Good-bye to the Devil We Know....

I have never been a fan of the hyper-partisan, self-dealing* Mitch McConnell, but I have always been forced to admit to some grudging respect for his ability to accumulate and use power, to manipulate the system to the benefit of his party and (while it goes without saying but makes him no different than any of his colleagues in either party) himself.

However, I won’t start celebrating his long-goodbye announcement today any time soon, but not just because he will be replaced by someone a lot like him, albeit probably less effective in the short term. No, my fear is based on the ramifications of the power vacuum he is creating. 

The Berndt Power Theory postulates that political power in any environment is (essentially) constant and that the elimination or diminishment of any one power source will be replaced, perhaps by multiple persons, but replaced nonetheless. There will undoubtedly be some temporary disintegration of his power in the resulting friction between his colleagues to claim it as their own, but eventually equilibrium will be restored.

What worries me is the frightening and very real possibility that he will be replaced by a far worse devil, some nationalist MAGA toady that, combined with the possible reinstallation of Trump as president, would further undermine the already shaky foundations of democracy in the United States.

Senator McConnell, for all his partisanship, did serve as a check on the power of the nationalist MAGA wing, albeit such a gentle hand-check that even the most vigilant referee would be hard-pressed to call a foul. McConnell, at least, wanted power for the party which he believed was best suited to lead the country, was dedicated to the democratic traditions of the Senate (no matter how undemocratic they may often have seemed), believed in the rule of law, and practiced courtesy and decorum. I wish I were more confident that his replacement would have even a modicum of his level of honor and principles. But I have none.

*self-dealing ≠ corrupt by my definiton and applies to vitually every politician on the national stage. It’s what makes “politician” such a lucrative gig that its practioners will spend million$ to win a job that pays mere thousand$.

The USA Needs You (And who is "You"?)

I had an exchange with one of my right-leaning (well, in his case, it’s clearly more proudly living than leaning) formers on Facebook.  He is a self-described Constitutionalist who could not abide Obama’s politics or Clinton’s character (I’m sure her political positions didn’t help, either). He was and is, a stand-up member of the brass division, although not the Trumpet section, even if he did vote for him, with at least some misgivings, it seemed.

Instead of adding on to our conversational thread after we had found some common ground, I thought I’d generalize the challenge I thought about leaving with him, in the hopes there are enough more like him to make a difference. Just call me Pollyanna. Here’s what I wanted to add:

We (the Clinton voters and/or liberals), but more importantly, the country, need you to stand up for us and challenge President Trump when he (as he will) tries to blatantly ignore the Constitution. We need you to challenge him when he makes up facts (like the recent Boeing kerfuffle) or reinforces his reputation as the “Fastest Tweet in the West.” We need you to ask thoughtful questions when he makes head-scratching appointments to his cabinet or other federal positions.

We can’t do it (try as we might, and some are trying mightily) because as soon as someone like me opines anything critical of the president-elect, the Trumpet section blares into a cacophonic crescendo of defensiveness. But Pollyanna here does have some (slim) hopes that the true-believing Trumpet section perhaps just might listen to someone who actually voted for the man.

Stand up and be counted. Please. Your country needs you. Patriotism is not just flag waving. It is looking past partisan politics to the long-term good, the morality if you will, of your country. I like to think I am a patriot. Are you?

IFOL (Ironic Fact of Life) -- Quick Take

The industries and companies that take shortcuts, play the system, shortchange their customers, disregard environmental impact, etc., all in the name of profits above all else, are frequently the loudest complainants about the regulations that their actions provoke in response, trying to generate sympathy for both the long-term and short-term consequences of their own unethical actions.

If we all just played fair and did the right thing, we wouldn’t need the admittedly often over-regulated society we have. But regulations have never arisen out of a vacuum; rather, they result from some (and usually more than some) industries, businesses or people feeling entitled to put their own welfare (read, wealth) ahead of ethical behavior, failing to realize, or just not caring, that their selfishness has a long-term cost to them, their business or industry, and us, their clients or customers.

I Just "Unfriended" Donald Trump

Full disclosure: I never was friends with Donald Trump. Shocking, I know.

Not long ago I wrote about how I was going to start deleting Facebook friends if they showed disrespect by saying or implying I was stupid,or disloyal, or immoral, or whatever because I did not share their POV on aparticular candidate or cause. Because I’m not as quick as I used to be*, it took a while before I realized that is EXACTLY the MO of Mr. Trump. If you disagree with him you’re a loser, disloyal, stupid, or whatever insult pops into that incredibly coiffed head. If you run a privately held company I guess you can get away with that. But I don’t see that playing well with other countries or leaders both within and outside of our country. 

And while I have a multitude of objections to Mr. Trump and his vision of what the USA is supposed to look like, it is what I see as the potential disaster to American relations with other countries that frightens me the most. I understand that because he appears to be strong he has a certain appeal, especially among those who feel like we get played by the rest of the world or feel like they’re losing ground. It is frustrating to feel like you don’t have the control you once had. 

But like the parent of an adolescent, that control was an illusion anyway. We may be the biggest, toughest kid on the block, but there are lots of kids and they’re all saying, “You’re not the boss of me!” Trying to bully them into doing what we want, when we want, ignores that we are not, have not been for some time, self-sufficient. It also manifests an attitude of superiority that fosters resentment instead of respect and makes cooperation in solving shared problems even more difficult. Other countries have their own agendas and self-interest; those won’t change just because we want them to.

We can rail against globalism, international trade agreements, a shrinking world, but, the fact of the matter is, all of those are the new reality. Actually, they’ve been the reality for a long time; this election is not a time machine and that train left the station years ago and it’s not turning around. Our economy, your portfolio and savings if you have them, probably even your job, will suffer if we try to economically punish either our enemies OR, heaven forbid, our friends. And exactly how many friends will we have left shortly into a Trump presidency? As a candidate, Mr. Trump frightens even our long time allies and trading partners!

We are interdependent, and will continue to be. We cannot build walls, either physical or metaphorical, protecting us from the world any more than Prince Prospero could seal out the Red Death (Edgar Allan Poe reference, if you’re interested, and an apt Donald Trump analogy, IMO). It remains to be seen if we’re alone in the universe, but we sure are not alone in the world (see previous post about foreign reaction to Mr. Trump that we personally experienced, even before he secured the nomination), and no one likes a bully. We cannot, our economy cannot, afford to alienate every country that doesn’t do what we tell them, not without hurting our own interests at least as much as theirs. Probably more, because we have so much more to lose. 

Poor countries that lose 10% of their economy will remain, well, poor. But what happens if we our economy takes even a 5% hit? Think that won’t affect you? Think again, bucko. That number, to put it in Trumpeter terms? HUGE! Be careful what you wish for. I’d suggest you better make sure you have another cup from which you can drink before you throw the one you think is ugly against the wall. I just know that you and I have a much better chance of being collateral damage in an international economic collapse than Mr. Trump, because, for him personally, losing 10-20% of his wealth just makes him, well, less rich; he’ll recover if he is half the businessman he claims to be. You know who else will be okay? The other rich people. They have the resources to ride out the storm, but unless you’re among ‘em, your odds are not good, because we regular folks are the 9^th Ward in Hurricane Donald.
*Second disclosure: I’m not really THAT slow. I have been sitting on this for a while now.

A Skeptic's Definition of Politics

Or is it a cynic’s definition? Or a realist’s? Or maybe just a pragmatist’s?

“Politics is like sausage. The more you know what goes into it, the less you want to eat it.” That is an old, old adage, (and included as one of the shocking, big revelations from a Wikileaked speech by Hillary Clinton to the Wall Street crowd) but one that has certainly retained, if not enhanced, its credibility as the years roll (roil?) on.

Instead of that analogy, however, allow me to offer a skeptic’s definition of politics: Politics is the art (and science) of using power and self-interest to reward friends, punish enemies, ideally with the goal of benefitting your constituents by solving their problems (too often even if they don’t know or think it’s a problem, or at least their problem). However, it cannot be denied that power will always be intrinsically linked to money. To think that electing any candidate to any office anywhere will magically effect a sea change ignores mountains of evidence going back millennia and represents little more than a delusional pipe dream.

We can debate how big the self-interest piece is, and where it fits in both the big and small picture, but it is naïve to fail to recognize its importance. The day of the selfless public servant is long gone, if it ever existed after the Founders (and not even all of them, either). To think anyone works or acts against their own self-interest borders on the absurd. No one who runs for president (of anything) will pursue courses of action that damage his/her personal, economic, or social standing, no matter how much of an outsider or reformer s(he) claims to be.

Please note, this definition fits more than the government sphere; it applies to the workplace, social groups, schools, even families (although good parents at least try to sublimate their interests to those of their children). [See the Berndt Power Theory for more on this.]

I would suggest that the manufactured outrage to those actions (by others) is either politically opportunistic, hypocritical (and hypocrisy in the political arena is a bi-partisan beast with centuries-old roots), disingenuous or even downright dishonest, or any, all of the above, or more. While I am not trying to excuse it, politics is practiced by human beings programmed to protect their self-interests. I don’t see how that system (and it's as true under Putin as it would be under Trump or Clinton) can or will change as long as it’s other human beings trying to make those changes.

If that fits your definition of corrupt, I cannot and will not argue with you. But I will argue that corruption is often in the eye of the beholder and that no candidate or office holder is immune from that charge. Although I have no argument that we deserve better, should demand better, my realistic view of human nature suggests we are unlikely to get better. While your/our agreement or disagreement with the political positions of any office (power) holder does not make him or her either more or less corrupt, it does reinforce the perception you/we already have of that person.

Have the Clinton and Trump Foundations used their wealth and connections to power to benefit themselves and the causes they favor? Have they used their power and influence to attract supporters to their foundations? Have they used their power to attract donors and money and thereby increase their own influence (in other words, more power; should Donald Trump be the next president do you really expect the influence of his foundation to  diminish–or grow)? Of course, because power unused is like a muscle – it atrophies and, perhaps more importantly to its political practitioners, ebbs from the vacuum to someone else who will use it for their own benefit. Power begets power as money begets money. Move along, nothing new here, nothing to see, no surprises.

I would ask that we all recognize that the perception of corruption is directly tied to our perception of a candidate, up to a point, of course. (Dennis Hastert leaps to mind, as does William Jefferson.) Two things to consider. The first thing is the “stink test.” If the same accusations were leveled at someone we liked and supported, would our outrage reach the same level? Not an easy answer, because it’s often hypothetical, so it is easy to emphatically say “Absolutely!” Second, consider the source, always. What does the accuser (or spreader of accusations) have to gain? It is unlikely that gain is solely “justice” or honesty. Like politicians, we act in our own self-interest, and that self-interest colors our perception. That applies to politics of every stripe and on every level.

Did the Clintons use their political influence to build their wealth and power? Of course. Is that corrupt, or just politics the way we practice it in the United States? Are they any different than Rex Sinquefield, the Koch brothers, the Bush family, George Soros, the Kennedys…. It’s a long, long list. What do you think will happen to the IRS audits of Donald Trump should he be elected president? Is the fact that a large percentage of the so-called personal money he has “donated” to his campaign has been used to pay bills submitted by companies that he owns in whole or in part, companies that serviced his campaign, corrupt? Or, if you’re a Trumpeter, just smart business? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do I wish our system was more honorable? Do I wish our office holders were as self-sacrificing as George Washington (while noting that he was possibly one of the richest, if not the richest man in the country by the time his political career ended)? Of course almost all of us want that. But even if the president himself (or herself) is completely “honest” in the strictest sense of the word (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barak Obama were all personally honest as far as we know, IMO), how many of those past presidents have been used or sabotaged by people they trusted? Because, as long as money is flowing, there will be people using their positions to ensure it flows their direction. And that, my friends, like it or not, is the American political system. Whoever wins on November 8 will change that not one iota.