Tag: decision-2016

Reading my FB feed over lunch, I saw a post berating the left in various ways. I felt that a number of statements in that post were wrong … and thus, this post.

“In spite of poll after poll suggesting Bernie Sanders would do far better against Donald Trump, the DNC tilted its resources and will toward Hillary Clinton.”

This is an example of a canard I’ve seen time and time again, especially from the Trump camp who believe the DNC rigged it so they would go against Clinton, as opposed to Sanders. What this forgets is the fact that the bulk of the reason that Clinton received the D nomination was that she got more votes. While the strong progressive wing of the party is perhaps the loudest, they are not the only folks voting. There is a large centrist and moderate wing. Some of these folks were strongly Hillary; some were anti-Bernie because they felt his past Socialist connections could be a major problem in the general election. All the manipulations of the DNC were not things that would change the needle for most voters.

“White men overwhelmingly want Donald Trump to be the next president. ”

Not true. Not all white men. The surveys have shown that white college-educated men support Hillary. White non-college educated men tend to support Trump. In other words, those who have not been taught about the complications of politics and the need for critical thinking, and who have been hurt by the affirmative action and the loss of privilege — those are the ones who go for Trump.

“Hillary Clinton should have really, like really pivoted hard left, which means she needed to legitimately change to blow this evil motherfucker out. ”

Again, no. America may like talk of change, but they don’t like change. In particular, they don’t like radical change or change that occurs too fast. Bill Clinton was successful precisely because he played to the middle, and was able to build a coalition of centrist Democrats and Republicans. Hillary is trying to do the same thing — incorporating some ideas from the left, but working to build that coalition that draws in Republicans because that is essentially how you govern a country that embodies all constituencies. What happens when you play to the radical base to get elected, and then win. You get what we’ve had in the Republican party for the last 20 years.

“Left leaning white folks and MSNBC spent the last 8 years bemoaning what the right was doing wrong, instead of reckoning with the what the left failed to do for extremely vulnerable black and brown folk. ”

The United States is like an aircraft carrier. You can get it to change directions, but it is very slow to do so due to loads and loads of inertia and momentum. Many of us want to address the injustices in the world when we view the world through out social values glasses. But when we put on our pragmatist glasses, we know that if we do it too fast or before the bulk of the country is ready, it will be rejected. We’re seeing that in numerous areas. It has taken over 125 years just to start making the equality won in the Civil War a reality, and that still doesn’t address the issue of implicit privilege. Before we can get society to address the injustice, we have to work to get them all aware that the injustice (highlighted by things like #BlackLivesMatter) really exists.

In short, Hillary is far from the perfect candidate. In most other years, her actual lack of experience (a little over one term as Senator, one term as Secretary of State) might prevent her from succeeding against more experienced politicians. Luckily, for her, compared to Trump she has loads of experience. She brings loads of baggage — a small amount real, a large amount imagined into reality. Most Democrats would like someone not connected to the Clinton — it is not as if we don’t have qualified female governors and senators. But we have who we have. Further, as flawed as the Democratic primary process was, the Republican side was even worse for it resulted in the Donald.

Change is wanted — that is clear. But we often forget the big divide that is in this country — and it is not a black/white racial divide, but an urban / rural divide. If you look at how the states break down in their support of R vs D, you’ll see it is clearly rural vs. urban. Urban people are used to fast change, to seeing the racial divide, to pushing for racial justice, and social justice. They are used to the melting pot and do not fear it because they live it. Rural, other the other hand, live in a much more homogenous society. This society values hard work, pulling yourself up by your effort, and fears the stranger — especially the stranger who has not achieved through hard work. That alone should explain the rise of Trump, whose central campaign point has been battling the dangerous unspecified “other” who freeloads.

In the primaries, Presidential candidates can win by playing to the loyal bases. Democrats can focus on change in the cities, because they will outnumber the rural democrats voting. Similarly, Republicans can play to the rural votes and amplify their fear, for they will outnumber of urban Republicans (in many areas). But to win the Presidency, a candidate has to appeal to the entire country.  Sanders could not have done that. Consider all the antisemitism on the Republican side — and now imagine that instead of running against a Methodist, they were running against a New York Jew, who used to be a Socialist. Trump would have loved to run against Sanders.

The Conservatives, over many many years and many many investigations, have built a false picture of the Clintons as crooks and thieves — never mind that they actually didn’t do anything. Similarly, they have convinced the Conservative side that Trump’s wrongdoings were excusable because he was a businessman (and we know that is how businessmen behave), as opposed to a politician (who are supposed to be all sweetness and light and honesty).

By the way, this is why it is important to listen to your Conservative friend: you learn these things. Now that you know, you can counter them.

For those of you that haven’t voted yet, I would like you to re-consider (or just consider) your pick for top of the ticket. Innuendo has been flying hot and heavy about potential crimes committed by one candidate or the other, and all of these accusations has made it difficult to make an informed decision. I’m here to help. In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty, and none of these charges — against either Trump or Clinton — have yet been proven in court. So, let’s presume both are innocent. Although there might have been classified information on Hillary’s server, it didn’t reach the level where it was intentional and broke the law. All those accusations against Donald — just hot air until proven. For the sake of argument — and this post — let’s consider both innocent.

I’d like you to take a look at the candidates fresh, taking the following into account:

• Experience. If you were looking at a random candidate, for the sake of argument, white male, with the experience of both candidates, who is best qualified to run for public office? Candidate 1, Howard Carlin, has been secretary of state, a senator, has worked in the executive branch, and has been working for the public good his entire life. Candidate 2, Darren Towers, has been a private businessman, never elected to a public office, and never worked in a public corporation where he had to answer to a board of directors.
• Diplomatic Style. How do they react under pressure? Do they study an issue and present a reasoned response? Can they be goaded into a response by an adversary? Do they carry grudges, and do they use the power of their office to retaliate?
• Knowledge of how Government Works. Do they have a demonstrated knowledge of civic affairs and government processes? Do they understand where revenue bills start? Do they know checks and balances? Do they understand the limitations of each branch of government? Do they have the ability to compromise with those with whom they disagree?
• Positions. Do they have stated positions for the most pressing issues facing this country? Are these positions both reasonable and realistic? Can they be implemented without major financial impact on the Federal Budget and Deficit? If the candidate doesn’t get the issue how they want it to be, can they live with a compromise?

I know, when I look at the two candidates Howard Rodham Carlin (HRC) and Darren James Towers (DJT), I know who I will choose. I hope you’ll make the same decision when you consider the issue. Certainly, in the first three areas, there is a distinct difference between the candidates — and much as some may hate government, we need it to work and work effectively for our society to function.

Next, if you haven’t seen it, here are the links to my ballot analysis:

• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Summary (6/5)
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Reconsidering Two Judge Races
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: L.A. City, County, & District Measures (5/5)
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Prop. 60 through 67 (4/5)
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Prop. 51 through 59 (3/5)
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: The Down-Ticket Races (2/5)
• Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Top of the Ticket (1/5)

I’m working from home today as I have some doctor’s appointments, one of which was with my neurologist on my migraines. While I was there, talked turn to the crazy elections, and it became clear I was with a Trump supporter, if not a sympathizer. I just tried to listen and bite my tongue (as I didn’t want to create a migraine), and what I heard was very illustrative. I believe it is important to understand the other sides even if you don’t agree, so I would like to share with you what I heard and my thoughts on it.

My doctor is an ethnic Chinese immigrant, with a son near college age, who runs a small medical practice. The first concern she expressed to me was affirmative action: how Hispanics and Blacks are more easily accepted to colleges and get promoted over whites, and Asians who are treated as white. When you think about it, this is one of the major complaints of the white populace that is supporting Trump: the push for diversity is taking away our jobs — he is directly feeding on that anger and resentment. Now, those of us on the liberal side of the spectrum know this happens to some extent, but we also see the value of diversity, and the value of making up for past wrongs in the area of diversity. We also see the implicit privilege that comes from the lighter skin. But when faced with this question from the right, what do we say? We can’t make the promises that Trump makes to those folks — that we’ll go back to the way we were. The world is changing, and a world based only on merit does not exist (as if it ever did, for many lower-income people with merit never had the means to sharpen that merit or to make that merit known).

The next area of discussion was immigration — not immigration from Mexico, but Muslim immigrants. This is an area where the fear and uncertainty was amped up. There was fear of Muslims in society, of Muslims in the neighborhood. Drawing upon the attacks in other countries, there was the fear that all Muslims were jihadists and radicals. This is one of those irrational fears — you can say that it isn’t true, but that won’t be convincing. You can quote statistics, and those aren’t convincing. Especially coming from her strong Christian background, there just is scant knowledge of Islam and its precepts — I’d venture to guess that Jews know more about Islam than Christians. I think for many progressives, there just isn’t that innate fear of the stranger, of the Muslim, that there is on the conservative side. How do we combat that fear? It will take time — think about how long we had Jews on radio and TV before they moved from stereotypes to accepted. We haven’t even started that process with Muslims — name a mainstream TV show where the lead or major characters are really Muslim.

Another topic was free speech. She expressed the position that all media was biased, and there was no free speech anymore. She mentioned how bedroom talk (such as between Donald Sterling and his mistress) was made public and then used to destroy a man, and how every had to be politically correct in everything, to the point of having the news on a x-second delay. Now, we know that most real, journalistic media (as opposed to many internet sources) are relatively fair and unbiased, and often “political correctness” is just awareness of the impact of our words on others, but again, I could see her point of view.

Other points of contention was government spending to defend other countries, whilst veterans receive poor medical care and little mental health care. There was concerns about gun control, and the upcoming rules that will restrict ammo purchases. There was concern about immigrants coming to this country and taking taking taking. There was a general opinion that the country is going in the wrong direction.

Mind you, I did not agree with any of this, but kept my mouth shut. But her concerns, I believe, are important to hear. They underlie the support for Donald Trump. These are concerns about what is wrong with Hillary (although I’m sure I could have gotten some). They are areas where someone who is privileged middle class is seeing a direct threat to those privileges, and believes the best way to address that threat is a leader who promises to restore America to what it once was. Remember: Trump’s slogan isn’t “Make America Great”. It is “Make America Great Again“. That “Again” is key — it means we are going back to a safe and comfortable time when everything seemed good (if you were in the right group), and all those pesky and petty concerns of today (sexism, racism, abilism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, etc) were just not considered.

Edited to Add: An interesting realization I had discussing this on FB: Trump appeals to his supporter’s fears. Clinton appeals to her supporter’s hopes. That difference — fear vs. hope — is the vital distinction in this election.

It is vitally important for us to see why the Trump supporters feel that way, and what they want. We then have to ask: What will allay those concerns in the Clinton era? How do we convince people that diversity improves life for all, not just those not of the predominant spectrum? How do we show why political correctness and addressing the various -isms are important to society? How do we get the message across that Clinton’s plans will do these things, will make society better for all.

If we fail to do this — if we fail to know Clinton’s plans well enough to address the fears and discomfort of the other side — we’re going to remain divided. As progressives, we need to be able to make the case of not just why Trump is wrong, but why Clinton is right — and more importantly, why her approaches (although different than Donald’s) will still benefit them.

The political discussion did not turn me off of a good doctor (I just will be more cautious on politics). It did make me realize how much of the people with whom I interact are an echo chamber, so I don’t see the other side. We need to embrace (within reason) the contrary voices around us, hear them (but not necessarily agree), and learn from each other.

As I’m home sick today, I’d like to share some election related thoughts over lunch. In particular, I’d like to share some thoughts as to why Donald Trump’s stated position on abortion, as expressed during the final debate, should be yet another factor that causes you to vote against him and to vote for Secretary Clinton.

Going in, let’s have some stipulations:

Hillary Clinton is not “Pro-Abortion” — that is, she does not support the notion of removing a healthy, viable infant from their healthy, viable mother through anything other than the normal birth process or caesarean section in lieu thereof.

Hillary Clinton does not want you to compromise how you apply your religious beliefs to your body. In other words, if you do not believe in abortions, no one is going to make you have one.

In those stipulations above, however, are the reasons why you should support Clinton in this area and not Trump. In fact, they are the primary reasons why you should join what is called the “Pro-Choice” camp. Let me go over them, perhap in reverse order.

• I can completely understand if your religion tells you that abortion is wrong, and that you shouldn’t do it. How you practice your religion is up to you completely. Where the difficulty comes is when one religion attempts to use Federal law to force its religious values on others. I’m Jewish. There are groups in Judaism that insist on keeping Kosher. Would it be right for that group to insist that everyone in the country keep Kosher? No. In the same way, it is wrong to say that just because your religion thinks abortion is wrong, it needs to be prohibited at the Federal level.
• Further, a central teaching of Judaism and Christianity is that one commandment is not greater than another. It is equally wrong to eat bacon, mix linen and wool, or commit murder. Similarly, in Christianity. So unless you are going to impose complete religious law everywhere (and of course you see the problem with that), there is no point in banning abortion. Understanding this make clear what the real abortion fight is about: those in power (typically men) wanting control over women by dictating what they can do with their bodies. That’s appropriate for a farmer in a stable dealing with a pregnant cow that they own, not a man to a woman.
• There is the belief that if abortion is legal, everyone will be having one. That’s completely wrong. Legal does not mean “everyone do it”. It is legal to own guns, but everyone doesn’t own guns. For some, it is against their beliefs. Similarly, with abortion, people will follow their beliefs, and if their religion or other beliefs dictate to not have abortions, they won’t.
• Just as with guns, the issue is not banning them, but putting in reasonable restrictions. In this situation, there are primarily four, emboded in “healthy, viable infant” and “healthy, viable mother”. First and foremost, the courts have ruled that abortions, in general, can’t happen after a certain point — basically, when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb, independent of its mother. That’s the distinction between fetus and infant/baby, and why abortion is not killing babies. The second distinction is healthy. If giving birth to the child would endanger the life of the mother, abortion is generally permitted. Similarly, if the fetus is not healthy (i.e., exhibits significant abnormality or genetic deformity), abortion is permitted.
• Note that it is the “health” issue that is the “slippery slope”. Where does mental health come into play — a fetus that is the result of a violent rape can have significant mental health problems for the mother. Where does degree of disability of the fetus come into play — is it right to abort a fetus that clearly will have a mental or physical deformity that is not life threatening. The answer here is that it should not be the government’s place to decide this. This is a hard decision, and should be made with in consultation between the mother, her family, clergy (as appropriate), and medical professionals.
• But what, some say, about abortions of convenience. We all know those happen as well. But even in such cases, it is the mother’s decision to make, not the government’s. Such abortions will happen whether they are legal or not — changing the law will not change that. So is it better that they happen with medical supervision in a health-care environment so that both mother and child are not lost.
• Nothing related to permitting abortion makes adoption less emphasized; adoption should always be encouraged as an option if the mother is willing. Similarly, increase availability of birth control can reduce the need for abortions.

During the most recent debate, Donald Trump indicated he wanted the Federal government to not have abortion as a right by overturning Roe v. Wade. This would put the decision back in the hands of the states, and it would be equally wrong for states to impose a religion-based law. It must be legal at the Federal level (which is Hillary Clinton’s position), and left to the individual mother to decide. If you are religiously opposed to abortion, look at how Hillary’s running mate, Tim Kaine, is addressing the issue:

Kaine, a Roman Catholic who worked as a missionary in Honduras reiterated his personal opposition to abortion, but maintained the practice should not be outlawed.

When asked if he’d like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe the Governor answered, “I don’t think the Supreme Court should.” He continued, “Roe vs. Wade is ultimately about saying that there is a realm of personal liberty for people to make this decision.”