Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. Most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.
Occasionally I break from the normal formatting and do a “sense check.” Auditing one’s own work is problematic but I try to be objective. Entries #300 and #301 are the most recent standard “sense checks.”
This is second consecutive unanticipated entry. In entry #310, “Will Kavanaugh Accelerate the Revenge Revolution?” I indicated I had voted for Republicans in the past. A reader asked me to elaborate on why I left the Republican Party. This entry addresses the question.
As noted in #310, my reference point is a Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Everett Dirksen and Jacob Javits. The attitude of that Republican Party could best be described using a slogan from Bush 43’s 2000 presidential campaign, “compassionate conservatism.”
Why that reference point for the Republican Party? I grew up in Illinois with very early years on the north side of Chicago but formative years in Central Illinois. Central Illinois is an interesting mix of agriculture and manufacturing with the center-point the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. For those unfamiliar with the area, the soil is stunningly productive for farming – corn, soybeans and many other crops. Throw in a seed and a plant grows. They soil color is coal-black and crumbles easily in your hand. The soil is not gray, not reddish-brown but black.
The farms ring a number of medium-sized towns that provide the center of commerce for farmers. For many years, the towns were supported by manufacturing plants, and in some cases corporate headquarters — Caterpillar in Peoria, for example. Populations for most of these towns ranged from 25,000 to 75,000. Population mix was mostly western European and a smaller percentage of blacks, many of whom had migrated from the south. Religions leaned more toward Protestant than Catholics and some towns had a surprising number of Jews. In our neighborhood grammar school, for example, about 20% of students were Jewish.
In our particular town – population approaching 50,000 – the public school system was top-notch with quality teachers in all grades. High-school students had a choice of three tracks and could switch between tracks for a limited number of classes – college prep, general education, technical training. The town produced a disproportionate number of famous and successful people in a wide range of occupations – education, entertainment, medicine, military (early astronaut), science and industry.
Like most school districts years ago, busing was limited to outlying areas that could not support a school. Most everyone attended a neighborhood grammar school and a middle school that was reasonably close. There was one very large, well-equipped public high school (and a parochial high school). And guess what? As a student, you needed to figure out how to get to high school on your own.
As far as fiscal attitude – conservative. If a family was wealthy, it was expected to be discrete about displaying wealth. Everyone was expected to share with others to the extent possible. A description for sharing can best be described by Nike’s tagline – just do it…and keep quiet about it. Shouting and bragging were definite no no’s.
This town was part of the ellipse in Illinois where Lincoln spent most of his time before heading to Washington. While the area was solid Republican, the voters were not tribal Republicans. Most people, from what I recall, voted a split ticket.
And, no, the town was not Mayberry II, although there were many of these same attitudes. The town did have its problems. Most blacks were clearly on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. While doubtless discrimination existed, I do not recall the discrimination being overt and certainly no signs at restaurants, drinking fountains and other public places. Further, different groups seemed to work together to address problems.
So that’s a description of the Republican Party I grew up with and use as a reference point for those running for political office. Such a Republican Party no longer exists. When I hear a Republican call it the party of Lincoln, I shake my head and want to scream. Most of today’s Republicans have no clue about the values of the party of Lincoln.
Back to the reader’s question, “What made me leave the Republican Party?” Based on my reference points for the Republican Party, I didn’t leave the Party, it left me. While I’m still a compassionate conservative – compassionate socially and conservative fiscally – I’m now branded a screaming liberal. What happened to Republicans’ social conscious and fiscal conservatism? The party now can be described as bi-polar…and not taking medication. The Party has shifted to the extreme ends for social issues and fiscal recklessness.
The slide from fiscal conservatism started under Ronald Reagan. How can that be, you say. Reagan was a fiscal conservative.
I share the view of many economists that a very good way to assess the potential impact of debt for a country is to measure outstanding debt as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product). Think of it this way. Pretend you’re a banker. Two people walk into a bank and want to borrow $25,000,000. One of them is someone like you…and the other is Warren Buffet. The bank decides on loans based on income and assets. For someone like you, the $25,000,000 is likely to be multiples higher than your income and assets. For Warren Buffet, the $25,000,000 is considered chump change. Thus, a large amount of debt isn’t necessarily bad if you have a large income and/or large asset base, which the US does. The US government owns lots of land and buildings.
Following WWII and up to the Reagan Administration, debt as a percent of GDP declined. During the Reagan Administration debt as a percent of GDP increased from about 30% to about 50% — a relative increase of 60%. Under Reagan, the relative increase in debt was only somewhat less than experienced during the New Deal under FDR. Under Bush 41 relative debt percent increased over 25% beyond Reagan. Under Bush 43, relative debt increased over 40% from the Clinton years. Under Trump, despite a very strong economy the Federal debt for FY2018 was the highest in 6 years. The deficit under Trump is expected to balloon to over $1,000,000,000,000 annually because of the gigantic tax cut that reduced taxes primarily for the wealthy.
What about debt increases under Democrats? They were even worse, right? Well, no. Throughout the Clinton Administration, debt as a percent of GDP decreased a little over 12%. During some years under Clinton, the US ran a surplus. Under Obama, relative debt climbed about 35%, even with the combination of fiscal stimulus required to avoid another Great Depression and the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. Debt under Obama, despite all the cries from Republicans increased less than under either Regan or Bush 43. So, which party is more fiscally conservative? If you look at fiscal policies under Republicans, one term comes to mind – red ink.
Let’s look at social policies since Reagan. Policies to concentrate wealth, as have been implemented by Republicans, negatively affect the general well-being of the populace. Tax cuts primarily for the rick, aka “trickle-down economics,” does not work, nor has any Republican provided any empirical evidence of it working in any developed country. As more wealth has flowed to the top, there has been less wealth in the middle.
Further, Republican have resisted increasing the minimum wage. When Reagan was inaugurated, the minimum wage in real terms (adjusted for inflation) was about $10.00 per hour. Today’s minim wage is $7.75 per hour, a decrease in real terms of more than 20%. The decrease reduces further the ability of lower-skilled, entry-level workers to earn enough to exceed the poverty line. What happened to the “compassion” of the Republican Party?
Adding to the lack of “compassion” is the effort by Republicans to take away individual rights…at least for people who don’t buy into the Republican doctrine. According to Republican right, the US is a Christian country – just forget why the Pilgrims left England. Therefore, all laws should follow what the religious right believes. Take Roe v Wade. Forget the rights of the mother, she does not matter. Forget that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until much later in the pregnancy. All abortion must be banned…despite the First Amendment.
Just in case today’s Republicans have not read the Constitution, as is abundantly clear from listening to President Trump, the First Amendment reads as follows, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press (see the press is not your enemy but protected!), or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While Republicans want to deny individual rights with regard to abortion…and ignore the First Amendment…Republicans insist that the Second Amendment is all about individual rights. Well, individual rights are OK as long as guns are involved. The Second Amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What does the Second Amendment really mean? The wording allows individuals to own firearms. In Central Illinois, most households, including ours, had some type of firearm. In fact, I have the same rifle I purchased at about age 14.
At the time the Constitution was written…for all the “Constitutionalists in the crowd” that was 225+ years ago…the United States had a very small “standing army.” The defense of the country relied on “well-regulated” state militia – think National Guard. Members of the well-regulated militia were “citizen soldiers” and expected to provide firearms, as implied in the Second Amendment. Over time the US created a permanent military for “the security of the free state,” thus the standing army eliminated the need for citizen soldiers.
With the advent of a standing army, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might have banned citizens from owning firearms. But citizens have been allowed to retain firearms. With a standing army there is absolutely no need or justification for military-grade weapons to be held outside the “well-regulated” standing army. Weapons such as military-style assault rifles and higher-caliber rifles, especially a .50 caliber rifle, are designed to kill as many people as possible.
These weapons are not designed for deer hunting or target shooting. Yet, thanks to the NRA and some politicians, an individual is able to own a military-style assault weapon, and even worse, a .50 caliber rifle. For those not familiar with these weapons, a .50 caliber rifle will blow a hole in the side of a brick building. You don’t need that much firepower to take down a herd of charging elephants, which are not common in most US neighborhoods. If you want to go play with these type weapons, then go join the US military.
Now, what about consistency? Republicans state that since one must register and get an ID to drive, have an ID get on an airplane, have ID cash a check, and probably register your dog, plus who knows how many other instances, then one should have to register and show an ID to vote. All the registrations and ID are for your safety. OK, then following that same line of thinking, surely Republicans would support mandatory registration of individual firearms – for your safety, of course. Mmm, so what’s the big objection?
I could go on but it should be clear why I no longer vote Republican. The Republican Party of today is not compassionate, not conservative…and not consistent… and certainly does not hold the same values of Lincoln, Dirksen and Javits. Your comments welcome.
As a result actions during the confirmation process, I increased the chances of a 5th US revolution to “highly likely.” However, my reasons for changing to “highly likely” may be different from what many others have stated or written about the Kavanaugh nomination/confirmation process.
Further, there is no requirement that the president nominate, or the Senate confirm, candidates to ensure a balance of opinion on SCOTUS. While the situation unlikely, say if all liberal-leaning justices left the Court during the term of one president, the president could nominate and the Senate could approve, justices so the entire Court supported rulings considered far right.
Over the decades, what has allowed SCOTUS rulings to be recognized as law of the land by the populace? Obviously not everyone has supported every decision but why have even controversial decisions become the law of the land? Trust by the people in the objectivity of the justices. In parallel, the Court’s decisions likely have been moderated to a degree by public opinion. Justices have recognized the need to create trust and acknowledge public opinion so the vast majority of SCOTUS rulings have not been too far left or right.
Let’s take a closer look at McConnell’s greatest achievement. The initial phase of this latest “great achievement” was McConnell denying president Obama the right to have the Senate consider a nominee to fill an open seat on SCOTUS. According to McConnell the vacancy should be filled “after the people vote.” Forget the Constitution, forget precedent, McConnell alone should decide when a vacancy on SCOTUS should be filled.
To further build public trust…or maybe that’s distrust…in Kavanaugh, McConnell (this time thru Grassley and Trump), stonewalled efforts to dig deeper into Kavanaugh’s past. Charges ranged from sexual assault to excessive gambling. Rather than let the FBI explore a series of allegations fully, the Judiciary Committee allowed only one key witness to testify – yes, only one – Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh followed Dr. Ford and managed to create even more concern about his truthfulness and demeanor as publicly insulted Senators seeking answers to some basic questions and even lied about what he should have dismissed as youthful indiscretions.
While those on the political right might view with great satisfaction McConnell’s tactics of attempting to hide the truth about Kavanaugh, thereby giving the finger to the left, how would the right react if a nominee from a Democratic president had the same questionable background and exhibited the same rude behavior as Kavanaugh? I can hear the cries now, “Lock him up! Lock him up!”
Senator Susan Collins is among the brainwashed or brain-dead. Collins gave a 45-minute talk justifying support of Kavanaugh. Her remarks included some truly nonsensical statements. For example, she claimed that as a sitting judge, Kavanaugh has consistently supported legal precedent…unless he considered the precedent wrong. Huh, Susan? In real speak that means precedent plays no part in Kavanaugh’s decisions. Why would anyone ever make such an inane claim? Collins was also interviewed on “60 Minutes” the day after the confirmation. Based on her comments during “60 Minutes,” no one would ever accuse her of being a deep thinker. Enough about Collins.
Then we have Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham’s behavior of late could be compared to that of Stormy Daniels in one of her movies – constantly taking on new positions and new partners, including cuddling up to president Trump. At least Stormy Daniels has been straightforward with the public about her beliefs. No so for Graham. Say Lindsey, do you not remember any lessons from John McCain?
Among people who have principles, there is an adage that most learned early in life. Mitch you must have missed the class…again and again and again. The adage is, “What goes around, comes around.” The follow-on part of that adage is when it comes back, the intensity is usually much greater. My suggestion Mitch? Be on the lookout because your life is about to begin heading down a very steep hill.
Is there any hope? Yes, there’s some. While we probably can’t avoid the Revenge Revolution, the intensity could be moderated by one person – Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts is a smart guy. Roberts knows his legacy will be determined by how credible the public views decisions of SCOTUS. Roberts also knows he’s got two justices who are considered illegitimate by many people – Thomas and Kavanaugh.
Gelly: “First, let me make sure I understand the idea of trade between two countries. I get the part where one country might have stuff the other country needs, or makes some product more efficiently than the other country. That all seems logical. What also seems logical is that trade should be fair. Maybe I’m being naïve but shouldn’t trade between countries be like what we were all supposed to learn as kids…you know, treat your neighbor as you want to be treated?”
Gelly: “Critical such as growing and exporting coffee beans might be critical to the economy and welfare of the people of say Costa Rica? Coffee’s probably a big deal to Costa Rica but hardly of any importance to the US…other than maybe Hawaii.”
Jordan: “For countries with only a few products to export and where those products do not have much competition, tariffs might work. But, for most countries, tariffs are a high-risk poker game. While coffee can’t be grown in every country, in can be grown in many countries. Unless your country is a real big dog for that product or commodity, the country adding tariffs runs the risk of losing exports.”
Jordan: “Well, for one thing, China can then decide to add tariffs to some goods imported in China from the US – say corn or soybeans, which is exactly what they did after Trump put tariffs on Chinese steel.”
Jordan: “Some but the US steel companies did what often happens in the US when tariffs are implemented – the US companies immediately raised prices.”
Gelly: “Then, unless I’m missing something, the tariffs really end up being a tax on consumers. The government might collect revenue from the tariffs but the consumer – the working stiffs – are the ones who gets screwed.”
Jordan: “A lot Trump’s tariffs were head scratchers. In fairness, sometimes trade between countries does get out of whack. And tariffs can help resolve the issue. But tariffs are like a Band-Aid, for small wounds and to help only temporarily. There’s a better way to solve issues when trade gets out of whack…and a better way to manage trade.”
Jordan: “Yes, trade agreements. The agreements usually include what you might call a trade court. That court helps revolve issues and avoids tariffs.”
Jordan: “Worked on Walt and millions of hard-core Trump supporters. Say, what’s with the sling on your left arm?”
Jordan: “Any idea how long in the sling?”
Jordan: “You mean such policies as tax cuts for the wealthy, tearing up trade agreements with other countries that the US drafted after WWII, efforts to severely restrict immigration and then allow only people with money to get green cards and finally citizenship. Those kinds of policies?”
Jordan: “Of course. I have three guidelines – really basic questions that might help you. The first question is about tax policy. Ready?”
Jordan: “Question #2. If the Federal government wants to stimulate employment, which policy would be more effective – trying to create even more new jobs when unemployment is already low or trying to create new jobs when unemployment is high and a lot of people ae looking for work?”
Gelly: “When tax revenue is high. That’s when government should pay down debt and save for a rainy day. When the economy starts to get bad is when the government should start spending more money and create more jobs.”
Gelly: “No, that would be stupid. Sounds like a waste of money.”
Jordan: “Short answer is greed. The Donald was never, ever for anyone but the Donald. He did not care how economic policies affected the country as long as he and his family could make more money.”
Gelly: “When you mentioned McConnell you know what popped in my head? The scene from ‘The Graduate’ where Elaine is in Benjamin’s rented room near Berkeley, she’s just screamed and the landlord is headed toward the room and turns to Benjamin. The landlord says to Benjamin, ‘You are scum.’ Seems to fit Trump, McConnell and some others.”
Walt: “I agree it was an interesting experience. Yes, I’ve got time for a couple more questions, then I’m outta here.”
Walt: “Yes. Best I can tell, Woodward is about as credible a journalist as you can find. I’ve never heard what I call a true Washington journalist say he’s anything but top drawer. Forget what the talking heads say about him.”
Jordan: “How’d you react when Trump claimed the book was full of lies and made-up quotes?”
Walt: “Yes, and sometimes at myself for having believed him. Trump lied who knows how many times a day. He was a serial liar…even about stuff that didn’t really matter. He made Pinocchio look like a penny waiting for change. So the serial liar claims this highly respected journalist made up key parts of the book…and then the serial liar expects rational people to believe him. C’mon. At that time Woodward had written I think 7-8 books about presidents. And he’s going to make up quotes?”
Walt: “Woodward’s book title was spot on. The word ‘fear’ was a great descriptor. Fear among the White House staff and the agencies about what crazy stuff Trump might try to do and fear of the consequences for the country.”
Walt: “The scene from the ‘Wizard of Oz’ where the bad witch tries to bully Dorothy to give up her ruby slippers. Then the good witch – in this case Woodward rather than Glenda – shoos off the bad witch and protects Munchkin Land.”
Jordan: “When bad witch was shooed off, the Munchkins…aka Republicans…had the opportunity to return to normal.”
Jordan: “No. Trump’s actions made the polarization much worse. He allowed the wacko fringes to come out of the closet. In fact he seemed to promote the wacko far right. Maybe even worse, his economic policies and efforts to control the judiciary accelerated the country’s slide to becoming a banana republic.”
Walt: “Woodward…along with a few others…confirmed what a lot of people suspected about Trump. Except what Woodward showed the situation was much worse than most anyone thought.”
Jordan: “Or, as they say in Texas, ‘All hat; no cattle.’ That’s the same group who wanted staffers to resign if they didn’t totally agree with Trump. ‘Hail the king. He can do no wrong.’”
Walt: “I couldn’t come up with a good answer. I also thought if the president had been a Democrat and had done 1/10 what the public knew Trump had done, Republicans would have been ranting and raving, demanding impeachment and jail time. Just look at how long Republicans were obsessed with Hillary’s email server. Even when no one could find any evidence of criminal activity, they kept probing. They wouldn’t give up no matter what the evidence was.”
Jordan: “What about Nixon’s behavior?”
Walt: “Trump, on the other hand, set a new standard for illicit behavior. OK, most everybody can overlook being in bed with porn stars. But in bed with the Russians? No way. Think about it. The president of the United States, and much of his immediate family, in bed with the Russians. Some of his sleaziness was well-known and not a surprise. So, with his known background, why did Republicans let him on the ticket, let alone get nominated? When the info on the Russian connection started to come out, why did Republicans sit on their hands and do nothing to get rid of him? I admit I’m not innocent…for a while I retweeted some of his stuff. But what about Republican leaders in the House and Senate? They had access to confidential information and did nothing with it. They’re still in denial. Bunch of whims.”
Jordan: “You know why they’re in denial.”
Walt: “If I read this chart correctly, in about 1900, GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita was about the same in the US and Argentina.”
Walt: “At the same time, we had Trump trash talking, claiming the judiciary was crooked. Remind you of someone from the 1930’s? Anyway, when I suggested it was important to rebuild confidence in the judiciary, I never considered that without a fair judiciary, sustained economic growth was not possible.”
Walt: “That’s it. Todd looked more dumbfounded than a deer in headlights. Then he tried to let Giuliani correct his mistake. But Giuliani in true Trump fashion, refused to admit an error and proceeded to straight-jacket himself.”
Walt: “Hadn’t thought of it exactly like you phrased it but Giuliani’s comment was so stupid an alarm bell went off in my head.”
Walt: “Probably. But I’m still embarrassed to talk about my brainwashed state. I mean, when I was brainwashed, Kellyanne Conway’s claim about ‘alternative facts’ never caused me to pause.”
Walt: “I asked him if he was calling me a liar. He asked again for the source of information. I repeated my claim he was calling me a liar…then I left.”
Walt: “Nothing. What still makes me smile was when the owner of the National Enquirer was granted immunity.”
Walt: “Once the brainwashing cap got penetrated, I started to look at the flood of Trump’s tweets a lot more critically. What I noticed was that virtually every tweet laid the blame for a problem on someone else or on some Federal agency. Trump seemed to forget he was in charge.”
Jordan: “OK, now we’re in a new era. Trump is gone and the country has gone through the Revenge Revolution. And you’re more open to crossing party lines. What about other former Trumpsters?”
Jordan: “Just asking a question if you knew the logic stream of people who have been brainwashed.”
Walt: “OK, you’re right. I was brainwashed by Trump. It’s embarrassing to talk about it.”
Jordan: “What about Trump yanking the security clearances made you take pause?”
Walt: “Not all at once. I bounced back and forth. It was as if I was playing ping-pong by myself. One day a conspiracy theory; the next day no conspiracy.”
Walt: “Once I got though the conspiracy analysis, then like the baby who now knows how to walk, the pace picked up considerably. And finally, Trump became more like Humpty Dumpty.”
Walt: “As I looked in the mirror, I just couldn’t believe what I’d been doing. I needed to find out why. What had made me act that way?”
Walt: “Well, I poured through a couple of his books. Then I decided to see a psychiatrist.”
Jordan: “Walk me through how you guys worked together.”
Jordan: “You became your own case study.”
Walt: “Look, I’m no brainwashing expert but as was explained to me, there are ‘holes’ in most brainwashing caps. If reaction to an event or an idea goes through one of those holes, it accesses the pre-brainwashed mind. Think of it as a being on either side of a wall or maybe as separate partitions on a computer hard drive.”
Jordan: “This discussion is absolutely fascinating…but I need a break bad.”
Walt: “Great! Where’d you get it? Don’t tell me. It’s from that liberal bastion, Starbucks.”
Jordan: “C’mon. Stop me from banging my head against the wall. I admit I find your logic fascinating, even humorous at times…but your logic is also incredibly frustrating.”
Jordan: “If the FBI was trying to get Hillary elected, then why did Comey hold a press conference a few days before the election effectively reopening an investigation about Clinton that found no laws were broken?”
Walt: “Same thing with Obama. He knew the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Committee HQ and were releasing emails to the public. But he didn’t do anything about it. Why not?”
Jordan: “Just for fun, please tell me, in Trump world, does the sun come up in the east or west?”
Walt: “A thorough investigation. Why should the FBI allow a foreign country, especially a known enemy of the US, try to influence the outcome of a presidential election? If the FBI didn’t investigate, it would be dereliction of duty. All of them should be fired…and some tried for treason.”
Jordan: “Yet, when the FBI had very credible evidence that the Russians had infiltrated the Trump campaign and the campaign was likely conspiring with the Russians, you supported the Republicans in Congress who objected. Those same Republicans thought the investigation should be stopped. Why did you support them when you just said there should be an investigation?”
Walt: “Not likely fake, it was fake. At least now you’re starting to understand.”
Gelly: “Nice to be back. Had lots of fun but sorta, kinda missed the office.”
Jordan: “Right. Walt’s coming over sometime late morning.”
Walt: “We had a great time and the fireworks at the club were sensational.”
Walt: “I thought Trump was a blowhard. More of a flake real-estate salesman than a conservative Republican.”
Walt: “Guess I never really considered the experience. Was more intrigued with the idea of change than the quality of the people involved or what they had to do to implement change. Sort of the ends justifying the means.”
Walt: “We’ll talk about troubling later. As I said, I did my own studying trying to understand if Trump was real or not. I spent lots of time watching Fox – mostly Hannity and O’Reilly before he got unfairly railroaded out – and I’d catch Limbaugh on the radio a couple of times a week. The more I listened to these guys the more convinced I was Trump was on the right track.”
Jordan: “Did your studying include reading newspapers – let’s say the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post, NY Times?”
Jordan: “If I understand correctly, your primary sources of info were Trump, Trump’s tweets, probably the White House press secretary – Sarah Huckabee – and a couple of commentators on Fox. No print media other than an occasional read of the Journal. And no other networks such as PBS, CBS, and say MSNBC.”
Walt: “OK, but you have to buy coffee…and I want a bagel, too.”
usrevolution5 