Category Archives: Politics

Civility

Wayne,

Here’s my opinion about this civility issue.

Civility has rarely if ever been part of our political debate. Although Trump is unusually boorish and uncouth, 19th century political debates, or Jim Crow era debates about racism and immigration, or old War era mudslinging were terrible.

Civility in society at large is another related matter, and concerns how we, social beings, get along together. Of course, in the US we have problems with who the “we” is to whom we are supposed to be civil. Until the 1960s blacks were not included in the civil society’s “we” for example. Our treatment of native Americans was never civil.

Since the 1960s, racism, bigotry, and xenophobia have gradually become unsuitable for polite society. “We” has been expanded to include blacks and others. The racists, bigots, and white nationalists didn’t change their minds about blacks, gays, or foreigners, they learned to keep their thoughts to themselves. But they resented having to do so.

People who complain about political correctness are unhappy because if they say what they really think, people will shun them. They believe that their views about blacks, Hispanics, gays, and foreigners are sensible, reasoned, and based upon the evidence. They resent that they can’t go around making disparaging remarks about blacks or gays.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

“… there must be a way …”

Wayne,

A young and thoughtful correspondent posted a question on his Facebook page, and some of his friends had a Tweet-like discussion. As I don’t do Facebook, I’ll respond to his question by e-mail and post that message below. I added remarks about the debate between his friends too. I re-named the friends: Decent and Sensible Canadian, Bleeding Heart, and Movement Conservative. On these conditions, my correspondent agreed that I could post this to you, to my correspondent, his friends, and to our readers.

Here’s the question:

I don’t understand all the complexities in our healthcare system. However, something compels me to think that there MUST be a way to creatively engineer a system that will provide excellent, low-stress, equitably priced, easy-to-access healthcare for all Americans while reducing waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, and unnecessary bureaucracy. I am open to public, private, and hybrid systems. Let the quest for the Holy Grail continue. However, on second thought, I’m probably being a naive moron to think such a thing.

Here’s the friends’ discussion: Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

When is 1.5% > 2%?

Yesterday Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore in a hotly contested Senate election to fill out the rest of former senator Jeff Sessions. This was Alabama, of course, and I read that there were plenty of typically Alabama oddities about the many candidates in the primaries, the Republican primary run-off, the circumstances that led the scandal-tainted now former Alabama governor to appoint the state’s Attorney General to the seat until this special election, and many others.

Here are the election results reported by the New York Times:


Jones was close to 50%. Indeed, Moore was close to 50%, a frightening thought. But 20,000 more votes, 1.5%, for Jones than for Moore gave Jones the seat.

Here are the election results for the 2016 presidential election.


Notice that 306 > 232, but Clinton received nearly 66 million votes to Trump’s 63 million votes. American voters chose Hillary Clinton to be their president by a margin of 2.1%.

Thus, the title of this post: When is 1.5% > 2%?

The presidential election is the only election at all levels of government in which the candidate who wins the election may not win the office.

It’s not as if this is for some insignificant office, say, school crossing guard. Indeed, it is the only nationwide election.

We have a system that about every four of five elections, at random, gives the office to the candidate rejected by the voters.

The Founding Fathers created this odd system in 1789 to solve problems they thought would make the choice of a suitable candidate in a nationwide election difficult and might lead to poor candidates.

In their day, communication between the colonies and then former colonies was difficult, roads were poor where they existed, and land travel was on horseback or stage coach. There were few newspapers, which did not maintain reporters in other colonies. A paper might re-print news from other colonies when a paper or news report showed up by mail. Many citizens and potential voters were illiterate. How could voters, white men with a certain amount of wealth, of course, select a suitable national chief executive? Presumably, in elections for state legislatures or for a Congressional Representative the locals might well be acquainted with the gentlemen about town or important wealthy planters. The Founders, who were from those groups, expected that voters would have the good sense to choose appropriately among their social betters. How could a backwoods subsistence farmer have the knowledge to make a proper choice among the half a dozen men of sufficient wealth, education, piety, and stature to serve in the single elected national office?

Let the local voters chose among those people they knew because they were also locals. Have these superior choices meet in a central place to discuss among themselves and chose the best man to serve as president and chief executive (and a Vice President too). Let the number of these electors be mostly in proportion to population.

This is a reasonable solution to the perceived problem, but the mechanism began misfiring almost from the beginning. You can read about the troubles that arose after the first two elections of George Washington.

A key reason for the Electoral College was to insure the preservation of slavery. The details of this may be the subject of a future blog post. But it was one of the so-called compromises to encourage the less populous (counting only white people of course) slave states to join the new nation. Those Southern whites had been frightened during the Revolutionary War by the British offer of freedom to their slaves were the slaves to escape to British lines and fight with the British.

It is usually the case that the winner of the popular vote wins the presidency, but if that is our modern intention, why not let the popular vote decide?

What we have now is that every four or five presidential elections, at random, we award the office of the president to the loser of the election.

  

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

President Trump at the UN, September 19, 2017 – Annotated

President Trump’s statement to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19, 2017, as prepared for delivery.

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates: Welcome to New York. It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.

As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country , I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid. The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

The devastating hurricanes struck several small countries in the Caribbean but Trump does not even mention those countries. Did the US offer them special aid?

Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th . The stock market is at an all-time high — a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.

Fortunately for the US but not necessarily for people in the rest of the world, and why should the rest of the world care?

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

Our military has been by far the largest in the world for decades. This comes across as an implicit threat: “and we will not hesitate to use it against anyone who crosses us”.

We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.

International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

Three beautiful pillars? I count four.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.

The success of the UN depends on ALL its members, not just European ones.

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

The UN vision and charter are about relationships AMONG countries, not about what happens inside countries other than for fundamental human rights, and most definitely not about commercial or power interests. Trump explicitly places self-interest before global interest and then claims implicitly in the last sentence that this prioritization is the UN’s “beautiful vision”. It is absolutely NOT. The word “strong” does not occur anywhere in the UN charter.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Conflict with Islam, Politics

Trump and His True Believers

Bernard,

I’ve sent you the below quotes from Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer before. I read them again today in light of having experienced 6 months of Trump in power. If Hoffer is right — and FWIW I for one think he is, given his experiences with Nazism and similar movements — then Trump is a classic instance of a mass-movement leader. But I think Trump fails in one key aspect and therein lies reason for hope. Read on.

“It is futile to judge the viability of a new movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its promises. What has to be judged is its corporate organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated. … The man just out of the army is an ideal potential convert, and we find him among the early adherents of all contemporary mass movements. He feels alone and lost in the free-for-all of civilian life.”

“… deprecation of the present, a facility for make-believe, a proneness to hate, a readiness to imitate, credulity, a readiness to attempt the impossible, and many others which crowd the minds of the intensely frustrated are, as we shall see, unifying agents and prompters of recklessness.”

“The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ.”

“Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move.”

“There is an illiterate air about the most literate true believer.”

“The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense.”

[Characteristics of the mass-movement leader] “Exceptional intelligence, noble character and originality seem neither indispensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonials); unbounded brazenness which finds expression in a disregard of consistency and fairness; a recognition that the innermost craving of a following is for communion and that there can never be too much of it…”

[The characteristic that I don’t see in Trump] “… a capacity for winning and holding the utmost loyalty of a group of able lieutenants. This last faculty is one of the most essential and elusive.”

“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world. Charlatanism of some degree is indispensable to effective leadership. There can be no mass movement without some deliberate misrepresentation of facts.”

About the reason for hope, Trump’s advisers and lieutenants seem loyal but not capable. Think of the chaotic rollout of the first attempted ban on Muslims. It’s easy to undo and break things, difficult to design and build useful new things. What useful new thing has this group invented or created or accomplished in its first 6 months, or even begun in earnest on? Nothing I know of.

The talking heads on liberal television, for example Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, harp endlessly on the twisting of facts and gross unfairness of statements and opinions and so forth coming from Trump and his supporters. But I think the commentators miss the point and end up only reinforcing Trump by talking incessantly about the man. You’ve said it several times: shut up, go heads down, flood the polls in 2018, and throw out the bums. Unfortunately we can’t throw out Gorsuch. He will poison our lives from here on.

Wayne

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Donald Trump, Andrew Jackson, the Civil War, and counterfactual speculation

Wayne,

A few days ago, Donald Trump whipped up a storm with remarks about Andrew Jackson and the Civil War:

In an interview with the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito, Trump compared himself to President Andrew Jackson and said Jackson, if he was born later, could have helped avoid the Civil War.

And then, in comments that whipped Washington into frenzy Monday morning, Trump said he didn’t understand why the Civil War had to be fought.

“I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War,” he said. “He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw with regard to the Civil War, he said ‘There’s no reason for this.'”

“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

This link is to the full Examiner report of the interview.

Later, Trump tweeted:

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil War, Politics, Slavery

Bret Stephens’s NY Times Op-Ed on Climate Change: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Bernard,

This April 28 Bret Stephens op-ed debut is way off the mark every inch of the way.

First, what Old Jew Of Galicia? Milocz wrote that epigraph and hundreds or thousands have cited it as if it’s ancient and real wisdom that transcends the folly of whomever you want to lambaste. But what Old Jew of central or western Europe would use precise figures like 55% as opposed to 60% to describe degrees of being sure that one is right? And right about what? Everything? It seems to me that’s the only possibility of the quote, given no other information than the “quote” itself. It seems to be about totalitarian regimes that rewrite truth and history to their liking and allow no dissent. But that’s a whole different world! Climate scientists are not claiming they’re 100% right about everything, only 97% right about something very important that they’ve looked at from dozens or hundreds of different angles and almost always come up with the same conclusion, which is that warming will with high likelihood accelerate and all of humanity with high likelihood will be in a peck of trouble therefrom.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Change, Environment, Politics, Science in the News, Uncategorized