Some Common Sense observations about Democrats

Click the image for the article

Prologue: there is a good and substantial reason why moderate Democrats are being challenged by DSA Democrats who more often than not win their primaries.  And there is a good and substantial reason why Democratic voters are abandoning us in favor of Republicans, MAGA or standard.  Democrats of the last 30-45 years have not delivered.  “But, Obamacare.”  A good but unsatisfactory answer to our nation’s healthcare problems.  Can you name a few other Democratic accomplishments?  Bill Clinton’s budget surpluses?  Ummm.  Gotcha!

I, a New York Democrat, assert – with little fear of contradiction – that two New York City Democrats – Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader – are among the most soporific politicians in the country.  In addition, one would be hard-pressed to identify what these two high-ranking Democrats actually stand for.  Well, maybe, “we don’t like Donald Trump” and “we’re not Republicans” and "we're gonna win the midterms."  Not exactly a winning platform.

The Common Sense Party

America needs the Common Sense Party because our democracy is a sham and the two major parties are corrupt beyond repair.[1]

We believe that many if not most elections are won or lost at the margins, by voters who are not bound by their party affiliation.[2]  This means that our “third party” candidates stand a real chance of winning if voters know that we exist and appreciate what we offer them.  What the Common Sense Party promises is unprecedented in American political history.

End Notes from Stop the Steal

Ben's 2nd book, Stop the Steal, is only available in paperback.  Which makes viewing the sources noted in the End Notes a bit of a problem to find.  So, here, the solution.

1 Mr. Conservative Republican himself, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, warned his party against this unholy alliance with these Christians and their leader, https://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2020/05/21/barry-goldwaters-Vight-against-jerry-falwell-and-themoral-majority/

A Plea to Republican Voters

You hate us more than we hate you!

Paul Pelosi was attacked early Friday morning and is lucky to be alive, hospitalized, and on the mend.  But what was the grievance of this (un-named) perpetrator against Paul Pelosi?  That he was the husband of Nancy Pelosi?  What had Mrs. Pelosi ever done to him?  What had we Americans done to those who ransacked the Capitol building on January 6th?  Why, nothing really, except to have won an election, one that Republicans wanted to win, badly.

A Common Sense Party

This got me going! 

It’s not like I got upset with their stealing the name of the party that I envision, “Common Sense” belongs to no man or at least it belongs to my great godfather, Thomas Paine, who wrote the immortal 47-page pamphlet called Common Sense and put it in the hands of Americans in January of 1776.  Rather, my idea of a Common Sense Party is no way MODERATE!  Thomas Paine was no moderate and neither am I!  Paine was an extremist in his day, preaching separation from Great Britain, while all the people – and especially the aristocrats who met in Philadelphia at the Second Continental Congress – really wanted was to be treated like full-class British citizens.  Paine convinced a nation to take the radical step of independence.

Joe Manchin, Democrat

Democrats – moderates and Progressive alike – have been cursing the evil heart of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia for not giving them what they want, a YES vote on H.R 5376, the Build Back Better Act.  

But Democrats ought to be kissing the back of Joe Manchin’s right hand for being a Democrat.  Senate Democrats, rank and file Democrats and especially President Joe Biden ought to be embracing him for partying with Democrats.

Dems ... Losing ... Messaging ... Socialism

I spoke this unforgettable quip years ago, maybe more than ten years.  “What do Democrats do best?  They lose elections.”

"But they own the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  So how can you say that?”

Indeed, they “stole” the White House from the most reviled presidential candidate in U.S. history, they took the Senate by a few Georgian hairs' breadth, and they lost thirteen seats in the House while maintaining a slim majority of seats.

The Democratic Party

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

So, you think you know what the Democratic Party is, eh?  You are wrong, no matter what you think.  Why?  Because the idea that this phrase means just one thing is – on its face – wrong. 

There are three – at least three – Democratic Parties.  One is the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and – yeah – Andrew Yang.  The second is the party of Joe Biden and all those who call themselves moderate or centrist or center-left.  The third is the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).  But let’s not forget – Trump’s favorite president, the first Democratic president – Andrew Jackson.

Ham & Jeff

Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale

A lot has been spoken and written about Thomas Jefferson being the grand-daddy of the modern Democratic party and Alexander Hamilton being the grand-daddy of the modern Republican party.  But I think this conventional wisdom is simple-minded and maybe just plain wrong.

George Washington was elected unanimously, by presidential electors, and before partisan parties sprung into being (everyone back then feared factions, or parties).  Soon enough, his most trusted advisors – Thomas Jefferson his Secretary of State and Alexander Hamilton his Secretary of the Treasury – came to (personal, political and philosophical) blows.  Those who followed Hamilton called themselves “Federalists” (the original name for those who fought for ratification of the U.S. Constitution without the need for a Bill of Rights; those who fought against ratification without a Bill of Rights were called “Anti-Federalists”).  The party that grew up around Jefferson called themselves (Democratic-)Republicans (the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist argument was over by then).  Their core disputes were over the size and reach of the new federal government, the power of the presidency, and who we should ally ourselves most strongly with, France (our revolutionary ally) or Great Britain (our revolutionary foe).

Either-Or

Republican or Democrat?  Liberal or Conservative?*   Right or Left?  Jefferson or Hamilton?  Capitalism or Socialism?  Adam Smith or Karl Marx?  Competition or cooperation?   Freedom or Equality?   Liberty or Justice?  Young or old?  Past or future?  Male or Female?  Faith or Reason?  Science or Religion?  Determinism or Free-Will?  Nature or Nurture?  Destiny or Chance?  Thinking or feeling?  Head or Heart?  Which side of each of these pairs are you?

No matter which side of any of these pairs you favor – as the true side, the right side, the moral side – you are wrong to favor one to the exclusion of the other.  For example.  Many if not most liberals believe that most or all conservatives are either evil or stupid, or both.  Guess what: conservatives believe the same about liberals.  Is it possible for one half of the nation to be always right while the other half is always wrong?  Hardly likely.  Liberals and conservatives alike have their geniuses and their fools.  Another example.  A man is a man, for sure.  But if he denies his feminine side, he leads a fractured life. C.G. Jung called the denied side of us all the Shadow side.  He wanted us not to deny our Shadow side, but to integrate it into our lives.   If the Shadow side is ignored or tamped down, it will sure as hell create havoc in our lives.  Another example: Men live their lives according to either Faith or Reason, and it makes a huge difference which side they choose.  One is not always a better guide than the other, but most people are quite certain that it is.

Our Plague

Once again, unchecked human population growth is at war with Nature – and Nature is fighting back!

Today – late-May of 2020 – our nation and the rest of the world is in lockdown.  Because of a virus, an invisible enemy.  We stay at home (involuntarily), we keep “social distance,” we wear masks, we avoid crowds (no theatre, no concerts, no restaurants, no church worship, no ball games), tens of millions have lost their jobs and their income, many get sick, many die, and we wonder when it will end, when will things return to normal?

Bernie Sanders on Socialism

A close friend of mine is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for president.  He thinks that Sanders could message better.  So, he wrote Sanders a speech that explains Sanders' notion of socialism.  Here it is.

Hello, everyone, and thank you for coming.

I am running to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States in 2020. Yes, your Democratic candidate, even though the party I have been aligned with for all these years in the breathtakingly wonderful state of Vermont is called the Democratic Socialist party.

What do I Stand for?

Many of my readers may think that I am a closet Democrat.  They would be wrong, as for decades national Democrats have been nearly as corrupt as national Republicans.  A pox on both their houses!  Well, then, a closet liberal.  Closer, as many of my political positions are liberal ones.  Nevertheless, I have worn the conservative badge in my life; but we have needed progress more than tradition these last 40 or more years, especially as regards to equal rights for previously marginalized members of our greater society.  But I am not a liberal by today’s standards, or yesterday’s, close as I may be.  I have held, and still do, positions that would shock most Americans, positions that are not liberal or conservative.  For example, I want EVERY wage earner paying some federal income taxes; I do not like the idea of exempting so much income (via the Trump tax cut) that low wage earners pay nothing into the system, they become what may have lost Mitt Romney the presidency in 2012, "dependent" "victims."  If given the choice of who or what to kill – an eagle, falcon, tiger, lion, etc., or a human who is about to shoot one of these endangered creatures – without hesitation, I say kill the human (and I don’t care what the extenuating circumstances are, I have no sympathy whatever for savage humans who kill members of an endangered species for sport or kicks [hunters don't kill endangered species]).  And I care more about people in need than anyone who is financially healthy.  These are not personal preferences, these are political choices (I may have a wealthy friend who I like more than a homeless man, but I want government helping out the homeless dude, before my buddy).

The Libertarian Creed

I have a friend who is going to vote the Libertarian line this election cycle, and I applaud him for it – over the wrong-headed protests of those who mindlessly chant “you're wasting your vote.”  He is right to vote third party, and I have argued the point over and over again in my book To My Countrymen, because we must break the stranglehold of our antiquated and mischievous two-party system.

I thought it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote "that government is best that governs least."  But, evidently it was Henry David Thoreau, no slouch as American thinkers go!  So, perhaps Thoreau is the godfather of Libertarian thinking.  Pretty good lineage!

The opening words of the 2016 Platform of the Libertarian Party of the USA are these: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others (shades of Ayn Rand).”  And “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.  …  We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”  Damn, sign me up!

Political Death Wishes

As of today, April 15^th, 2016, Real Clear Politics (Averages for the past month) has Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 49.0% to 39.1% (a spread of 9.9%) and Ted Cruz by 46.0% to 42.6% (a spread of 3.4%).  It also has Bernie Sanders beating Trump by 53.4% to 37.1% (a spread of 16.3%) and Cruz by 50.6% to 39.4% (a spread of 11.2%).  Finally, it has John Kasich beating Clinton by 47.3% to 40.6% (a spread of 6.7%) while Sanders beats Kasich by 45.9% to 42.6% (a spread of 3.3%).

If these comparative figures hold through the Republican Convention in the week of July 18^th, 2016, three months from now, it would be a Republican death wish for them to nominate Trump or Cruz, anyone but Kasich.  Of course, they might make the argument that their guy will destroy Clinton or Sanders in the debates, but how often have debates mattered at all?

Lame Duck

Within only a few nano-moments of Justice Antonin Scalia being pronounced dead, the august Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of the great state of Kentucky announced that he would not allow the President’s nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court to come to the Senate floor for advise and consent.  Putting aside his obvious-to-nearly-everyone-in-the-country political reason that the sitting President is a black Democrat whom he has battled from the gitgo, he asserted that President Obama was a Lame Duck President, and that it was therefore the President’s job to wait for his (Republican) successor to nominate the next (conservative Republican) Associate Justice, some eleven months and change from now. 

Unprecedented?  Yup.

But let’s spend a few words talking about his reason for delay: President Obama is a "lame duck" President.  But he is not a lame duck President.  He will become a lame duck when his successor is in place (look it up!), the morning after Election Day, Wednesday, November 9^th, 2016, more than eight months from this writing.  (Lame duck Presidents use this two and a half months’ time to help transition the President-Elect into office.)  Allowing for definitions to change (because Mitch McConnell is a powerful man), we might choose to see the lame duck period as the time that a sitting President in his second term has to contend with a Senate and a House of the other party, that is since January of 2015 – more than a year ago – or, worse, since the day after Election Day in 2014.  Is McConnell really saying that?  That President Obama has been a lame duck for the entire last half of his second term, that he should sit on his hands for two years, or go on extended vacation in Hawaii, with full pay?

What is the Debt?

At a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire on Monday, December 21st, an audience member asked Republican Presidential candidate Governor Chris Christie about the National Debt, claiming that Barack Obama had tripled the Debt in his seven years in office.  Governor Christie, without attempting to correct the man’s exaggerated figure, claimed that Obama had added to the debt more than every other President combined; in other words, he had doubled – not tripled – the Debt, still a potent charge.   But here is the truth: Presidents Reagan and Bush I more than quadrupled the Debt, from $998 billion to $4,411 billion, President Bush II more than doubled the Debt, from $5,807 billion to $11,910 billion.  President Obama took over a Debt at $11,910 billion and the Debt stood at $18,151 billion at the end of the last fiscal year, September 30th, 2015, an explosion of 52%, not 200%, not 100% (but he has only been responsible for 6 years of budgets so far).  And while President Bush II only had surpluses as far as the eye could see to overcome, President Obama had a deep recession to fight (and additional government spending is every serious economist’s response to a recession).

Politicians lie, even with numbers that are easily verified.  But politicians don’t expect you to care enough to hunt down the truth.  So, I am happy to do that for you. 

And, by the way, here is the SOURCE of my numbers.  I wonder what the governor’s source was.

And Governor Christie knows he told a whopper.  The alternative is: he is ignorant and he doesn’t care.  Which is worse?

For what it's worth, this is not an anti-Christie post, it is a post aimed at setting the record straight re: taxes and the National Debt.  All Republicans have put these untrue facts out there.  Democrats lie too, but Republicans – the party of fiscal responsibility – like to emphasize the fiscal irresponsibility of President Obama, and they don’t seem to care that it is just not true.

Democratic Socialism

As independent senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders has a real chance to become the Democratic candidate for President in 2016, it is time for the American people to understand what he stands for.  Sanders’ party is the Democratic Socialist party.  So, what is a Democratic Socialist?

Who is John Rawls?

My apologies to fans of Ayn Rand for stealing a favorite line of theirs ("Who is John Galt?"). I couldn't help myself.

Most of us, I think, choose our political party because of how we perceive our identity. For example, if you’re black, you vote Democratic and you don’t have to think hard about it. Similarly, if you are gay, Jewish, secular, poor, Latino/Latina, a Union member, a government employee or a teacher, you vote Democratic without having to think hard about it, because that is what your group does. On the other hand, if you are wealthy, a small businessman or woman, evangelical Christian, country, a farmer, a cop or military, you vote Republican without having to give it much thought, because that is what your group does.  This is, of course, mostly but not always true.

The Flat Tax, Again

Today's Washington Post's headline reads: Rand Paul the latest GOP presidential contender to catch flat-tax fever.  Now, Rand Paul is no moron, and I like a lot of what he stands for, but the Flat Tax can best be characterized as …  a bad idea (in place of "a bad idea," I had originally used the highly expressive term "moronic" before; but in deference to a friendly reader, I have changed my language, if not my judgment).

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/political-ironing/12/22/the-flat-tax-visualized/

I have an essay in my book, To My Countrymen, which is titled Flat Tax, Fair Tax (pp. 110-113) and it analyzes both tax schemes and finds them … wanting.  The conclusions are simple to state: 1) however much these two tax schemes might reduce taxes, the middle-class ends up paying a bigger slice of the total tax pie than they did before, and the wealthy end up paying a smaller slice of the total tax pie than they did before.  Terrific, just what we need, another re-distribution of wealth … UP!  Then, 2) the more that tax rates and tax collections are reduced, the bigger the deficit (and the National Debt) that results.