Two moments from the worst presidential debate in US history

It seems a little incredible to say, “well, that went worse than any of us imagined it could.”

 

But there is one unavoidable truth about this President: he maintains his ability to surprise. 

Last night’s presidential debate went poorly for both men, of course. Trump’s decision to throw a 90-minute tantrum as a way to drag down and/or diminish the front-runner will get most of the attention and discussion today. But Biden didn’t do terribly well, either. Some will argue that he managed to maintain some dignity and rode it out the best he could. Others will point to a couple gaffes (he was both for and against the Green New Deal) or say his occasional response-in-kind (“Shut up, man,”) made him look nearly as bad as Trump. 

 

But after all the sound and fury, there were two moments that stood out to me. The first was a statement by Trump that drew a lot of attention last night and will probably go down as one of his greatest hits; the “I would tell them to stand back and stand by” comment in reference to the Proud Boys. 

As many have noted, Trump here is signaling yet again that he embraces and encourages the worst elements of American society: the white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate groups (such as the Proud Boys) that have surfaced during his presidency. His indifference to racism and bigotry has given permission to these groups to consider themselves just another normal part of life in the United States. 

Just as Hitler used the Brown Shirts to violently suppress his opposition, Trump is signaling violent hate groups that they may be of use, if the election night results don’t go his way. This is, of course, terrifying to all of us who want the American experiment in representative democracy to survive and thrive. The prospect of the United States becoming another authoritarian, failed state has never been closer. 

I was struck by the phrase—it seemed too well-constructed and succinct to have been spontaneous; I suspect he had this in his pocket just in case he was asked directly to reject the idea of violence after this election. If it was planned, of course, that makes the use of this kind of language all the worse—but it’s clear that Trump went into this debate determined to dive headlong into the gutter. 

It's difficult to say why exactly he thought this nod to violence in front of the entire nation was a smart move. It’s hard for most rational people to see the method to his madness. But I suspect it makes perfect sense to him. God help us all. 

Biden also had a moment that he seemed to have prepared for—the defense of his son Hunter from Trump’s low-blow attack on Hunter’s drug abuse problem in past years. 

Trump and his closest cronies have spent a lot of time and effort trying to make Hunter Biden an issue, so it seems likely Joe Biden’s team had done their best to prepare for attacks concerning Hunter. In the chaotic give-and-take of the debate, the measured comments that Biden had probably prepared went out the window, but he did grab the opportunity to make a point that resonated with me, at least. 

 

Biden had begun talking about his late son, Beau, and his service in the military. Trump tried—pretty successfully—to shift the discussion to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s other son. “I don’t know Beau,” Trump said dismissively, again showing his contempt, or at least indifference, towards those who have served in the military.

“Hunter got thrown out of the military… he was dishonorably discharged… for cocaine use,” Trump said.  

Honestly, I think this was the point where most people would’ve lost it. No amount of preparation can truly take the sting out of that kind of crass, personal attack. 

As a matter of fact, Hunter Biden was administratively discharged, not dishonorably discharged, for failing a drug test. But Joe Biden did something interesting here. He didn’t get into the weeds about exactly what happened to Hunter. He didn’t get into the mud about the improprieties and ethical questions surrounding Trump’s own children. 

Instead, he admitted the truth: his younger son had struggled with a drug addiction. He noted that many Americans have had similar problems, and like many, Hunter had overcome his addiction. “I’m proud of my son,” Joe Biden said. 

Have you ever heard Donald Trump speak with humility and compassion in this way? Have you ever even heard him say he’s proud of a family member? Maybe it’s happened. Certainly not in this type of situation, or on this type of stage. Whatever else we can conclude about the two men in this debate, one thing is clear: Hunter Biden has a good father. 

Humility, compassion, and grace are not the tools of trade that Donald Trump uses. He bullies, he rants, he lies, he brags. He will continue to do these things during this election season; he will continue to do these things if he is re-elected. 

With the polls clearly showing him behind and likely to lose, President Trump has decided to attempt to drag down his opponent, and the country, in such a way that the election itself will be as muddled and chaotic as his presentation Tuesday night. He has signaled, again, that he is willing to plunge the country into civil war rather than give up power. 

That is his intent. 

The only question that remains is, will we let him? 

 

A few more words on the 4th of July

I don't want to spend a lot of time on President Trump's 4th of July speeches. They weren't great, and the fact that he felt he had to make TWO of them speaks to the desperation he's been showing lately. That desperation also shows in the fact that the speeches were clearly aimed at dividing people and whipping up racial animosity. 

The President’s rhetoric, as this CNN piece notes, painted a frightening, simplistic view of current events and American history. “Trump's 40-minute speech was a master class in rhetorical deception. He lumped together the racists of the Confederacy with the figures on Mt. Rushmore, insisting they are all being reconsidered in the same way,” wrote Michael D'Antonio. “Several elected officials have ordered the removal of Confederate monuments in an effort to recognize the painful legacy of slavery, while the debate over monuments of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt is more nuanced, given their positive contributions to the nation. No sweeping effort is being made to remove all of these monuments and to suggest one exists amounts to sounding a false alarm.”

 

Kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater. And Trump’s incendiary rhetoric continues to inflame some Americans. In Trump’s world, peaceful protestors are called “criminals” and “terrorists.” The leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are branded “Marxists” (which some of them are) and therefore deemed to hate America (they don’t), under the assumption that no good American can be a Marxist (they can). 

This Red Scare tactic has become very popular on the right, it is a depressing reminder that the more things change, the more things stay the same. Not only do white conservatives reflexively resort to the Love It or Leave It construct, where any criticism of our obviously imperfect union means that we hate our country (we don’t), the critics have to be tarred with that tired cliché of Marxism—whether it fits them or not. 

When considering the speeches made by Trump this weekend, I was reminded of two other speeches, written 168 years apart, both made on or near the 4th of July holiday. One was by the freed slave Frederick Douglass, the other by the first African-American President, Barack Obama. Both men noted that our nation is far from perfect, Douglass, understandably, was more critical of the country he lived in than Obama was of the USA in 2008. But both are worth reading.   

Douglass noted that the BLM of 1776—the American Revolution—was not for the faint  of heart--that the Founding Fathers were willing to turn to violence, even (gasp!) willing to destroy private property, to pursue justice and freedom. 

“To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies,” Douglass wrote. “It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when, to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men.” 

 

“…They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny.”

Douglass, an escaped slave living in a time where slavery was legal and accepted in many parts of the US, goes on to deliver a blistering critique of our country at the time, one where whites celebrated the 4th of July while blacks remained in chains. Douglass described nothing less than a kind of reverse-image American exceptionalism in 1852.

“Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

The speech is a reminder of how horrible the sin of slavery was—and what an affront it was to the founding principles of this country. The speech also reminds us that racism and discrimination should be the enemy of every American. We fought a war over this issue; in many ways that war is not over. We all have a role to play to deciding whether the United States can live up to its ideals today, in this time. 

 

Obama came from a different time. He, much more than Douglass, had reason to support American exceptionalism. Although his detractors then and now called him a socialist and a radical (he is neither), Obama was a product of middle America and was proud of his heritage; his speech from 2008 describes his grandfather, who fought with Patton’s army in WWII, and his grandmother, who worked in a factory as part of the war effort.  

 

Obama explored the concept of what being an American patriot really means. “It is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together,” he noted. He added that as a politician, he would not question the patriotism of other Americans—and took pains to note that he was running against a great American patriot, John McCain. 

Ah, for the days when the leaders of our country showed this kind of civility when running for office. It wasn’t that long ago. It needn’t be considered a lost art. 

But Obama also delivered a message that seems timely now—that dissent can be patriotic. “Precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy,” he said. “As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, ‘Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.’

“We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”

 

It's easy to talk about American exceptionalism—nothing is easier than saying, “We’re No.#1.” And few things are more mindless, or meaningless in the long run, that simply boasting about your own tribe. 

If American exceptionalism means anything, it means that we have ideas that stand the test of time, that rise above the petty politics of the day. Surely the idea that all people are created equal is one of the greatest ideas any nation has embraced. And it is one of the hardest to put into practice. 

Our current strife in the streets, during hard times of pandemic and economic challenges, is simply an attempt to make the United States live up to its ideals. Donald Trump doesn’t understand that. Some of his followers will never see it and will never even try to grasp the idea that dissent is patriotic. 

But most Americans do see the patriotism of the BLM movement. Most do recognize that our nation has fallen short of its ideals, and that if we are truly patriots, we must join the struggle to make our nation great—not just in the words of a slogan, but in truth. We must work to make real the message of the BLM movement—that in America, black lives matter just as much as white lives do. 

Douglass and Obama understood the challenge. Trump wants to retreat to an illusion that ignores the challenge, and thus deepens the injustice. 

 

One year from now, on July 4, 2021, what will each of us say about how we individually rose to this challenge? Which vision did we embrace? What road did we choose? 

 

 

The lesson Democrats learned from Trump supporters:

You don’t always have to love the guy at the top. It’s the base that defines the heart of the party. 

My conservative friends, who consume mostly right-wing media sites, are convinced that Democrats don’t enthusiastically support Joe Biden. With Fox News and other sources feeding them the usual tales of Democratic disarray, chaos, and dissent, they are asking questions like, “Will left-wing Democrats mount a write-in campaign against Biden?”

This breathless wishful thinking can be understood, to some degree. Biden certainly is not perfect. His age stands in stark contrast to the youth movement that has been a hallmark of recent Democratic politics. He is white, at time when racism and race relations have become the most pressing issues of the day. He’s consistently more moderate and cautious than his base. And he can be awkward, blurting out things that have to be walked back at times.

But the polling shows no disarray or second thoughts about the presumptive nominee. Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are solidly behind Biden. And he leads Trump today in both national and swing-state polls. 

So the question rings from a million social media posts: “How can Democrats and liberals support a guy with so many flaws??”

Hey, have you noticed who is in the White House right now?

Running from the President

It’s become a cliched part of political theater in the Trump era: Republicans, both elected officials and rank-and-file voters, dancing as hard as they can to make the point that, even if they don’t support the President’s actions or words, they still support Donald Trump!

Clips of Republican lawmakers literally running away from cameras as journalist ask their thoughts on the latest outrageous tweet from Trump have become the norm. Unlike Trump, GOP officials are not always comfortable with alienating voters who aren’t in their base. They don’t want to say publicly that they support the racism, the misogyny, the bullying, the temper-driven policies. Yet they know they can’t stay in office if they go against Trump—the base will not stand for any sign of disloyalty, and Trump has no loyalty himself; he will turn viciously against any GOP official who crosses him in the least.

The base itself does a slightly different two-step: they concede that Trump is rough, crude, a “salty sailor,” but they like him because he “gets things done.” And the fact that many of those things being done consist of policies that are divisive and hateful, well, the GOP Man-On-the-Street doesn’t know the details, he’s not a scientist/doctor/legal scholar. 

It’s a kind of circular process that Trump has used to his advantage: feed the emotions, starve the intellect, ride the whirlwind as long as he can. He really does believe you can fool most of the people most of the time.

The GOP base also ignores the head-scratching contradictions of Trump’s story: a New York City elitist millionaire who went to tony East Coast schools and partied with the rich and famous has been embraced as a Man of the People by rural and small-town voters. As with so many things in modern politics, it works better if you don’t think too much about it.

Protests and primaries—Biden becomes a figurehead for a larger movement

It’s often been noted that Biden has been relatively quiet as he moves steadily toward nomination. This is of course partly a result of events on the ground: the pandemic  and now protests have sucked the oxygen out of the room to a large extent. The COVID-19 crisis also made a drawn-out primary logistically unworkable, as the base—especially African Americans—rallied around the most electable candidate. And with our current president creating so many problems for himself, it makes sense for the former Vice President to sit back and let Trump self-destruct.

But another element is in play: Biden has thrived as a politician who is willing to subsume his own ego to a larger movement. He relished his role as the #2 man in the Obama administration, finding ways to support his boss, stepping up occasionally to break ground on issues that were tough for Obama to take a stand on (gay marriage comes to mind), and generally providing a softer, human response to the riotous warfare of modern American politics.

It could be said he is doing the same today—softening the hard edges of the American Left, providing a more moderate and soothing counterpart to the AOCs and Al Sharptons on our screens. What many Americans—and Democrats most particularly—long for is a more civil society, one that has a place for compassion, empathy, and decency. For all his flaws, Biden can provide that.

He may not be on the barricades; he will not call for revolution. But the bottom line is that the base knows Biden has their backs, just as he had Obama’s back. Just as with Trump supporters, the Democratic base knows his heart. And they think it’s in the right place.

What that statement suggests about the two parties is something for another post. 

More than one mass shooting, every day of the year

A photo of the Memorial Service for the Santa Clarita victims.

I’ve been meaning to post some links on gun violence, but like with politics these days, it’s hard to keep up. So, I’ll *try* not to pile on too much stuff. But there has been lots of interesting research coming out lately, along with the constant refrain of mass shootings--along with all the other kinds of shootings. 

First, here’s a good overview of school shootings from CNN:

“‘To prevent school shootings, experts agree we need comprehensive and reliable data. Without that research, we’re going blind into a “deadly future,” cautions Mark Rosenberg, who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 20 years and led its gun violence research.

“‘You need those interventions that reduce gun violence and save lives, but that also protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” says Rosenberg. “But we don’t know what works … and we’re not looking. That’s the disgrace.’”

Here's a update on what we know about the Santa Clarita school shooter. This is a tragedy for his family, as well as for the families of the victims. It's hard to know what to say. But the information is important. When others dispute the notion that owning guns increases risk for yourself and your community, I don't know how they can ignore stories like this. Guns are dangerous. They shouldn't be treated casually, including when it comes to storage.

A point that I keep pounding is that we should look at more than deaths in assessing the problem of gun violence. For example, the FBI defines a mass shooting as four or more killed. But the recent Santa Clarita shooting resulted in three dead (including the shooter) and three wounded. That’s not a mass shooting? The ongoing costs and scars left on the wounded and the community seem to me understated by the FBI standard—and by the lack of followup in the media—as we all move on to the next mass shooting, which has already happened. Not paying attention to the injured, and the costs they bear, along with society, seems to me to be a big mistake. 

From Vice: “Everytown for Gun Safety found that for every gun-related death in the U.S., another two people hit by gun violence are left injured, maimed, or incapacitated. The societal costs of those life-altering injuries are far-reaching, ranging from the victims' long-term reliance on federal health care services to their permanent exit from the tax-providing workforce.”

By the way, Gun Violence Archive, which includes wounded in its mass-shooting measurement, lists 371 mass shootings in the US so far in 2019. More than one for every day of the year. 

CNN also did this story on survivors of the El Paso shooting:

“It's been three months since the gunman, targeting Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, shattered the well-being of this community. Dozens of survivors are fighting to get their lives back. While they slowly recover from severe physical injuries, many still see the bloodshed in the form of vivid nightmares. They struggle financially because they can't return to work just yet.”

Finally, some good news… I push academic studies because I believe that highly-trained people who study these issues with scientific rigor should be listened to. I think data is important. No study is the final word, but most can shed light on a subject. So, I feel an obligation to share a study that should be welcome by my pro-gun friends. This study shows that gun violence goes down during hunting season. It’s one study, and of course it’s kind of focused on a specialized group, but I think it raises some interesting points. Worth reading.

Update: I recently found that the FBI actually has no category for mass shootings. It has a category for "mass killings" instead, defined as four or more people killed, not counting the assailant. So my statement above is mistaken. I'm curious as to why the FBI hasn't updated the category in a way that better reflects the current circumstances we find ourselves in. Mass shootings have become a near-daily part of our lives, tragically. 

Beto’s Gun-Grab is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things!

Beto is firing up the "ColdDeadHands" brigade.

One of the most controversial statements to come out of the recent Democratic debate in Houston was Beto O’Rourke saying, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow [those] to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

A lot of people were unhappy with this statement, and they might not be who you would think. Yes, gun-rights activists immediately jumped on the statement as confirmation that progressives do indeed want to take away everyone’s guns.

But many who have been arguing in favor of stronger gun control laws also were displeased, to some degree, with Beto’s statement. “Thanks a lot, Beto,” was probably going through a lot of people’s minds. 

For years, we’ve had to deal with the paranoia of gun-rights activists who insist, with little evidence, that Democrats are coming for their guns. I have had many arguments with these folks and they nearly always make a similar charge: “You won’t be happy until all Americans are disarmed,” or some variation of that statement. When they argue with me about gun control, they pretty much assume that I believe that all Americans should give up all their guns.

It doesn’t matter how much I try to correct the record: “I don’t want to take your guns, I just think background checks should cover all purchases,” I say, but they will not listen. They know my real agenda, much better than I do, apparently.

Now Beto has fed their suspicions by saying yes, he wants a program that will take military-style assault rifles away from Americans. He supports a mandatory buyback, instead of a voluntary one, for such weapons. This goes further than most Democrats have gone in the past—and further than the other Dem candidates for the Presidency.

O’Rourke has handed 2^ndAmendment absolutists a hammer with which to pound all Democratic candidates who support gun control, the thinking goes. And the pounding will be relentless.

Sure enough, my most pro-gun Facebook friend recently posted: “If you think that candidate O’Rourke’s opinion on gun control is any different from the other Democratic candidates he faces, you’re being duped.”

Again, the assumption is that what Democrats *really* want is to take away people’s guns. That they march in lockstep. That the gun-control agenda seeks to deny people their rights, not save people’s lives. The pro-gun position on this issue is clear, consistent, and now has new fuel.

But here’s my conclusion about the political dangers of Beto’s willingness to “go there” on this particular issue: It doesn’t matter.

Gun-rights activists are going to say this anyhow. They’ve been saying it. They will continue to say it, no matter how much we protest, or show them evidence that taking away all guns is not our ultimate goal. In this debate, too often, facts don’t matter. Intentions don’t matter. Heck, results don’t even matter.

All we can do is what we always have done: be a voice of reason. Point out that different candidates have different positions. Point out that buybacks of assault weapons have been done in other countries to good effect—and gun violence rates there have dropped. Point out that the focus of most gun control groups has been on background checks and red flag laws—measures that most Americans, most gun owners, and most NRA members actually agree on. And most of all, point out the intolerable cost of continuing to do nothing, while our fellow Americans die on a daily basis.

There is a huge amount of support for reasonable gun control reforms in the United States. We should be glad that this is front and center in our national debate, though we grieve for the incidents that have made it so. This is an issue Democrats have been winning on. They will continue to win on it, because they have the support of the American people, including gun owners.

I believe Beto is sincere about his position on a mandatory buyback. I don’t happen to agree that the policy, as described so far, is the best solution to our gun violence problem. I believe it would be difficult if not impossible to enact a mandatory buyback program, not to mention very expensive. I also note that it’s a very politically expedient position for O’Rourke as well, boosting his stature and popularity in a presidential campaign that had been flagging. All these points can be discussed rationally among people of good will.

But that won’t happen with those locked into an irrational and unproductive position on a deadly serious problem. So, let them say what they want. The rest of us, the majority of Americans, can keep working on a solution to make our people, and our future, safer. 

Five reasons why the Slippery Slope argument won’t stand up

Trump visits victims of a mass shooting. Apparently it went fabulously.  

Recently, President Donald Trump changed his mind again about universal background checks on gun sales. As he had before, he went from supporting expanded background checks to opposing them, and he used a well-known phrase to justify his opposition.

“A lot of the people that put me where I am are strong believers in the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “And we have to be very careful about that, you know, they call it the slippery slope. And all of a sudden everything is taken away; we’re not going to let that happen.” 

Trump’s mention of the slippery slope argument is typical of the dance he’s done after mass shooting events. In the days after such tragedies, Trump often moderates his tone toward gun control, only to harden it again when lobbied by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

But what is the slippery slope argument we hear about so often? First, we should note that any slippery slope argument is generally considered to be a “logical fallacy.” If a small step A is taken, the argument goes, then steps B, C, etc., will follow, until some bad final outcome is achieved.

But what first step leads us down the slippery slope? That’s the first problem with the slippery slope argument on firearms:

1) Slippery starting points—any change is bad.

Gun control opponents use the slippery slope argument frequently, but the descriptions of how the process will start often change, depending on who you talk to. Will it be the act of banning a specific weapon? Enacting more stringent background checks? Passing Red Flag laws?

“YES—all of the above!” say gun rights advocates. So, any state trying to get a handle on mass shootings or other gun violence is going to hear the slippery slope argument, no matter how benign or non-restrictive the proposal may be. Even universal background checks, which according to a Fox News poll, have 90 percent support from all voters and 89 percent support among Republicans, is considered the beginning of the long slide toward widspread gun confiscation.

It’s an argument against any action at all, no matter how reasonable.

2) It happens every time, except all the times it hasn’t.

America’s gun violence problem has a long history, and many times governmental bodies have passed laws to address the issue. They did so in the early years of the country, they did so in the Wild West days, and they did so during the Prohibition era, when machine guns and sawed-off shotguns were restricted. 

If the slippery slope argument is correct, how can it be that millions of Americans still own guns today? Why didn’t all these earlier efforts lead to confiscation of guns and the disarming of American civilians?

3) Europe’s example: much lower rates of gun violence; no tyranny.

The slippery slope argument also hasn’t worked out in modern Europe—a continent with some of the most free and prosperous nations on Earth.

Since the 1950s, we've seen almost 70 years of European democracies enjoying strong economies and high standards of living. Nearly all have more stringent gun regulations than the US and much lower rates of gun violence. 

Western European countries have not collapsed into tyranny or forsaken their commitment to civil rights. None of them have turned out the way gun rights advocates say that countries turn out when you deny people unfettered rights to guns. Could it be that guns aren’t the only—or even the main—guarantor of freedom and good government?

4) Brutal dictatorships aren’t caused by gun regulation.

Guns rights advocates often point to Nazi Germany, the USSR under Stalin, and other historical cases of genocide, and link these acts to gun control. In most of these cases, brutal military dictatorships stripped away any number of rights, including the right to bear arms, from ethnic or religious minorities, as part of their murderous regimes. These arguments oversimplify history and suggest that guns are a panacea against oppression. But the truth is more complicated. 

Armed-to-the-teeth civilian populations may be popular in movies or other fictional venues, but in real life, each situation is unique, and there is no silver bullet, so to speak, to address authoritarian governments. There are also many cases of oppressive regimes overthrown with peaceful protest. In general, it could be said that “guns don’t stop tyranny, people stop tyranny.”

5) Are we really so insecure about the Constitution? A strong democracy protects our rights without gunfire. 

The US has one of the most robust democracies in the history of the world. We don't need to stockpile weapons to preserve our way of life. Our system of checks and balances has ensured that even during difficult times, we can move forward as a nation and not descend into the chaos that has destroyed or crippled other countries. 

Expanding background checks, creating red flag laws, even banning assault rifles, none of these constitute an existential threat to our democracy. Mass shooters and everyday gun violence in the U.S. is an existential threat to all of us.

As our history shows, we can address gun violence without taking away all privately-owned guns. There is zero chance of the U.S. government taking “everything” away when it comes to gun ownership. But there is plenty of reason to fear the next mass shooting—and we shouldn’t use irrational excuses to avoid addressing our gun violence problem. 

### 

Hmmm, this must be the place...

After another long break, it's time to dust off Mod Lang again.

I've been working on a longer opinion piece about gun violence, something that seemed to need a different platform than the usual Facebook rant. So here I am. I considered submitting this to the local paper but I'm just too long-winded--I couldn't get near their 700-word limit. Maybe just as well.

So, welcome back, might as well use our namesake tune to kick it off...

Who's to blame for the defeat of the GOP health care plan?
Why, Obama, of course!

Today the question I heard over and over, as the Republican health care bill crumbled into dust, was, "Who is to blame?"

Obviously, the old cliche holds true. Who created a plan that insured tens of millions of Americans and gave them much more economic security? Who shepherded that plan through Congress? Who brought in stakeholders and got their buy-in? Who worked tirelessly to get Republican input, even though they ended up refusing to support a bill based on a Republican success story in Massachusetts? Who showed political savvy by making it a comprehensive, many-faceted effort that would difficult to undo? Who endured the pushback, both from a misinformed public and a Republican party that thought they could deny him a legacy? Who worked tirelessly to address problems that sprang up, from balky websites to Supreme Court challenges, with almost no support from a dysfunctional Congress? Who was, I hope, today sitting somewhere on a warm beach with a cold drink and a big grin on his face?

I think all Americans should take a moment this evening to silently say:

"Thanks, Obama."

Barack Obama wanted to do something no U.S. President had done: provide a universal health care system for a country that badly needed it. His ultimate success or failure is yet to be determined. But he got us much, much closer. We have a record low number of uninsured Americans in this country, according to Gallup. We have seen significant efforts to make health care more rational and efficient, even as costs continue to be too high. The ACA needs fixing, there is no doubt. The Republican plan was clearly not the correct fix. It would have made things much, much worse.

Whatever you think of Obama, it's clear that he accomplished all the things Trump has failed to do. He got a complex, difficult bill through Congress. He sold it to the public, at least enough to get 8 years of implementation... now it will be more than 8 years, apparently. He got his party unified in support of it, even at great political cost. He showed strength, toughness, and smarts. Have we seen that from the White House lately?

Trump is now saying he will let the current law fail and blame the Democrats. Well, besides the great compassion that shows for the American people, there are a couple questions that plan raises.

One--what if it doesn't fail? What if the states and the health care industry, realizing how royally screwed we all might be if incompetents and ideologues get their way, find a path to making the ACA work better, without the federal government's intervention? That actually would be a big win for conservative principles, although the conservatives might not realize it.

Secondly, what if it fails? We're in a situation now where Trumpcare is dead, and Obamacare could very possibly die from neglect and malpractice, with a Trump-led campaign of malign neglect from HHS. If this happens, many Americans will suffer, and their suffering will prolonged by a President who clearly doesn't understand the issues and doesn't really care to. Will the American people really blame Democrats, who passed health care reform and got it up and running? Or will they blame the party that can't shoot straight?

When Trump was bumbling through his presidential campaign, a lot of progressives said we were seeing the end of the Republican party. They said that Trump's defeat would split the GOP into two parts, the more traditional wing and the crazy Trump wing. It seems that even in victory, that split is happening, and the first casualty is governing. Trump's "art of the fail" has only clarified the divide among the Republicans. It's a little scary to contemplate where they'll go from here. It's even more scary to realize we all have to go with them.

In any case, what Republican senators once called "Obama's Waterloo" is still standing. It's too early to say that the attempt to repeal and replace the ACA was Trump's Waterloo, but one thing is for sure: Trump tried to take on Obama's legacy, and he got his ass thoroughly kicked.

Sunset is at 7:26 pm. 

At the end of this day, we know that:
1. Our president and his spokesmen are shameless liars.
2. The heads of the FBI, National Security, and the Justice Department all tell a story that directly contradicts what Trump says.
3. Trump's campaign members, possibly including the President himself, are being investigated for colluding with a foreign power in activities that have been called "an act of war."
4. Our President cannot stop himself from doing self-damaging things. This also applies to acts that damage the country.
This is not a sustainable state of affairs. I can only wonder when the GOP ship abandons this sinking rat.

Yes, this is Obamacare Lite.
It’s also Obamacare Cheap.

I have to say, I’m a little surprised at the new Republican bill to reform health care: the American Health Care Act. It would appear that the strong pushback from constituents and stakeholders such as state governors is having an effect: Republican congress members have crafted a bill that does retain some of the signature elements of Obamacare.

Financial assistance to help Americans afford insurance? Check. Not allowing insurers to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions? Check. A list of “essential benefits” that all plans must cover? Check. Keeping young adults on their parents’ plans? Check. Cadillac Tax? Check. (Yeah, that one surprised me.)

In short, when hard-right Republicans call this “Obamacare Lite,” they’re not wrong. The problem for Republicans is that while Americans agree with them that premium increases and taxes and less choice are all bad outcomes, they still believe that the government does have a role to play in helping everyone obtain health care. They agree with the spirit of the ACA, if not the letter of the law.

As CNN reports,  “The bill on the table right now is closer to a restructuring, than eliminating Obamacare.”

So Republicans are trying to thread the needle—get rid of the parts of Obamacare that people don’t like, while not throwing millions off of their insurance plans and letting them fend for themselves.

But there’s a bigger point—and a bigger problem—here, one that harkens back to one of the cornerstones of Republican principles. The AHCA is an effort to keep some of Obamacare’s reforms, but pay much less for it. They are pushing to cut the taxes, fees, and other elements of the ACA that conservatives are philosophically opposed to. They also believe the ACA imposes regulatory burdens on businesses that are cumbersome and unnecessary.

So, it’s Obamacare on the cheap. Unfortunately, in America, health care isn’t cheap. We have the most expensive health care system by far, with outcomes that are simply not as good as they should be, considering how much we pay for them.

The ACA had a number of initiatives that attempted to cut down on rising health care costs. So far, they’ve had limited success. And this new GOP bill simply assumes that more “choice” and less regulation will reduce costs. That’s more of a wish than a plan. In real life, cutting corners on health care often raises, rather than lowers, costs in the long run.

The truth is, the ACA probably should’ve put more money into providing health care, not less. The problem, for both insurers and consumers, is that the system continues to cost more than their budgets can cover. Yes, we should cut back on health care cost increases. But that’s a nut we still haven’t cracked—and the old mantra of getting government out of the way is simply not going to work. Reducing the number of insured Americans is not the way to cut costs. 

Today, any effort to cut back the scope of the ACA is going to be problematic for providers, state governments, and the consumers of health insurance. Providers will lose insured patients, and hospitals will be forced to do more charity care—which will force insurers to raise premiums. Insured patients will have higher copays and deductibles, and many will lose some or all of the subsidies. It’s hard to see this law not resulting in millions losing coverage.

At first glance the Medicaid piece stays pretty much the same until 2020, when states will start to have to pay more for that population. But… that’s just kicking the can down the road, isn’t it? And there’s troubling language in the bill suggesting that mental health treatment could be degraded over time with the Medicaid changes.

That brings us to my last point. Whether you call it Obamacare Lite or Obamacare Cheap, this proposed law is simply inferior to the current law. It will cover fewer people. It will almost certainly make health insurance more expensive for many.

So far, trying to create Obamacare Cheap has not met with a lot of support. Put aside the opposition from both ends of the political spectrum, the stakeholders affected by this bill are not fans. Groups like the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and AARP have come out against the bill. The current medical director of Medicaid has spoken out against it. The health insurance industry’s biggest lobbying group, Americas Health Insurance Plans, has asked for major changes.

Also troubling is the fact that House Republicans are trying to push the bill through committees before the CBO can score it—a sure tell that Republicans know an impartial analysis will find the numbers in their bill will not add up.

As Ezra Klein plaintively asks in the video below, what’s the point of all this? If we end up with a fix for Obamacare that still does some of the same things, only not as well, what have we accomplished? Yes, Republicans can say they kept their promise. But if the country is worse off for it, is that really what we want?

Democracy, defeated.

(Photo from the New Yorker)

On Monday, members of the Electoral College will meet and confirm Donald Trump as the President of the United States. There has been some talk of unfaithful electors or some kind of protest vote, but it seems certain that that Trump will get the necessary votes to become President.

This bothers me for all the reasons you might expect, but it particularly bothers me because Donald Trump did not win the popular vote. As in 2000, we are turning the whole country over to someone who does not represent the will of the country as a whole. Last time, the vote totals were so close that it was seen as a fluke. This time, it’s clear that we have a problem: Hillary Clinton won by nearly 3 million votes. That’s not close.

As the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and Ben Carson becomes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  

The last time we installed a second-place finisher in the White House, the results were: 9/11 (ignoring or minimizing presidential briefings), the Iraq war (cherry-picking intelligence to push a preferred—and false—narrative), and the worst economic downturn in the lifetimes of most Americans (relaxing regulations and pursuing policies that favor the rich over the middle class).  We also saw completely unqualified people appointed to positions such as the head of FEMA.

Does that approach to governance sound familiar?

I don’t pretend we can undo the results of this election. And I understand that most Americans would rather not dwell on this unpleasant state of affairs. But I’m surprised there isn’t more of an outcry here. Once again, the American people are meekly accepting an election that doesn’t reflect the will of the governed. Clinton won the vote by more than two percentage points. She gathered more votes than any presidential candidate not named Barack Obama.

Yet we are preparing for the inauguration of Donald Trump.

Other writers have outlined the history and purpose of the Electoral College. My belief is that no matter how firmly entrenched this system is, it has been clearly demonstrated as contradictory to the spirit of the American democratic experiment, and manifestly damaging to our country.

No other election in our system is run this way. Governors, senators, representatives, mayors—all are elected by popular vote. Only in the most important election do we turn to an arcane system that gives some voters more power than others.

It is argued that this system allows rural, smaller states to have a say in the presidential election. That if we went by popular vote, only states with large, urban areas would be paid attention to by candidates, and that policies would then favor those living in the big cities.

As someone who lives in an urban area, that sounds like a nice change to me. But the truth is that in 2016, there were only a handful of states that the candidates paid attention to anyway.  Florida and Ohio got dozens of visits from the candidates. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan were also frequent stops.

All of these states have rural areas. All of them have urban areas—which is where nearly all the campaign stops were held. California also has both rural and urban voters. The Golden State is one of the most important agricultural states in the country. Yet it, like so many other states, didn’t receive campaign visits from the candidates.

California is also widely credited with giving Clinton her winning margin. It didn’t matter. The election was decided before California’s votes were even counted. But Clinton’s totals reflect the will of the entire country; voters from Maine to Hawaii, who clearly preferred her over Donald Trump. That nearly three-million-vote margin was irrelevant, though. Even when it was not that close, second place got the trophy.

I believe we need to re-emphasize the concept of “one person, one vote.” That principle has been a cornerstone for our democracy—or republic, if you prefer. People have died for that principle. The U.S. Supreme Court has many times ruled that the doctrine is in keeping with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Yet twice now in recent history, some votes have counted for more than others, thanks to the Electoral College. The will of the people was not recognized in 2000, and again in 2016. We need to ask ourselves, what does our country stand for, if not democracy?

I believe we are seeing a power struggle for the soul of the country. We’re seeing it in places like North Carolina, where voting districts are gerrymandered to give Republicans voters more weight at the polls—and where the Republican lawmakers voted in by that twisted system just held a special session to strip the incoming Democratic governor of some of his powers.

We’re seeing it places like Michigan, where in 2014 and 2016, Democrats received more votes in state house races, yet Republicans hold a strong majority of seats. How? As a writer in the Detroit Metro Times reported: “Republicans redrew the state's 110 state legislative districts in 2010 in such a way that Democratic voters are herded into a small number of districts. The majority of Republican voters, conversely, are spread among a much larger number of districts.”

In addition, there’s the voter-suppression wave that has swept Republican-controlled states. When our country becomes a place where some voters count for more than others, where votes are suppressed and voters walled off into gerrymandered ghettos to reduce their power, we stop being a democracy. And if you want to call it a Republic, please recognize we're on the verge of creating a system that favors certain classes and races over others. That is not what America should be.

This flawed state of affairs should not be acceptable. It should not be shrugged off as, “that’s the way the system works.” The system is obviously not working. In this election, it did not honor the principle of one person, one vote. In the United States, democracy was defeated in 2016.

Yeah, about those predictions

I really thought I left a post up here acknowledging my complete wrong-headed wrongness about the election. But I guess I just didn't get around to posting it.

I was wrong.

It's been one disturbing thing after another--Trump's victory, the fact that HRC actually won the popular vote but lost usually reliable states like Michigan, Penn. and Wisconsin, the awful cabinet picks, the growing realization that our election was manipulated by the Russians... it goes on and on.

Pretty bad November and December.

And it's going to be a pretty bad four years, it looks like. But our country has faced crises before. This is right up there with the worst of them, as far as I'm concerned. Time to get to work.

Predictions for the 2016 Election

Yes, Mod Lang has been shockingly silent for this election cycle; blame it on Facebook. I've had several ideas for longer posts here, but the ease of creating, reacting and interacting to posts on FB has trumped (ahem) the more solitary-feeling, labor-intensive (ten minutes of work rather than ten seconds) experience of posting on a blog.

I've also been on Twitter! Like, six times!

Yeah, well, anyhow, I returned to good old ML for this day-before-election-day post, mainly because I wanted to go on a bit, lucky you. So I'll give you some predictions up top, and ponder what it's all about further down. (Hint: hell, hand basket, etc.)

Long story short: I predict Hillary Clinton will win this election. Donald Trump is within striking distance of her--especially in some key battleground states--so I could be wrong. He could pull off on upset; even create a repeat of the 2000 election, when George W. Bush lost the national vote but won the presidency due to the electoral college. That could happen again this year. But I don't think it will.

I predicted early on that this would be a landslide, or at least a very strong win for Hillary. I still think that's possible, although probably not to the extent I thought a few months back. Here's my thinking: when a candidate alienates large segments of the population, say, Latinos, African-Americans, women, etc., then that candidate may struggle to find a strong national following.

Trump has outperformed expectations, as usual. The late-breaking FBI investigation/nevermind letters hurt Clinton, a bit. And her own shortcomings as a candidate also were a problem for her.

But we're hearing stories of a very strong turnout of Latino voters. I think it's very likely that women will vote for Hillary in unprecedented numbers, due mainly to wanting to make sure a man like Trump never gets the validation that the Presidency would confer. African-American voting may lag behind the historic highs that Obama generated, but again, it looks like there will be a relatively strong turnout there for the Democratic ticket.

We're a diverse country. Relying on angry, aging white people is simply not a winning strategy. And everyone tells me that a strong "ground game" counts--and the D's seem to have an advantage there. Unless the rumors of a "hidden" Trump vote come true to an astonishing degree, he will not be able to overcome Clinton's advantages with a wide range of voters. But as always, I could be wrong.

So here's my prediction: I'll go big and say that Hillary wins nearly all the battleground states. I'll give Ohio to Trump.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

That's a strong win. I could see it getting to 340 (add Ohio), or even 351 (Arizona). But that's probably wishful thinking. 

As far as what it all means, I think it's safe to say we've really seen some of the fault lines in our society in the past year or so. White working-class people seem really fed up--with something. I just hope it's not the fact that they're not in charge in anymore. Because that's not going to change. We're going to have a more diverse country. We should be celebrating that, not fearing it.

I know people who have had it rough, economically. I kind of get why they might favor Trump, though his personal flaws seem disqualifying to me, even if you like the idea of a wall. But I also know Trump supporters who have had it pretty good over the last couple decades. And they seem angry too, over things that don't make a lot of sense to me. Is political correctness really destroying our country? Apparently it *can* kill you to be nice.

I often have said this election is a national IQ test. And even if HRC is elected tomorrow, I'd have to say we failed it. If Donald Trump can convince 40+ percent of the American voters that he deserves their vote, then something's wrong. And all of us need to get to work figuring out the fix. Our media, our educational system, our social networking--all if it needs to be re-examined to figure out why so many problems with our society remain: so much racism, so much misogyny, so much violence, and so much stubborn ignorance--even when the facts are easily obtained.

We need to be better people in order to be a better nation. And that's on all of us. Let's keep talking, as a first step.

Trump’s Republican National Convention: Oh the humanity!

The Republican National Convention wrapped up last Thursday night, and it was conducted with about the level the competence and civility we’ve come to expect from a Trump campaign production. Media outlets used the word “dark” to describe Trump’s message after his speech Thursday night, but another two-word description was also common for the convention as a whole: “dumpster fire.”

It was run poorly. There was public squabbling on the floor of the convention. It featured a rather lackluster lineup of speakers, including soap opera stars, marginal political figures, and of course, many, many members of Trump’s family.

The entire convention was bookended by two disasters: Melania’s plagiarism of Michelle Obama, and Trump’s Friday-morning talk to supporters, in which he reverted to style and went on a vindictive rant about Ted Cruz. Both were telling: the Melania speech neatly demonstrated both the campaign’s lack of competence and its penchant for denial—it took days for the Trump campaign to admit this was a simple mistake by a speechwriter helping Mrs. Trump with her speech. We got a preview of how small but significantly embarrassing mistakes would be handled by a Trump Administration: chaotically.

The Trump press conference on Friday morning nicely undermined the more conventional speech the night before (if by conventional you can include something that many said read better in the original German). At the event, instead of talking up party unity, Trump attacked Cruz and Kasich again, re-litigating old battles and puffing himself up in his typical manner. He made veiled threats to the GOP establishment, which he said had better raise enough money; and he said Republicans “have no choice” but to vote for him.

Of course, this tantrum was brought about in part by Cruz and Kasich, neither of whom have endorsed Trump. Cruz’ Wednesday night speech, delivered before poor Mike Pence accepted the nomination as VP, was another disaster, one that would be unthinkable in a normal election year. The candidate who came in 2^nd to Trump gave an entire speech without endorsing the GOP nominee, and in fact, told Republicans to “vote their conscience.” The convention hall filled with boos. That’s some great prime time TV, right there. 

This points directly to the other huge stain on this convention—many establishment Republicans, to their credit, cannot support Trump. The extreme Tea Party wing, after decades of being sold a bill of goods chock full of racism, resentment, and victimization, are solidly behind the hateful rhetoric of Trump. The establishment, on the other hand, can at least see that Trump has no real allegiance to the GOP or any of its traditional issues. 

So we saw a convention where a GOP presidential contender who is also the Governor of Ohio skipped a convention in Cleveland. Other top Republican senators and leaders were also not in attendance. The unspoken message of Cruz, Kasich and many others was: “We’re not going to be associated with this clown. We’ll lose this year, regroup, and come back in 2020.”

The defections and pratfalls of the convention probably played a role in its underwhelming ratings. After much was made of Trump’s mastery of the television medium and ability to put on a great show, the convention itself was a letdown. Ratings were middling, with his big speech pulling in about 2 million more viewers than saw Romney’s speech four years ago, but fewer than the number who watched John McCain’s acceptance speech in ’08.

So where do we stand, now that the dumpster fire is guttering out? Conventional wisdom says candidates get a post-convention bump in the polls—I wouldn’t expect much of one after that performance, but maybe we’ll see a small one for Trump.

To me, the dynamics of the race stay the same: Trump pulls in the very rabid right-wing base and a sizeable portion of conservative leaners, who, in typical American fashion, will stick with their team regardless of the quality of the product. But he continues to alienate African-Americans. Latinos, women, and college-educated whites. Did the convention change that? No. Did it show him pivoting toward the center, as some predicted? No. Did it paint him as more human and likable, as many expect the Democratic convention to attempt to do for Hillary? No.The only things the Republican Party takes away from this convention are negatives. 

Preaching to the choir does not usually win you presidential elections. Everyone keeps saying this year is different. I am not convinced that it’s THAT different. After this ugly, divisive convention following an ugly, divisive primary, are there really that many people who don’t see Donald Trump for what he is? I keep calling this a national IQ test. And nothing from the Republican National Convention has suggested to me that this nation is dumb enough to elect Donald Trump.

(One of the songs Trump plays at his campaign events. Seriously.)