The Real Fraud is Voter Suppression and the GOP Have Been Doing It For Years

Instead of getting distracted by more propaganda from the right, stay focused on the need to stop the GOP from suppressing Democratic voters.
1) End the electoral college. One person, one vote. This can only be done by amending the Constitution and the GOP are never going to give up their main advantage in winning national elections. Vote blue and insist Congress eliminate the archaic practice of the failed electoral college.
2) No more gerrymandering–voting districts should be set by an independent, bipartisan panel, not by the winning party.
3) Restore the Voting Rights Act, the dismantling of which by a conservative Congress and Supreme Court opened the way to denying hundreds of thousands the right to vote in the last election.
4) Eliminate state voting restrictions on people serving time or on parole for felonies. This unconstitutional practice has been a way for the GOP to suppress voting for decades, and it should be discontinued at a national level.
5) Everyone is automatically registered when they turn eighteen. This would help curtail making some voters jump through hoops at the whim of the states.
6) Make voting day a national holiday or change it to Sundays.
7) Offer early voting and paper ballot voting, both of which have been shown to increase the numbers of voters and decrease the risk of potential voting machine tampering.
8) Reasonable accommodations should be made for the number of polling places and how to get to them.

Our democracy has been failing to reflect the will of the people for a long time now, instead reflecting the will of the people in power. Make these changes and see how many more Democrats win when more people are allowed to vote.

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, politics, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


George Lakoff sees some progress on framing progressive ideals.

George Lakoff

Normally I would never post a link to a story in Reason, a right-wing magazine. But I consider this particular story a tribute to the power of your voices and your actions.

The writer of this piece is upset that we are reframing regulations as protections. He’s upset because he even sees regulations being framed as protections in the pages of the newspapers.

He attributes this to the work we have done to raise awareness among journalists, elected officials, and our fellow citizens that, from the Public viewpoint, regulations are protections. And most regulations come into existence to protect the public from harm by irresponsible or unscrupulous corporations.

Specifically, the author references an essay I posted in January — aptly titled “Regulations Are Protections.” He does a great job of repeating all of our arguments in an effort to negate them. In other words, he’s saying: Don’t think of protections!

Please read…

View original post 40 more words

Posted in liberal values, Moral Framing, politics, Strategy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

An Open Letter to Paul Ryan From a Fellow Irish American on the Occasion of His Moral Triumph

Can I call you Paul? It might be informal, but you just look so much like my Irish Catholic relatives, with your black hair and blue eyes. Like a Kennedy, except you’re unlike the liberal, social-safety-net-supporting Kennedys in so many ways.

For instance, in your zeal to overturn the life-saving ACA. You boasted (on St. Patrick’s Day, no less) of college keggers where you dreamed of destroying Medicaid, the public health care program for the poor. Most college boys, no doubt including the Kennedys, partied while dreaming of hot women and being superheroes. But you, Paul, you were jerking off to the glories of sending American health care back to the Dickensian slums of 19th century Britain. One hates to speculate that you spent many a fevered night reading Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick, thinking it was a serious proposal to feed the children of the poor to the rich. Something tells me you don’t get satire, like you don’t get so many other skills most of our people have mastered, like liberal democracy.

Speaking of Britain, I noticed you wore a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day, but you seemed to have gotten everything else all wrong. (The Irish didn’t invent golfing and were not impressed by royalty. Oppressed by them, but not impressed.) You seem to have forgotten your O’Roots, Mr. Ryan, and adhere to the free market British economic system that nearly wiped out our people in the mid-1800s.

You see, it wasn’t really a potato blight that plunged Ireland into the Great Famine. It was a cruel and greedy land system imposed by the British government that made it impossible for an Irish farmer to rise above their impoverished station. Even as millions starved to death and millions fled to other lands, Ireland exported more food crops during those years than most. They had to pay the rents on their farms (which they weren’t allowed by law to own).

But, you say, the U.S. government doesn’t impose any such restrictions. Anyone is allowed to be free and follow their destiny and should do so ‘free of government assistance.’ Government programs rob people of their individuality, their ability to realize their full potential.

And yet, you took advantage of a government program–survivor’s benefits–to go to college, a luxury not afforded everyone. This was in addition to your well-off family’s support throughout your life as well as marrying a very wealthy wife. You were also born at the top of the food chain in the American social strata: a straight, white, upper class, Christian male. You can have no idea what life is like for millions of people who try to survive in a system without any government protections for their health. I could tell you, I could go on and on, but let’s not make this about me. (Here’s a link to Michael Patrick MacDonald, a fellow Irish American who grew up poor in Boston’s Southie neighborhood in the 60s. All Souls: A Family Story From Southie. I’ll let him tell the story of one of his siblings dying because the hospital wouldn’t take in indigents.)

It wouldn’t surprise me if there were some Congressional shenanigans going on here where you caved to the far-right Freedom Caucus’s heartless demands in order to get the bill passed (and placate your conservative billionaire funders). You figure the Senate will cut out the worst of it and send it back to you. But regardless of the politicking involved, that smile on your face as you slash the freedom of health care out from under millions is genuine. You honestly believe that what you’re doing is righteous and moral and true. You, like so many conservatives, believe that there are people who are worthy of life and liberty and health care, and there are those who deserve to starve to death, their mouths blackened from rotten food, the gnawed bones of their neighbors and families littering the countryside. (I am not engaging in Irish blarney here. Cannibalism likely practiced in Irish Famine.)

You have become a 19th century British politician, completely forgetting that you came from people who were lucky to have escaped the violent poverty their brutal laissez-faire “self sufficiency” inflicted.

For a while, you drank the Ayn Rand kool-aid like so many fiscal conservatives, crowing about how her monstrously selfish ideas provided the best argument for moral conservatism. (That is, until someone at the Jesuit Georgetown college whispered in your ear that she was an atheist and you recanted.) But why do you struggle so hard to find a moral justification for stripping poor people of health care? Could it be that there’s some sliver of Irish peasant in you after all, one that remembers the horrors of a political belief system that supports the ruling class above the very lives of everyone else?

Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, because you should be one of us, one of the liberals, one of those that believes in helping our fellow humans when they’re down. What happened to your branch of the Ryans along the way?

I leave you with a verse from my favorite song when I was a child in Catholic church. I’m no longer Catholic, but I think I got the gist down better than you. If you sing those words in church too, I hope they sink into your cold, dark, blighted heart someday.

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.
When I was hungry, you gave me to eat; When I was thirsty, you gave me to drink.
Now enter into the home of My Father.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.

Posted in conservative values, free market, laissez faire, liberal values, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reasons to Vote for Democrats–The Real Edition

At the risk of being accused of having no sense of humor, I’d like to fill in the blanks in the blank gag book that’s an Amazon bestseller. Here are just a few of the myriad reasons to vote for Democrats.

Cities: Most of America’s big cities swing left and Democratic mayors have been a vocal force against the heartless Trump/GOP agenda. Most city dwellers know diversity is strength and the Democrats celebrate diversity rather than using it as a wedge to create fear.

Democracy: Democrats love democracy and why wouldn’t they? When more people vote, Democrats win. If it weren’t for the Electoral College, that antiquated holdover from the American Republic, four of the last four presidents would have been Dems. The Democrats were primarily responsible for the Voting Rights Act (which the GOP gutted) and they continue to fight conservative efforts to gerrymander and obstruct the right of all Americans to vote.

Empathy: One of the reasons people are liberal is they feel a great deal of empathy for others, even those not in their immediate circle. Example: Donald Trump speeding away from his wife at his inauguration, leaving her alone, and then both Obama and Michelle putting a hand on Melania’s back for support while walking beside her.

Good government: You might think I’m kidding after all, but nope. One of the greatest achievements of the conservative war on government has been to convince the people who benefit most from a strong public sector that it’s evil and out to get them. Government should provide for the common good: that is, those aspects of life that aren’t covered effectively by a free market and investors trying to make a profit. When Democrats call the shots, good government functions for the common good.

The Planet: Dems keep fighting for clean air and water. The GOP gives us climate change deniers, Flint MI, and slashing oversight agencies like the EPA.

Policies: Democratic policies help the majority of Americans every single time we let them get into power long enough to enact them.

Protection: The social safety net, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, The ACA, Unions, Minimum wage, Labor Board, Workman’s Comp. Democrats are often the main thing standing between common Americans and the horrors of complete free market rule.

Public Speaking: Seriously, watch JFK, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Almost every time they opened their mouths in public, they said inspirational, soaring, empathetic, inclusive, hopeful things. How about when our current president opens his mouth? Don’t you just flinch and suck air between your teeth and wait for him to embarrass the whole country? George W. Bush was better but only because he took coaching.

Values: At the core of Democratic beliefs are the values of taking care of each other, helping those who are vulnerable and using government for the public good. Dems don’t just pay lip service to core American values like equal treatment under the law, individual freedom, the right to choose your own path in life, that America is a nation of immigrants. They enact those beliefs into law and policies that make them possible for more people.

And the best thing about Democrats is they believe in us even when we give up on them. They keep speaking to the angels of our better natures and hoping we’ll answer in kind.

Posted in Democrats, liberal values, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How the Left Can Keep From Tearing Itself Apart This Time

No one needs to remind left-leaning people what’s at stake so I won’t go into the horrors of the current Republican administration. But like many long-term activists, I’ve seen the GOP get ahead because the left can’t stop splitting itself into increasingly narrow and irrelevant factions. (From Monty Python’s Life of Brian: “We’re not the Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea!” “Where is the Popular Front?” “He’s over there.”)

Here’s my ten-point plan for hanging together so we do not hang separately.

  1. Stop re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries. No one knows what would have happened if… Consider what the GOP candidates did to each other yet they came together in the end to get and stay in power.
  2. Don’t help the right succeed at splitting us. It’s infuriating that all the efforts on the part of conservatives and the Putin propaganda machine to discredit Hillary and the Democrats worked to a great degree. Putin has been busy undermining democracies all over the world–let’s not be among his success stories. Question everything you hear about the people you traditionally support because those propaganda bots are still running twenty-four seven.
  3. Focus on policies and laws rather than personalities and ideologies. What are the most important values to you? Which party reflects those values when they create policies or pass laws? Which party violates those values by their governance?
  4. Let go of the alluring myth that a multi-party system will save us. No matter how political parties are structured the world over, people tend to fall into two basic belief systems: conservative (or strict father values), or liberal (nurturant parent values). If blue voters splinter into more parties, they’ll only be fighting for the same pool of voters and the GOP will be in power for decades.
  5. Knock it off with the ideological purity tests. Just because a candidate or a Congressperson isn’t doing everything exactly as you’d like doesn’t mean you have to refuse to have anything to do with them.
  6. Resist the temptation to blow off all this participatory democracy stuff and start smashing windows. Many on the left have a natural inclination toward being anti-establishment. But not all of the establishment is bad. Someone is going to be in power; it’s up to we the people to make sure those who run the government are good guys and gals, and not bad ones.
  7. Stop blaming the Democrats for losing and start helping them win. Focus on strategy the way the Republicans do. The GOP are better at marketing their ideology, communicating their values in ways people can understand and at organizing at every level of government. How can you help the Democrats win? Or join the party and run yourself, getting your own values out there in the best way possible?
  8. Resist all pressure to move too far to the center or to the left. Progressive/liberal values are where most of us live and work and are the most viable for this mainstream movement.
  9. Learn the lessons of the now-irrelevant Occupy Wall Street movement. Occupy galvanized populist fervor against big money in government, but they had no follow-up plan and they had no strong foundation grounded in values. Just being against something isn’t enough to create change. At some point, you’ve got to pack up the sleeping bags, organize, and vote. (I’ll point out that the five justices that supported Citizen’s United, the decision that radically changed how much money is allowed in politics by granting corporations ‘personhood,’ were all appointed by presidents with ‘R’s’ after their names.)
  10. Stop saying it doesn’t make any difference which party is in power. Say this to my face and I’m going to start reciting all the ways in which the country changes for the better when the Democrats are in power (and by country I mean the majority of its citizens). I’ll start with the huge losses since Trump took office just six weeks ago. Then I’ll review what happened when we insanely gave the House back to the GOP in 2010, just two years after putting the Democrats in charge to fix the mess the Bush/Halliburton administration had made of the country. The Democrats haven’t been perfect and have made some regrettable mistakes, mostly by compromising and moving to the center. But nothing they’ve done can compare to what the Republicans do every time they get in power.

If you believe government should be there to foster freedoms for everyone instead of just for the very wealthy, if you value a humane, sustainable world, if you call yourself left-leaning, liberal, progressive, humanist, socialist, hippie, remember; we have more in common than we have differences. Let’s focus on our shared values and not sacrifice them to in-fighting. This time, don’t give the right the satisfaction of seeing the left do their dirty work for them.

Posted in conservative values, liberal values | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why What Happened to Milo Yiannopoulos Wasn’t a Violation of the First Amendment

Milo Yiannopoulos got a controversial cushy book deal and promo tour from a major publisher, Simon and Schuster. Yiannopoulos lost the contract when he strayed a little too far off the beaten hater-Islamophobe-misogynist path and into the apparent deal-breaker of sounding like he was promoting pederasty. Some of his supporters are crying ‘suppression of free speech.’ Here’s why they’re off base.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a contract between the American people and the Federal government, in this case Congress, which makes the laws. It says Congress will not pass a law abridging the right of free speech. But Simon and Schuster is not Congress; it is a business that chooses which writers to give a book contract and promotional support to.

When Simon and Schuster gave Yiannopoulos a $250,000 book deal, many decided to boycott the choice. Booksellers would not carry it, reviewers wouldn’t review any of Simon and Schuster’s books, the writer Roxanne Gay canceled her own book contract with them and many vowed not to buy any books from the publisher. This is a boycott and it is also not a violation of the First Amendment. Consumers should decide carefully where to spend their money and should support businesses that share and advance their values, not businesses that go against and actively undermine what they believe in. Congress has nothing to do with any of this.

(For more on the First Amendment and what it protects, see the Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy book In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action.)

It’s similar to when Phil Robertson was suspended from Duck Dynasty for spewing hateful comments. Sarah Palin, among others, was up in arms. First amendment this, First Amendment that. It seems she still hadn’t done her homework by picking up and reading a copy of the Constitution. (Remember when she was running for Vice President but couldn’t answer a simple question about what the VP does?) It’s too bad she didn’t borrow one of her kids’ social studies books and brush up on what the Constitution actually says about this. Robertson was working for A&E, a business, and they worried their brand would suffer with some of their other consumers if Robertson’s hateful comments were allowed to pass unchallenged. But Robertson was reinstated after nine days and is still on the show. In that case, A&E decided the money he was making for them outweighed the money they would lose in a boycott and he continues to spew hateful invective against gays with impunity.

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you can say anything you want anywhere to anyone and not face any consequences. You can’t threaten to kill the president of the United States: that’s considered treason and it’s not constitutionally protected speech. You can direct hateful comments at a certain group of people by saying ‘all those Albanians are a threat to national security and they should be wiped off the face of the earth.’ This is constitutionally protected speech. But saying ‘Those Albanians who live at 255 Freedom Avenue will be home at six and they should be shot’ is not protected speech. It’s considered incitement to violence and criminal activity and you could be arrested for it.

(First Amendment scholar Rod Smolla talks more about this and other exceptions to protected speech in his book Deliberate Intent: A Lawyer Tells the True Story of Murder by the Book.)

Milo’s freedom of expression hasn’t been curtailed; he can go on spewing his ugly spew for whatever audience he can find, unencumbered by any standards at all. While Simon and Schuster can certainly be questioned as to why they would suddenly draw the line where they did when many of Milo’s comments have been vicious and violent and offensive to many, they didn’t violate the First Amendment. They just aren’t giving a hater a major national platform and promotional support to go on saying horrible things about people. The only question here really is: what took them so long?

Posted in Constitution, First Amendment rights, Freedom of Speech, hate speech, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

That Which We Call a Tyrant

Many are choosing to use euphemisms or abbreviations in place of Trump’s name. Some are recommending ’45’ as a code word for the 45th president, citing revulsion at the mere mention of his name. People were correcting themselves who used his name in public at a recent activist meeting.

But, to quote from one of my favorite fictional characters, Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series, referring to a much-feared character:
“Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.”

I believe it’s a mistake to avoid Trump’s name. That actually gives him more power. And a tyrant by any other name smells as foul.

Consider the history of that which cannot be named. Who else gets this special treatment? The true name of the Judeo-Christian God is not to be spoken by anyone but a holy man in the Holy of Holies. The ancient Egyptians scrubbed the name off the burial place of anyone who was disgraced in life, which is why the female emperor Hatshepsut was so long unknown to history.

Myths and legends abound of the power of knowing and using someone’s true name. Rumpelstiltskin is one. When the goddess Isis learned the true name of the sun god Ra, she was able to take over. In Germanic and Scandanavian lore, calling out an opponent’s name imbues the speaker with the power to defeat even the most magical and powerful of enemies.

Someone has to be either extremely sacred or extremely profane to warrant this level of fear and awe. Either way, it’s a place of power with all sorts of connotations of invincibility and other god-like aspects. Donald Trump only has these abilities in his mind. I don’t want to buy into his delusion.

The other, more practical reason to use Trump’s name is to always associate it with the bad things he does. He values his brand, his name, above all else, and helping to de-value it is one way to protest his presidency. Whenever his name is in the same sentence or the same headline with negative words and phrases, search engines register that fact and link them together deep in the DNA of the internet.

Highlights from some recent headlines:
“While Trump scandal mounts…”
“How to Oppose Trump…”
“the Anti-Trump resistance…”
“In Another Blow to Trump…”
“SNL Trolls Trump hard…”
“Trump’s ties to Russia…”

Trump shares headlines with words like ‘the Third Reich’, misled, disarray, chaos, nightmare, disaster, divide. And of course, when the New York Times broke with tradition and started calling Trump’s lies lies, in headlines no less, Trump’s name became paired with the word in one of the most widely-circulated, quoted and Google-searched sources of information in the country.

Russian Putin critic Garry Kasparov recommends making Trump look like a loser as a resistance tactic. Coupling the word loser with his name is a good way to do that. “Loser of the popular vote Donald Trump…” “Minority president Trump, who lost the popular vote by a huge margin…” “Trump loses to the judiciary again…” When a euphemism is used in place of his name, all that association is lost.

In the Harry Potter books, Tom Riddle changed his name to Lord Voldemort in order to increase the grandeur and awe with which he was regarded, and it worked. He was regularly referred to as You-Know-Who and He Who Must Not Be Named by everyone but Dumbledore, who sometimes called him ‘Tom.’ Imagine if everyone had gone around calling the most feared dark lord ‘Tom’ in the wizarding world. It would have decreased his terrible mystique considerably.

Trump. Tie yourself in knots trying not to say these five little letters and you make him much more powerful than he is. Trump is not a wizard or a dark lord. He has no supernatural powers. He’s just a man, a sad, bitter, mentally unstable man who conned his way into a role he’s not qualified to play. A man who can be defeated and you don’t need magical powers to do it. Just keep speaking about what’s right and what’s wrong and his name will fall into its place along the spectrum.

Posted in politics, resistance | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment