What Do You Expect?

There are hundreds of political talking heads out there, and most do not get Senator Sanders.. Most seem clueless about what the nominee is trying to accomplish. Instead they focus on infighting or poll numbers: Senator Sanders wants the Democratic Party to revert to the 1930s when FDR took bold steps to revitilize our economy and build new political allegiances along with modern views on equality. The Democratic Party was out of the White House from 1968 to 1992 except for President Carter's four years. President Clinton won because he took the party to a defensible political center and because his people ran an extraordinary campaign. That campaign has evolved into the most powerful political organization in the country. They went into the 2016 campaign so strongly prepared that they scared virtually everyone off of the stage except Sanders and that other guy. It is obvious that the Sanders campaign has been run by the seat of their pants. Sanders did have a solid core of astute, experienced organizers. With them, he decided to try to push big issues that promote the general welfare ala Roosevelt. Sanders then caught a wave after the Occupy Movement began to roll up on the beach. Sander's gift has been prescience. He knows that big issues will resonate. The institute for Policy Studies and Oxfam provide documentation that the top 1% will soon own more than the rest of us. That is nothing short of an Oligarchy, especially considering Citizens United. This disparity is worse than at any time since the 1920s. We know how that worked out. It is also nothing like anything in between those peaks. He knows that this isn't some sterile set of numbers but the degrading standard of living for the vast majority of Americans. He knows that this is not a time to build a redoubt as Willie did but to advance. He knows that they need to push hard for advances on issues like health care, education, and infrastructure. The Democratic Party platform has always been very progressive, so there is no need to knit pick angels and pins. There is every reason to believe that those issues can be resolved. Furthermore, Sanders is not stupid. He knows that his new party must take on an oligarchy and reaction of the worst kind: shear ignorance and bigotry. Sanders also knows that the Republican nominee is part of the 1%. Sanders knows, however, that the movement he now leads has to be won over by Clinton. She is not automatically entitled to the support of countless alienated young and old who are new to politics. The media's concentration on Sanders as a threat to the Democratic Party should instead concentrate on examining Sander's focus on the top 1%. They should concentrate on who in the 1% dominate “independent” super PACs. These talking heads have looked at the concentration of wealth: they just don't get it.

Trump's Appeal

Trump's fundamental appeal is his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. While there is much support for illegal immigrants, there is also seething opposition to allowing people to come into the country illegally and take jobs from citizens. This is not to them a racist response but an issue of fairness. That is not to say that racists and opportunists don't take advantage of the situation to spew their vile blather. This racism only makes it more difficult to stand up against illegal immigration for fear of being tarnished with the same brush as those racists. The job market for legal residents and citizens has deteriorated along with the growth of undocumented workers. The problem is only exacerbated by misinformation and misplaced sympathies. For a long time, illegal immigrants only took jobs that others did not want because the wages were too low to provide for a family. Illegall immigrants are now being hired for skilled, semi-skilled jobs, and even publically financed jobs. Supporters of illegal immigrants are also disingenuous about how many people are in the country: the numbers are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics which depends upon illegal immigrants admitting that they are here illegally. Furthermore, there was a organized effort to encourage illegal immigrants to lie about their status during the 2010 census. The problem is not being addressed because of broad support for illegal immigrants among our elite: the Democratic and Republican Parties have both turned a blind eye to and/or took advantage of the problem for years. That is because illegal workers push down labor costs. In addition, Illegal immigrants represent a large, potentially political force because of their social inroads into American families. The solution, by the way, is mandatory E-Verify. Democrats and progressives ignore the consequences of job loss on citizens, especially workers. American Capital has been importing illegal labor and exporting jobs for decades. Senator Sanders rails against the export of jobs but supports illegal employment at the expense of American workers. It is the one important issue where both Secretary Clinton and Trump have a better waffle. Trump, however, rails against both illegal immigrants and the export of jobs. Who do you think average Americans will sympathize with in a confrontation between illegal immigrants flying Mexican flags and Trump? These flag-waving protesters in California are trying to prevent a major American Presidential candidate from exspressing his views In doing so, these protesters have transformed the image of Trump from condoning/encouiraging brutality in his rallies to a man trying to control the violence and express his political views.

The Clintons Are Better than the GOP: For What It's Worth

It has to be said that President Clinton's administration was an improvement over his GOP predecessors. For instance, a lot of jobs were created and the administration had a much more diversified look. He had budget surpluses the last three years in office. He also supported and signed the Family Leave Act in 1993. His intervention in Kosovo helped improve our relations in the Middle East because we intervened to protect a Muslim minority in Europe. We played an important role in temporarily de-escalating tensions in the Palestinian occupation. On the other hand, the Clintons introduced Welfare reform that was a disaster; a federal three-strikes law that backfired; set back the struggle for women's equality in the work place by Willie letting an intern give him a blow job in the White House; bowed to the financial magnets with the Gramm-Leach Act that deregulated and helped unleash banking mismanagement; negotiated treaties that exported American jobs abroad; and did absolutely nothing to keep factories from being dismantled and sent abroad with our jobs. Some would argue that the Clintons had to compromise with the GOP in order to take back the White House after years of GOP domination. Perhaps that was the case twenty years ago. Today, however, the job market is producing fewer and fewer decent jobs; the health care reform that sucked up all of Obama's political capital was pretty much right out of the Conservative Heritage foundation playbook; our infrastructure looks more and more like some third world failed state, an oligarchy pretty much dominates our political system, and the GOP is in a meltdown. We can be led by fear of the return of the GOP to the White House and continue to make weak and detrimental compromises, allow the e-mail scandal to weaken our chances against the GOP, and embrace temerity. On the other hand, we could decide that we need bold action and mobilization of working people to galvanize a brighter future. Senator Sanders is not perfect, but he is at least capable of providing us with a picture of America that can actually make us great again. Sanders is just as likely to continue Democratic efforts to improve the standing of minorities, and more likely to advocate for Native Peoples. His lifelong record of taking principled stands is in stark contrast to the Clintons: he took on social bigotry on the House floor while the Clintons were pushing “Don't ask, Don't Tell”. More important, he understands that we will not face down the political power of our oligarchy unless we mobilize all Americans to do so. As he recently told Chris Matthews, he does not think inside the beltway.

What Is Socialism

What Is Socialism Just what is Socialism? The term is being used in many different ways right now leading to a lot of confusion among people. Old Cold War and Capitalist spins on the word have, furthermore, always tried to paint the most vile image of the concept. The idea of collective economic cooperation can be traced to the earliest human social tribal forms; people banded together in communities to provide for the community. There are many biblical reference to communities sharing in their bounty. Jesus shared his bounty with his posse and others. The term Socialism evolved in Western Europe in reaction to the confiscation of common lands and the evolution of Capitalism. Over the course of the last two hundred years, the term has splintered into a variety of definitions. I shall try to briefly review this evolution. Socialism initially had a Utopian cast to its use. A number of people developed ideas about people 'sharing the wealth'. Karl Marx was the first person to attempt to define Socialism and Communism in a sociological manner. His primary work, however, was involved in analyzing Capitalism. In the mid to late 19th century, two distinct definitions began to evolve that lead to our current confusion about Socialism. Both definitions are based upon a reaction to mature Corporate Capitalism. The essence of the first definition is Socialism that is often referred to as Democratic Socialism. The second definition is usually referred to as Social Democracy. It should be noted that these two and all other definitions except for the bastardized use of the term by both Hitler and the Soviet Union have been rooted Democratic values. Socialists have always been in the forefront of the struggle to attain Natural Rights and Civil Rights and other forms of social power that devolves to the entire community as opposed to any power elite. Democratic Socialism is what is usually meant generally by Socialism. Democratic Socialists envision a political economy in which economic institutions are owned collectively in the interest of all. The aim of Democratic Socialism is to replace Capitalism. A Democratic Socialist society would presume that all able-bodied would participate in work and share in the bounty of that work. The obvious concern of such a society is to insure that government remains completely Democratic. The erosion of Democratic control would lead dictatorial control of society, especially where federalism and the separation of powers are compromised. The Social Democratic political movement began in the era of Corporate Capitalist abuses in the late 19th century. This movement does not want to abolish Capitalism but regulate it and provide for government institutions that mitigate the worst aspects of capitalism: poverty, slum housing, health and safety, and the ups and downs of economic cycles. The downside of this movement is that institutions like Social Security, welfare, minimum wages and other forms of government involvement in society are dominated by the oligarchy that continues to dominate society by virtue of their economic and political power. That is what we have witnessed for the last century in America. I want to add one final comment to this essay in reference to Senator Bernard Sanders. The good gentleman has defined himself as a Democratic Socialists for decades, but he would classified as Social Democrat by the definitions used here. While there is some disparity in how the terms are used in political science, the definitions are most often defined as they are in this essay. Senator Sanders will need to define how he would distinguish himself, but he never suggests abolishing Capitalism and always discusses in his proposals the mitigation of Capitalist abuses or problems.

Liberalism

Liberalism is incapable of seeing outside of the box of their society because of a blind loyalty in and fear of the powers that be; the result is that they take half or watered down measures to address existential threats to the survival of society. Liberalism assumes that Capitalism is the most superior political economy in history. Their patron saint is Adam Smith, but many also admire Ricardo, or Keynes.

When they read Marx, they are so busy looking for a ‘aha’ moment to repudiate him that they fail to comprehend him. The thing is, hardly any Liberals have read more of Marx than his pamphlets.

Liberals marched lock step in a cold war against the Soviet bloc for decades at the cost of millions of lives, and suppression of freedom in proxy nations throughout the world. Liberals sanctioned the occupation domination of any part of the planet that they could take out of Soviet control or influence. In doing so, they used a level of violence that was obscene.

Liberals don’t have the imagination to consider a single payer health care system; they would rather tinker around the edges of a system that has failed to insure the welfare of the public as mandated by our constitution.

Liberalism would have been unable to think outside the box enough for the Louisiana Purchase. It took the radicalism of Jefferson to pull it off, but they had no problem with the expropriation of all of that land from its real indigenous owners, wiping out a more superior civilization in the process.

Liberal failed to recognize the recent enormous economic crisis coming and they failed to grasp how much had to be done to address it. Paul Krugman has eaten them alive in recent years with biting criticisms of government policy for their failure of imagination. Liberals have helped transfer the production process off shore and supported free but not fair trade, and they share the mantra that, ‘These jobs are going, and they ain’t comin back’.

Liberals fail to understand how radical infrastructure reform is essential to the survival of the planet. They see whales dying and ally with Radicals to seek reform, but they fail to address the destruction of life on this planet that is unfolding before the eyes of a couple of generations; if left to their devices, new and hopefully smarter creatures will have to evolve for the survival of life.

Liberals have abetted the influx and protection of illegal immigrants that have been brought into this country by Capital for decades. They have ignored a solution to the problem that is decades old, Barbara Jordan laid out a coherent plan more than a decade ago and Liberals have been running from it ever since. President missed an opportunity to push for mandatory employee verification as a consequence.

Let us recognize that Conservatism has in every area listed of failed Liberalism. In addition, Liberalism has also helped advance Society. Their support for civil rights has been incredible; their support for religious freedom is remarkable; Liberals supported the abolition of slavery before the Civil War. Great Liberals like Teddy had the courage to preserve much of our natural heritage. Liberals supported worker safety a century ago; they supported the rights of working people to form unions almost eighty years ago. They build up a social protective network that sustains us today. Their recognition of their failure to stop the Vietnam War has haunted them for decades, so they are far less likely to support reckless in foreign affairs in recent years.

Conservatism

I will propose to you that Conservatism is inherently incapable of addressing today's problems because of a failure of imagination. For instance, Conservatism is incapable of recognizing the need to make a radical transformation in our use of energy as we sludge into peak oil. Conservatism doesn't seem to be able to recognize that different cultures can have very different views of the world that need to be respected. This is particularly true of religious Conservatives of all bents: the very idea that people would kill God's children in God's name bespeaks that incapacity.

One of the primary chinks in the Armor of Conservatism is that they tend to be too rigid in maintaining the status quo. By that criterion, Conservatives can be any people in any culture. For instance, those people that blindly struggled to maintain the status quo in the post-war Soviet Union were actually practicing Conservatism exactly when they should have been looking at reform. Communists in Europe (especially Italy or France), Iraq, Iran, Mao or Fidel were all more likely to struggle for reforms and did so. Italian Communists had a very 'Anarchist' tinge. Communists in Iraq & Iran struggled for Democratic institutions even as the Democratic West helped crush them. Mao could see the failures of the Soviet society and pushed the envelope in order to prevent the re-introduction of antagonistic classes. Fidel, at least in his youth, was very receptive to Western 'enlightenment' ideology re Liberty. Kennedy's failure to recognize that was one of his biggest missed opportunities.

On the other hand, Conservatism is perfectly capable preserving our environment, but Conservatives have utterly failed in that duty. So, they don't seem to get it right even when their better angels point them in the right direction. It is true, however, that a small part of the Christian Right as well as many ranchers and farmers have embraced environmentalism.

You Are the Center of the Universe

It can be scientifically proven that you are the center of the universe. Parents have been trying to keep this information away from their children for thousands of years for fear that the information would spoil you. Modern science cannot, however, be denied.

As you may know, astronomers use their extended hand as a crude measurement of distances between objects in the sky: I learned this originally from a star guide from Griffith Observatory in L.A.

You use your hand as a measuring device. You extend your arm straight out in front of you and bend your hand straight up. In the Griffith manual, the width of your index finger equals one degree. The widest span of one’s hand with your fingers touching is about ten degrees, and the span of one’s hand with your fingers spread out is about fifteen degrees.

In other manuals different measures are given, but so long as the group gathered out under the stars is using the same measurement it is a handy means of helping someone find an object relative to other objects in the sky.

Now, when you hold your arm straight out in front of you as described above and slowly spin around 360 degrees in a complete circle, you are in the center of everything around you: in other words, you are the center of the universe.

Skeptics will immediately point out that if everyone else did the same thing, everyone else would also be the center of the universe. That is the magic of it. The epistemological meaning of that theological conundrum will be one that will puzzle you as it has puzzled humanity for millennia.

Who Speaks in 2008?

Who now speaks for single payer, universal health care? All employees and employers should contribute via payroll deduction by Medicare; the latter would distribute funding of health care revenues to the current distribution of providers. It is clean and simple: savings in administration alone would be an incentive. The downside is the loss of income and consequent loss of jobs in the health insurance industry: we should give preferential hiring status to those at risk employees from the industry into Medicare for the new positions that it will take to assume the responsibility.

Who speaks now for re-industrialization; a strong, industrially-based, economic infrastructure that provides employment for Americans? We should have a diversified economy that provides for all of our social, economic, cultural, and military needs. We should use federal funds to underwrite the start up of cooperative employee groups that want to assume responsibility for the work that it will take for us to be socially, culturally, economically, and militarily secure. Those co-ops would be much less likely to try to send our jobs abroad. We should be creating public utilities using a diversified, technologically advanced system of energy production, storage, and transportation; this should include new oil and gas refineries along with other infrastructure until we transition off of that source of energy; in so doing, we can develop the safest product possible from that source.

Solar energy can provide most of our stationary sources of energy use, including transportation. We should invest in a nationwide network of high speed rail, and we should use the most advanced technology possible. This should include local use of new magnetic and other technology. We want to look at the most promising technology for solar panels; this would include the actual structure of the panels but also the type of solar panel material used and its relative cost; there is promising work in South Africa for a more efficient product. There are many other sources of energy that are now available or in some distant horizon such as nuclear fusion.

We cannot develop this secure social order unless we gain control of employer hiring practices with a verifiable worker eligibility system. Doing so will expose employers who are illegally hiring ineligible workers. The outcome will include the loss of millions of jobs by ineligible workers over time. We need to plan for that dislocation so that we implement it humanely. We will also need to address those foreign residents who truly want to become Americans after generations of residence. While we should be generous in implementing these policies, we must also be prudent in protecting the interests of citizens and other legal residents.

In so doing, we should coordinate with our international neighbors. Those countries should welcome those educated, experienced workers to help develop their country. Those here illegally should have part of their contribution to social security, albeit via illegal use of credit cards, returned to them upon a return to permanent home residence. I would suggest that people would have to demonstrate a negotiated residency requirement before payment. By the way, if we do that we should also help them borrow money to tide them over at a reasonable rate, so they are not gouged by economic predators.

One of the most important reasons to talk to our international neighbors is to deal with the issue of over population. Humanity is a cancer on the earth that threatens to kill it: there should only be about 2 billion people on the planet. We should accomplish this slowly over numerous decades of efforts but get it done.

My own belief is that we need to abolish wage slavery if we are going to do these things more efficiently and thoroughly, but that is another issue for another discussion. In the meantime, we have a Constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of our citizens. Conservatives completely disregard the inclusion of the language in the preamble and Article I, and Liberals don’t talk about it nearly enough. Just because James Madison had a narrow view of the concept does not mean that we can’t alter our views based up current needs and opportunities. Jefferson used that logic in the Louisiana Purchase. Financing the railroads is another example, but control of the monopoly conditions by big money resulted in most profit benefits going to railroad magnets; that is why we should develop our infrastructure via public utilities wherever possible.