Random Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders & Various Other Political Stuff

• I have many friends and family who supported Senator Bernie Sanders. I respect the choice, process, beliefs, and values of these good, honest, hard-working, patriotic Americans whose reactions, right now, seem to range from denial to disappointment to despondency and despair, with End of the World (REM) as background music. Senator Sanders may have been at the bottom of my list, but I don't know of any followers supporting him out of a desire for “free stuff” for themselves. None. Zero. Not One. That’s an insulting fake news slander.

• 4 years ago, teaching American Gov’t and Politics at Lindbergh, I told my kids that Senator Sanders’ legacy would be the detoxification of the word “Socialist” for the next generations of young voters. I didn’t anticipate he’d try again, because I thought his window had closed. Turned out it had.

• However, had I known HRC would run such an abysmal, yet arrogant/entitled campaign (the arrogant/entitled parts were no surprise), I might have actually voted for Senator Sanders in the 2016 primary. Despite what some believe, I claim neither party, so I sat it out. Any palatable Republicans had been eliminated by the time of Missouri’s primary. (Bonus points – name the one I could have easily supported.) Two populists would have at least been interesting. 

• Full Disclosure: I would vote for the dish sponge we forgot to rinse out before leaving on our last trip before I’d even consider casting a ballot for the current occupant of the White House; at least the sponge could be cleaned up and made useful. And whether cleaned up or discarded, the dish sponge wouldn’t be dangerous – and maybe smarter. 

• By the time Missouri’s primary rolled around this year, all of my favored (Democrat) options had also been eliminated. So, given my choices, I went with Biden, because while a President Sanders doesn’t particularly frighten me, Candidate Sanders is, in my view, more worrisome. But who knows, maybe the Democrat Party would also turn out to be cowardly sycophants* were he to win (although I obviously didn’t like his chances of defeating President Trump; neither did Putin and the Russians, apparently).

• Why should it come as any kind of surprise that Democrat-identifying voters would want a nominee who is, you know, a bona fide Democrat and party member? 

• Didn’t Senator Sanders have four years to actually join the Democrat Party if he wanted to be its standard bearer? I respect that he was standing up for principles, but you can’t reasonably object to the cost of doing so. It’s like committing an act of civil disobedience and then complaining when you get arrested because you’re on the side of the angels. 

• Sanders supporters also might want to consider that, just because they are passionate about their candidate, maybe, just maybe, he didn’t get cheated as much as failed to stir those same feelings in enough of the voters who chose to participate in the Democrat Party nomination process. To imply otherwise is kind of insulting.

• Joe Biden is going to be the nominee of the Democrat Party. Respected non-partisan pollster Nate Silver of 538 puts his odds at >99%, followed by None and Sen. Sanders, in that order. Voters will, essentially, need to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Sanders supporters will not be the first, nor, sadly, the last, to have to hold their noses when they vote. Sitting out, writing in, protesting or choosing a third party are votes for the incumbent. If it’s a matter of principle, do what you must. Just remember, as Senator Sanders himself learned, those principled actions have consequences. Well, not in Missouri, because your vote, if it’s like mine, doesn’t really count. I’ll cast it anyway, though.

Other political observations, not always new

• True believers and ideologues make me nervous. Having spent more than a few years as a true-believer, I understand better than most how those kinds of blinders work. I like to think I was more pragmatic than most true-believers, but I also recognize that not everyone would agree. (However, as evidence, I offer one of my favorite smh compliments from a dear friend: “You’re the sanest gadfly I’ve ever known.”)

• Trump supporters who want attack perceived character flaws in Joe Biden might want to remember they live in glass houses – stained glass, not plexiglass. They forfeited that argument four years ago and I’ve seen no improvement since, except that his adulterous and lecherous proclivities have probably been more restricted lately.

• I wonder how many people who claim to be embarrassed by Trump, or excuse themselves with “I don’t like him but…” bothered to cast a protest vote for one of the other candidates in the Republican primary? (about 5% apparently) It’s not like his nomination is in doubt. Some state Republican parties even cancelled their primaries altogether. A free chance to make a statement. I no longer get his so-called surveys, so my “spitting in the wind” response days are over.

• Do partisan political memes make ANYONE feel better, besides you, maybe? Are they helpful in a time when we need to be pulling together? Do they provide real information? Can you recognize a rhetorical question?

• Finally, political parties do not exist to help people. They do not exist to help you; they do not exist to help me. That is a truth that crosses party lines, both Republican and Democrat. Their prime directive is the accumulation and consolidation of their own power. If the last four years haven’t amply demonstrated that, you’ve been distracted by the unfortunately unscripted reality show playing daily. Any benefit that comes to people, including their individual members, is merely a happy coincidence.

* The Republican Party kowtowing (oooh, irony) to seemingly every Trump whim and whine makes me wonder if the spelling should be changed to “psychophant.”

Random Observations: COVID-19 & Social Media

• Yes, the media “awfulizes” the news. That, in and of itself, is also not news and has been around since even before the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer over a century ago. And if you pretend that Fox, Breitbart, NewsMax and other right-wing outlets don’t do the same thing as the so-called MSM, then we’re both wasting our time here.

• While Dr. Drew Pinsky is a media personality MD, his specialty is opioid treatment, not infectious disease. Which is why, though I’m a professional, certified, accredited (albeit retired) teacher, I’d urge you not to put a whole lot of stock in my opinions about teaching mathematics or science. Neither am I holding my breath waiting for Dr. Oz to weigh in on this.

• There’s a difference between mortality rates and deaths. You have to do the math, though. A 2% mortality rate, which I’ve seen dismissed as no big deal by some, is 40 times the rate of regular flu (.05%). The death numbers are smaller because the number infected is smaller – so far.

• 2% means 2 out of every 100. I’ve seen dismissive posts about that number. “No big deal” unless it’s someone you care about who’s infected. Because early statistics can skew toward the severe, even if it’s 1% (and it Italy it’s apparently climbing toward double digits), if that one (1) is your parent or grandparent or someone else you love….

• Neither the Democrat Party nor President Trump is responsible for this outbreak; however, both ARE responsible for helping our country navigate its way through what must be now recognized as a crisis. I also do think a monotonal litany of anti-science, anti-intellectual tweets and statements is, and has not been, helpful, either specifically in this case or in general.

Genesis of a Libtard

Unlike Lady GaGa, I wasn’t born this way. I was a disaffected Republican long before I became what I am today, a disaffected Democrat. What follows is obviously incomplete, despite its length. My apologies because the point probably gets made well before the piece more stops than ends; perhaps this will eventually become a chapter in my autobiographical memoir.

Although my (moderately) conservative/Republican roots run deep, I am the outlier in my family. My father probably never voted for a Democrat in his life. In his later years at Friendship Village, he was a regular at meetings of the Concerned Conservative Citizens (aka Cranky Old White Boys Club). My brothers probably tilt farther right than I do left. But my final paper in my senior year of high school (1966) was an earnest assessment of the Republican Party and who in it could best return the country to their leadership. The first group I tried to join at the prep-school dominated Hamilton (named for Alex while he was still alive – old ivy on those walls) College was the Young Republicans.

So how did a white bread suburban boy (from the originally solid Republican Webster Groves) end up inhabiting the left side of the political spectrum? Because I reject simple and simplistic explanations and solutions, you may not be surprised to learn that I believe there are multiple reasons for my evolution and leftward shift.

• Child of the ‘60s: Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, Bob Dylan. Conservatives who now control the Republican Party have been consistent opponents to the expansion of civil rights for minorities and women since the ‘60s; Nixon’s “southern strategy” politically solidified that stance. Karl Rove put it in concrete with rebar reinforcements.

• First Job: Orderly on the men’s ward of old St. Luke’s on Delmar, lots of black patients and co-workers. Spare time reading the St. Louis American. God forbid I actually do any of the assigned reading required by UM-St. Louis!

• Marriage to an intelligent woman (met and worked with at the aforementioned St. Luke’s); father to an intelligent daughter, who has since given birth to an intelligent granddaughter. The goals of the women’s movement were/are obviously important – and personal. (My mother was born too soon and frustrated by the limited roles available to her. That added to the movement’s appeal.)

• Public school teacher in a district that served a population that did not share many of the advantages of their more affluent neighbors, including those in schools I had attended (Webster Groves and Ladue). This changed me on at least three different levels.

      ° I found myself almost immediately thrust into the nascent teacher union movement. Let’s just say that conservatives were not supportive of teachers having any power to advocate for themselves or their students. That being said, it was not always a Republican/Democrat dichotomy, and I voted for several Republican state representatives and state senators. Union endorsements tilted Blue, but were not exclusive by any means, at least not at first. In fact, as I set out in 1976 to find a candidate to support for state representative, Republicans were my first choice because the WG then was reliably Republican and I wanted to back a winner; WG, too, has shifted away from the new Republican Party; those denizens who remain are often derisively referred to as RINOs. As union power grew within the Democrat party, the Republican party countered by moving the right and becoming even less friendly, sometimes seemingly antagonistic, to the concerns of public education and educators (where it remains), as well as unions and workers in general.

      ° The word “underprivileged” rubs many of my formers the wrong way; one reason may be that “privilege” has taken on a different, more politically charged, meaning in the modern lexicon. Maybe they perceive the term as some kind of condescension that discounts what they’ve accomplished in life. Perhaps a preferable term is “disadvantaged.” Those students didn’t understand (and some still don’t, it seems to me) how badly the system is rigged, stacked against them. That many manage to beat the rigged game and still overcome those disadvantages speaks loudly to their resilience, but does not negate the existence of those obstacles they had to conquer to do so.

      ° While it is not a job requirement, per se, most teachers, or at least most of the best I know, are empathetic; we know that no one is solely responsible for either success or failure. Most of us have no trouble with the expression, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Empathy has become a dirty word to modern day Republicans; and Trumpists, well, that’s a rant for another day, leading to....

• A growing belief that just because something is not MY problem does not keep it from being A problem. I find the left more accommodating of that POV than the right. In my dotage I have greatly narrowed the focus of the problems on which I concentrate, but that does NOT mean I can’t recognize the importance of the oh so many others faced by my fellow citizens. I have used the analogy before, but conservatives’ version of a social safety net is a leftover rope and the admonition to “Pull yourself up.” While liberals seemingly want to solve every problem, no matter how few people it affects, often devising overly complex (and often ineffective) systems that validate the Law of Unintended Consequences, they at least generally recognize that complex problems require more than simplistic solutions.

Finally, or at least my final point, is conservative resistance to the concept that health care is, or should be, a right of all citizens, and not limited by jobs or economic status. I have a daughter and granddaughter afflicted, through no fault of their own, with auto-immune diseases that could block them from affordable access to the health care system without the current protections for those with pre-existing conditions that conservatives want to strip from current law, so this is obviously extremely personal.

As the parties themselves become increasingly tribal, polar and partisan, I am disaffected, and often disgusted, by both. That’s my story and so here I stand, with clowns to left of me and jokers to the right; I certainly lean left now, but really see myself as stuck in the middle (hopefully with you).

Disclaimer: This deliberately provocative title to grab attention does NOT constitute permission to aim such an offensive insult at any other person or group; that would include me.

Can the Center Hold?

Beliefs caveat:

       • Liberal ≠ Democrat

       • Conservative ≠ Republican

       • Both camps have members who are:

              ° mean-spirited

              ° racist, prejudiced, or bigoted

              ° self-centered or selfish

              ° just plain dumb        

                  ° all of the above and more

Each pole is flawed. Each side has its own conceit and each side spits out the opposing label like a foul epithet. Mean-spirited and unfair memes exacerbate the problem. Conservatives often seem likely to think that if something is not their problem, it’s not really a problem at all and, therefore, doesn’t need a solution, or at least not one that shouldn’t be supplied by the individuals for whom there actually IS a problem. Liberals, on the other (left?) hand, seem to tend to believe that EVERY problem everywhere is not only a crisis that must, MUST I tell you, be solved (with an overarching grand(iose?) program), and right this minute, no matter how long that problem has been in the making, failing to realize that problems of long standing are never solved quickly or simply.

Simplistic Metaphors: The conservative safety net is an old rope with a sign at the bottom: “Climb on up, you can do it. Others have,” followed by a pious sermon on self-reliance. The liberal safety net is a hydraulic memory foam mattress. “You know you have a problem, right? Good news, we have the solution! Let us make you comfy and fix everything for you. No, really, just relax, we’ve got this,” followed by a soothing talk about how nothing is your fault. 

Those selfish conservatives like to think everyone ought to be able to better themselves (many, it seems to me, operate under the illusion that they, and they alone, are responsible for their whatever status or success they have and see every playing field as level); if one can’t find a path to success, it’s their own fault or weakness. No better are the busy-body liberals, who seem to think no one can better themselves without the help of an extensive (usually expensive) program, implemented by an overburdened, and some would argue (with at least occasional legitimacy) overreaching, and, too often, incompetent, government.

All of the above are exaggerations, of course, pushing stereotypical perceptions to the extreme, although I have, in fact, actually seen essentially those descriptions as the “other side” is being vilified or decried, all too common in our world today. And what I am seeing even more often today is a seemingly ingrained belief that those who do not think like we do are evil or stupid, not even entitled to basic respect. Contrary beliefs, legitimate criticism of ideas or philosophy, are not only rejected out of hand, but vilified as, at best, the ravings of a lunatic fringe not worthy of even cursory consideration.

It is an ongoing and familiar theme of mine, but we live in a complex society that continues to evolve in increasingly complex ways. Nothing is that simple, neither the problems nor the solutions. If a solution can fit on a bumper sticker or be reduced to a slogan or 30-second commercial, it’s a fraud, and a simplistic fraud at that. Back when I used to teach American politics, one of the things I tried to emphasize was that the solution to every problem creates a new problem or even set of problems that then seem to require new solutions, in a never-ending cycle. However, I stressed, that does NOT mean that we, as a society, should just ignore problems and hope they’ll go away. They will not. Like sores, they will fester and eventually demand immediate attention. Is it not better to anticipate problems and be proactive than to be forced into a panicked reaction?

As polarization expands and strengthens its depressingly vise-like grip on our society and culture, I perceive a serious danger and threat to our future. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are trying to exploit that polarization for their own benefit and power. Instead of encouraging respect for those with a different perspective and a different life journey, they instead discount and demonize. However, even as a left-leaner, while I personally do not think we need a new government agency (Committee to Reduce American Polarization?) to deal with it, neither do I think we can just pretend this increasing polarization is not really a problem.

Here’s a truly radical notion; we could communicate with each other, respecting and giving each other credit for being people of good will, to find a solution that can, if not fully solve the problem, at least ameliorate it and allow us to find other areas where we can continue to work together (which involves that dirty word, “compromise,” of course) for the good of all. There is room in the middle of the poles, but we must be willing to take the first step in that direction and not wait for the other side to go first. Let it start with me – and you.  Kumbaya!