sheriff’s Office are on alert.

Rally organizers expect at least a thousand people from Arizona alone; but out-of-state visitors are required to quarantine for 14 days, which would preclude participating in the event.

The event requires a special event permit from the International Boundary and Water Commission, which controls the riverbed. All departments, including Environmental, must review the permit application. The process is usually lengthy. Organizers were unaware of the permit requirement until last week, and may not have applied yet. They also would have to obtain appropriate liability insurance against personal injuries and property damage.

Several conservationist organizations sent IBWC a detailed letter explaining damage the rally could do, including harm to migrating birds and to four riparian habitat-restoration projects.

Southwest Environmental Center Executive Director Kevin Bixby said, “the river, despite its appearance at times, is a living ecosystem. Those pockets of water – which are fun to drive through – contain fish, on which herons and egrets depend for food. They’re particularly important right now for migrating waterfowl.” The rally would destroy vegetation, erode riverbanks, and spill a lot of oil and gas in the river.

Elaine Stachera Simon of Mesilla Valley Audobon Society said the event would harm birds, including migrating birds, by destroying insect larvae and other food sources. “There are other places they could do this. The migratory birds have no alternative. No one is anti-ATV. We’re pro-wildlife.”

Another conservationist said that no sane community, after approving use of public land for the Rio Grande Trail, creating a corridor plan highlighting its river as a functioning survival route for migratory and resident species, spending funds and effort on wetland and riparian restoration, co-hosting Species in Peril workshops and lectures, and spending $200 million to raise levees, would then support “a monster truck/ATV rally with hundreds, if not thousands, of resident and out-of-state vehicles pummeling this same corridor, threatening all these investments and commitments.”

Doña Ana County Commissioner Shannon Reynolds said, “I’m in favor of outdoor recreation, if it’s done right – in cooperation with nature, not an abuse of nature – and with appropriate permitting.”

As often happens, both sides involve good people trying to do what they feel is good for the community. We should listen to all viewpoints – and hope the current controversy educates all of us.

Aldo Leopold suggested we "quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically right, as well. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." 

                                                           – 30 – 

 

 [The above column appeared this morning in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website. A radio commentary based on it will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM, http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), as well as being available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

For those interested in looking further into this, here’s a video clip of last year’s event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha4h4uas_FE&fbclid=IwAR0ufPEw9lBHq25A2MFh0exyJ9Y1p42_UdOfksIW87CR6N9D3iFsVu38JO4]

[I look forward to discussing this on radio Wednesday morning with both Randall Limón and Kevin Bixby, and perhaps others. By the way, “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” this week will include: at 8, our candidate forum for New Mexico House District 33, with incumbent Rep. Micaela Cadena, whose opponent, Beth Miller, has apparently pulled out or declined to appear; at 8:30 or so, we’ll talk about this difference of opinion regarding the river; at from 9-10 we’ll discuss the proposal for New Mexico to have a state bank. Proponents and opponents will participate, including bankers, a credit union executive, County Treasurer Eric Rodriguez, and his electoral challenger Bernadette Dorazio. We invite listeners to call in with questions or brief comments.  (101.5 FM, http://www.lccommunityradio.org/)]

[By the way, it's not clear whether or not the River Run organizers have actually applied for a permit yet.  That process turns out to be quite complicated; and I know from prior experience that applications for a license or permit from the IBWC can take a while.  Organizers have an alternative site in mind, although I'll admit I hope they postpone the whole thing.  It's just basic arithmetic that drawing many visitors from out-of-state and elsewhere within the state right now, some of whom will stay here a night or two, eating in restaurants and drinking in bars, just seems unwise right now from a pandemic viewpoint.  But it'll be interesting to talk further with both organizers and conservationists.  ]

 

Our Supreme Court's Crumbling Credibility

Many Supreme Court justices have been appointed in the final year of a Presidential term, including Anthony Kennedy in 1988 by Ronald Reagan – with a Democratic Senate majority.

In January 2016, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a widely respected moderate judge. Republican Senate leadership refused even to bring Garland’s name to a vote. The excuse was the presidential election ten months away, which Republicans said should decide which party could nominate a new justice. Sen. Lindsey Graham said the Republicans would do the same in 2020, if a Republican president were completing his term and a Supreme Court seat came open. Democrats complained, but were powerless.

The Republicans’ action was unprecedented. Further, their rationale was fatuous. If a party’s senators may go on strike for the last year of the term of another party’s president, why not the last two years? Or three? One party could simply freeze the other out of the Supreme Court Justice appointing business.

The Republicans have acted lawfully, but unwisely. This can’t end well. I don’t approve of the Republican leadership’s power grab in 2016, or the current hypocrisy in rushing Trump’s nominee through. I don’t like what the Democrats may feel compelled to do in response. Court-packing has a bad name, but Congress could do it. The Constitution doesn’t set the number of justices (initially six). Dems could create a 15-member supreme court; then some day the Republicans could up that to 21.

The Constitution doesn’t call for parties. One could reasonably argue we’d be better off without ‘em. But after Republicans have used Russian help and unprecedented tactics to create a Court out of step with voters, it’d be hard not to take lawful corrective measures.

The Republicans have weakened the Court. Our forefathers founded a country of laws, which works only so long as citizens trust that laws are enforced fairly. That’s what the black robes and formalities are for. Justice is blind to color, faith, or politics. Although no judge can be completely neutral, our system depends on approaching that ideal as nearly as we can. Many justices were approved by acclamation. But now, increasingly, the question is not the candidate’s experience, sagacity, and judicial chops, but her party loyalty and position on abortion. We may get a nominee with just three years on the bench, and who wasn’t primarily a trial lawyer. But she’s indicated she’ll place her political beliefs above legal precedents.

And what of our democracy? Trump has broken laws and destroyed many safeguards against a corrupt dictatorship. He’s fired inspectors general (positions created by both parties as watchdogs for corruption and misconduct), and this week replaced one neutral IG with an aide to Trump-worshiping far-right Congressman Nunes. Republicans are using various tricks to decrease the vote count among people of color. Trumpist lawyers will wage an incredible fight, on the least excuse, to overturn an adverse result. Now Trump refuses to say he’ll leave the White House voluntarily if he loses.

In 2000, Republican justices bowed to party loyalty in Bush-Gore, tossing cherished principles out the window. Now a far-right supreme court, including three Trump appointees, could decide this election. It had seemed the Chief Justice’s respect for law, and his concern for his legacy, might lead him to choose law over Trump; but this new appointment could “trump” law and legacy.

Republicans know they’re increasingly unappealing to voters. Are they hoping a dictatorship will save them?

                                               – 30 –

 

[The column above appeared this morning in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website. A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will be available on demand on KRWG’s website.]

[We will now have a Supreme Court that is deeply out of step with the U.S. population. A majority of that population voted for Hillary Clinton and will likely vote for Joe Biden. The Supreme Court will have a two-thirds majority of deeply conservative justices. A larger majority of U.S. citizens believe pregnancies and abortions are for a woman, her doctor, and perhaps her husband or lover to decide – not the law. This Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade.

Two points are a little less obvious. One is that Supreme Court credibility is being shredded, and will continue to be shredded. Legally, the Supreme Court is supposed to be interpreting the U.S. Constitution (and U.S. laws). Usually if the Court has decided a point in the past, the Court will respect that precedent. If this Court flatly tosses Roe v Wade out the window, it’s saying “Listen, this isn’t about the Constitution or any orderly process, we just think this way and have the power to do this.” Similarly, if a later Supreme Court re-interprets the Constitution as it has been interpreted in the past, as including women’s right to choose to abort a pregnancy, that will seem a political decision, not a neutral interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The more often and the more plainly these things happen, the less moral or ethical authority the Court retains.

Secondly, the Supreme Court makes a difference not only on Roe v. Wade and gun control. It makes decisions on other headline items (whether or not governmental regulations aimed at combating global warming are permissible; immigration; First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion) but a host of unnoticed issues that matter to someone: what protections do we have against monopolies? What are our rights to sue companies that do things that hurt us? If a big company does something clearly wrong, that hurts many people a little but no one enough to make it sensible for anyone to sue alone, how easily can those victims band together in a class action? Who gets to control the Internet? Do certain issues get decided by the feds or by the states? And, occasionally, who won the Presidential election. Suffice it to say that if you are a middle-class or poor person, your rights against big corporations are in trouble; and if you’re an endangered bird, you’re history.  Oh, and if you have a pre-existing condition, forget health insurance! ]

Socialism, What Is?

What’s this “socialism,” anyway?

It started with Christian Utopian Socialists such as the Hutterites, an Anabaptist branch that lived on communes. They felt that living in a communal manner, rather than seeking financial profit from each other, emulated Christ and his disciples. (I’m not saying Jesus was a socialist; but He did say, “You cannot serve both God and Money . . . Be on guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions!” Between pure socialism and unbridled capitalism, which would He preach?) History is littered with efforts by Christians to practice socialist ideals.

Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism appears to work. Capitalism is too harsh and socialism ignores people’s selfish side. Each is theoretically consistent with democracy. In practice, either eventually perverts democracy, ending with a small group running things, usually corruptly, and holding power through force and/or propaganda. (Kerala, an Indian province, seems an exception. I’d love to visit there.)

Karl Marx didn’t invent socialism. He built on the work of many highly regarded philosophers we don’t find it necessary to hate. Marx essentially said that while capitalism had helped societies marshal technologies to develop new material goods, which worked great for some, but was not working for most people, and was therefore unsustainable.

During the early 20^th Century, many local and even Congressional elections brought socialists to office in U.S. cities and states. Only extreme right-wingers considered it evil.

Then Russian Communists came to power. Although the Czar needed overthrowing; it’s probably unfortunate that the Communists wrested control of the revolution from the other groups involved. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics perverted socialism. While some (Julius Martov?) were benign idealists, Stalin and others clearly sought and retained power through any available means. While early on the Soviet Union tried to improve the lives of the average citizen, few would try to excuse Stalin’s conduct.

Soviet conduct toward smaller nations was ugly. Think Greece, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. Sadly, U.S. conduct was equally unfortunate and misguided. (Think Iran and Guatemala in 1954, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and, most tragically, Viet Nam.) Maybe a historian could parse out how much our legitimate distrust of the Soviet Union and the Soviets’ quite justified distrust of us led each government to excesses. Neither side was as evil as the other believed, or as pure as it claimed.

The philosophy, socialism, got mixed up with Russia’s expansionism (built on reasonable fears), which conflicted with our national interest. The Soviets used the socialist ideal as a cover for international power grabs. We got their philosophy and actions confused. Our leaders used that confusion to cloak justify our international power grabs. Socialism and third-world independence did conflict with the United Fruit Company’s profits.

Tien An Men Square

The Chinese Communist Revolution started idealistically and gained popular support. The U.S. opposed it, for some stupid reasons. Mao had better intentions than we supposed; and the Chinese government made an honest (though sometimes tragically misguided) effort to better the average citizen’s life. However, it’d be hard to justify what was done to Tibetans, or during the Cultural Revolution. (In China I met survivors of the Cultural Revolution, and Tibetans, whose stories broke my heart.)

Almost all present governments offer some blend of capitalism and socialism. Many are doing better than we are. Yet we still find ourselves hollering,“Socialist!” like some half-understood playground insult.

Democracy is fragile, and precious.

                                                           – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 20 September 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG’s website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 fm (http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) during the week, and will also be available on-demand on the websites.]

[It was ironic, this morning, to take a TV break and see an ad targeting a candidate for alleged sympathy to allegedly “socialist” ideas. Those ideas seemed to be ideas for aggressively tackling global warming. I’d call those “survival” ideas.]

[I studied China, then saw it firsthand in the mid-1980’s. I sympathized with China, and had little patience for Taiwan, where the anti-Communist Chinese had fled after the revolution, and were able to build a country because the U.S. protected them. China was interesting: compared to India, it was more egalitarian; one didn’t see the huge contrasts in wealth I heard about in India. Almost no one was well off, but everyone had a roof, a job, food. However, I met so many people whose lives the Cultural Revolution had destroyed, including some older folks I grew close to, who’d been punished for speaking English or being a Catholic or a professional, as well as casual acquaintances like a cabdriver explaining that for two years of his childhood, there had just been no school. Then in Tibet . . . well,

I’ll save those encounters for a different post, but it was a sad education. I realize Tibet was no perfect society before 1959, and there were serious inequalities, but the Chinese did wrong on a huge scale.

Meanwhile, I ended up staying on Taiwan while I wrote a novel and waited for approval on a film I’d pitched to National Geographic TV. I came to respect much about that country, and to be fond of it. Yet to build it, the mainlanders had started by massacring large numbers of native Taiwanese, a crime our government kept quiet about.. (It was a county the size of New Jersey. I actually played basketball on national television once.) At any rate, I saw the virtues and the warts of the Peoples Republic of China, close up; and I got an even closer look at the Republic of China (Taiwan). Perhaps the closer you get, the less simple anything is.]

[On the often “socialist” theme of the Bible, there were many other quotations, including some from the Old Testament, that wouldn’t fit in the column. Then this morning a friend and reader commented:

”Thanks very much for the excellent reminder of a very neglected Biblical theme.  A careful study of the Old Testament laws had quite a few “socialist” features including rules about gleaning the crops, cancellation of debts and proper treatment of travelers and immigrants. 

”Christ practiced “socialized medical/mental health care” without discrimination based upon social taboos/distinction.  Matthew 20 names full employment and living wage as “kingdom of heaven” characteristics.

”Acts 4:32-37 records the establishment of socialism within the Christian community in Jerusalem early in the history.  Same thing with healings (medical/mental).  Indeed the whole community became so popular that the whole community was driven out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3) just like in the US several times in our history.

“The 1st centuries saw the formation of monastic groups that are still in existence and are still socialist.  Mondragon cooperatives in Spain were founded by a Catholic priest and he used the Catholic social justice teachings to structure it. 

”So these theological feather weights that are so noisily prominent in the US are the “anti Christ” in our midst!!!  Quite a history, no senor? ]

[Finally, the author of our “Pledge of Allegiance” was Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), an American Baptist minister and a leading Christian socialist. Like Pope Leo, he championed the rights of working people and a more equal distribution of wealth and income, which he believed reflected Jesus’ teachings. In 1891, Bellamy was fired from his Boston pulpit for preaching against the evils of capitalism and describing Jesus as a socialist. His Looking Backward was a favorite book of my father’s. But Bellamy is best known for the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which he wrote in 1892 as an antidote to Gilded Age greed, misguided materialism, and hyper-individualism, as reflected in the radical words “with liberty and justice for all.” (Bellamy did not include “under God” in the Pledge. Congress added that in 1953, during the Cold War).]